I welcome the Minister and her officials, Deirdre O'Keeffe and Fergal Costello. We must first decide the duration of this meeting. How long do Members propose we sit today?
SECTION 1.
4 o'clock would be reasonable.
Is that agreed? Agreed. Amendments Nos. 1, 138, 139, 140, 194, 195, 196, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207 and 209 to 213, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Amendments Nos. 197 to 200 are alternatives to amendment No. 196. Amendment No. 14 is consequential on amendment No. 196. Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 are alternatives to amendment No. 202. Amendment No. 208 is an alternative to amendment No. 207. We will discuss amendments Nos. 1, 14, 138, 139, 140 and 194 to 213 inclusive by agreement.
May we discuss subsection (3)(a) first for convenience? The other amendments deal with the composition of boards of management.
We can discuss subsection (3)(a) in the context of the overall discussion but we will take amendments in the order outlined. Is that agreed?
Later amendments deal with the composition of boards of management.
We will discuss the Minister's amendment No. 1 first, along with amendments Nos. 14, 138, 139, 140 and 194 to 213 inclusive and a discussion on subsection 1(3)(a) will be included.
We are being asked to discuss almost 30 amendments.
It must be done by agreement. The Deputy suggests we deal with subsection (3)(a) first. Can we compromise and discuss it in the context of what I proposed? We would start on amendment No. 1 to subsection (3)(a).
I do not wish to be difficult but I have just come from the Seanad and to ask me to change what has taken until 3 a.m. to prepare would mean I would become completely lost and we might not have the most useful of discussions. I suggest I give a general speech on section 1 and perhaps we can return to it at a later stage.
I have only just seen the full list of amendments. There are two separate issues. While, I know some amendments deal with commencement, amendments Nos. 194 to 213 deal with the composition of boards of management and related matters. The first amendment deals with Part II of the Bill which establishes regional education boards. I would like to talk about regional education boards first. I do not mind if the Minister covers everything in her opening address.
That is all right.
I want to ensure we will not be told later that we have already discussed this subject.
It will probably be covered in what the Minister says.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, lines 36 and 37, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3)(a) An order shall not be made in respect of any provision in Part II of this Act without the prior consent of the Government.
(b) Where the Minister proposes to make an order in respect of section 37(7) a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft order has been passed by each such House.".
Section 1 provides for the Short Title of the Bill. Either all Parts of the Bill may be brought into operation at the same time or different Parts of the Bill may come into force at different times. This section of the Bill will become operative in accordance with ministerial orders and it will enable the Minister to bring the provisions of the Bill into effect in a gradual way as the education system adapts to new structures and demands. The Minister must have the consent of the Government before bringing Part II of the Bill, relating to the education boards, into operation. This is an extra safeguard which serves to reassure all parties that the introduction of education boards will be done in a considered manner, taking account of the interests and concerns of all parties.
This group of amendments addresses some of the most essential and important issues in the Bill. The amendments draw together the provisions of sections 1, 37 and 43. Section 43 provides for the establishment and membership of school boards of management. In line with the proposals in the White Paper and the principle of partnership which underpins the Bill, each school will be obliged to have a board of management. This is the policy approach to the governance of schools as outlined in chapter ten of the White Paper. The governing structures of schools, which respond to the diversity of school types, ownership and management structures, are a central feature of the structure of Irish education at primary and secondary level. They should reflect the plurality of Irish society and the rights and needs of minority groups.
The boards of management will be composed in such a way as to reflect and promote participation and partnership in the running of schools among patrons, trustees, owners, governors, parents, teachers and the wider community. The composition and operation of boards of management should reflect and promote public accountability in the immediate community served by the school and in the State. In keeping with these principles. I strongly believe there should be a statutory obligation on schools to establish a representative board of management. The practical statutory expression of the rights of partners in education to involvement in the governance of their own schools should be clear and unequivocal and should not be at the discretion of any party. For that reason, I oppose amendment No. 194 in the name of Deputy Martin.
In this Bill as published, section 2 provided that all reasonable efforts would be made to reach agreement on the composition of the board of management. It also provided for a mechanism whereby the Minister could, in default of agreement, determine what the composition of the board would be. The rationale for that approach was that where the Oireachtas declared that all schools should have boards of management, a school could not be permitted to flout the will of the people as expressed in an Act of the Oireachtas. That approach is still valid but I have been persuaded by the representations made to me that it is potentially in conflict with the principles of partnership and consensus which underline so much of the process leading to the Bill and the Bill itself.
I propose in amendment No. 196 to move from the position where all reasonable efforts will be made to reach agreement on the composition of boards of management to one where agreement of all the partners is required. This covers the same issue as amendments Nos. 197, 198, 199 and 200 proposed by Deputies Keogh, Martin and Coughlan. In addition, I propose in subsection (3) of the amended section to give specific statutory expression to partnership as a principle which must underlie any agreement reached.
Section 43 as published and now as amended will allow for a diversity in school management structures. The section rules nothing in or out. The structures are matters to be agreed by the partners. I anticipate that a range of such structures will emerge, particularly at post-primary level, in response to the great diversity of school types and ownership which I encourage. The amended section also gives statutory recognition to existing governance agreements. These will remain in place pending agreement and revised structures and will carry out the functions of the boards of management as provided by the Bill.
Deputy Martin proposes in amendment No. 201 that existing governance structures could permanently be accepted as satisfying the requirements of this Bill. I do not have an objection to it in principle if it is done with the agreement of the partners. However, I would be interested to hear how this would fulfil the principles I have set out for the boards.
Amendment No. 210 to section 43 is a technical amendment in that it removes unnecessary details from the Bill. The matters dealt with in subsections (7), (8) and (9) are more appropriately dealt with in articles of management or codes of practice drawn up by boards of management. Deputy Coughlan and Deputy Martin agree with this in amendments Nos. 211, 212 and 213.
As regards amendment No. 207, as the composition of a board is to be agreed, then the detailed regulations for its establishment should be agreed. Deputy Keogh and Deputy Martin agree with this in amendment No. 208. Amendment No. 203 removes from the Minister a role in the appointment of boards. All that was intended was that the Minister would make the regulations for the mechanics of appointment.
Amendments Nos. 202 and 204 in the name of Deputy Martin are similar. Amendment No. 209 addresses the concern that the provision as drafted would prevent a patron from taking action against a board of management as provided for elsewhere in the Bill — for example, the power of dissolution in section 45.
The amendments I am proposing to section 43 have a number of consequential effects. Section 5(2) is no longer necessary because of the amendment proposed to section 43(2). I propose to delete it in amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 139 adds a new circumstance to section 37 where funding would be frozen — for example, where a patron unreasonably holds out against agreement on the composition of a board of management thereby effectively preventing the establishment of a board of management. It is a reasonable provision in circumstances where agreement is necessary on boards of management.
I do not support amendment No. 138. I am conscious of the fact that freezing public funding of a school would be a serious step to take. It is not a course to be embarked on lightly and I am satisfied that no Minister for Education would do so. Nevertheless, I propose two major safeguards. Amendment No. 140 gives the Houses of the Oireachtas the power to veto the Minister's decision to freeze funding to a particular school under subsection (7). This means that the decision to freeze the funding of a school must be scrutinised by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Amendment No. 1, paragraph (b), provides the second safeguard. The aim behind this amendment is to provide that the section can only be made operative by a positive resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This would allow the Houses to consider at the appropriate time the implications of bringing the section into effect in the circumstances as they then apply.
I reject amendments Nos. 205 and 206 in the names of Deputy Keogh and Deputy Martin, respectively, relating to gender balance on boards of management. In an instance such as this, the Minister must be in a position to make a decision if the legislation is to work. Consultation is a useful and worthwhile mechanism but to ensure the legislation works, the Minister should have the power to make a decision. As regards amendment No. 195, I do not consider this is the appropriate place for a reference to the deeds and charters because this is well provided for in my amendment No. 222 to section 44.
It is difficult to discuss together 25 amendments which deal with two separate issues — the regional boards and the boards of management, sections 37(7), 32 and 34.
In amendment No. 1, subsection (3)(a) states that "An order shall not be made in respect of any provision in Part II of this Act without the prior consent of the Government", a point which many people may have missed. Part II provides for the establishment of regional education boards, on which there has been much debate in the public domain, but, essentially, this amendment states unequivocally — this was confirmed before the public session began — that no regional education board can be established after the passing of this Bill without the prior consent of Government.
This is interesting because it could be read as a climb down by the Minister in her drive to establish regional education boards. It involves a further significant deceleration of the process because, even if the Bill is passed before the election, the composition of the next Government would obviously determine clearly whether regional education boards would be established because the Bill states that the establishment of a regional education board would require the prior consent of the Government.
It is worth dwelling on the implications of that because it is clear from the replies to parliamentary questions pertaining to regional education boards that we have been starved of detailed information about the establishment of, and costings for, regional education boards. Those replies spoke of a phased implementation and a gradual redeployment of staff. They stated consultants had been appointed by the Department to report to the Minister on the establishment of the REBs.
The Government seems to be unclear about what is actually envisaged. As a result, the Cabinet has put a brake on the Minister by inserting this clause in the Bill. I put it to the Minister that such a consultant's report should have been completed before the Bill, and a proposal to establish regional education boards, ever saw the light of day. The Minister should know exactly what is involved and the costings should be clear to all concerned.
Fianna Fáil's fundamental opposition to regional education boards is based on cost and the size of the geographic remit involved. These boards cannot be defined as local boards; they are regional education boards in control of a huge number of schools at primary, secondary and PLC levels over fairly large geographic areas. It seems that the logistics of the entire operation have not been worked out. The Ministers for Education over the next eight years will spend most of their time negotiating with staff organisations and trade unions in the public sector, trying to move staff from Dublin to Waterford, Cork. Galway, Sligo or wherever the regional headquarters is to be established. They will have to buy a premises and then go through the procedure of appointing directors. Then they will have to negotiate with the various unions in vocational education committees and in Departments because the Bill is littered with the need for the involvement of the partners. In other words, the Minister is looking at a long logistical nightmare to implement this proposal, the details of which nobody has made an effort to outline succinctly. Despite all the parliamentary questions we tabled, we are still left with a vague notion. The phrase as used is "a phased implementation". They say they do not know about the costings but that they will not be huge. They appoint consultants to tell them more about it because they are unclear about it.
I oppose this amendment on the grounds that I am opposed to regional boards anyway. The entire section should be deleted. To support the amendment would implicitly support the concept of regional education boards, which I cannot do. Will the Minister clarify why the Government felt it necessary to provide this paragraph? Is there division within the Government on the question of regional education boards? Fine Gael back-benchers are less than enthusiastic about the entire process and I suspect certain moves behind the scenes resulted in this brake being put on it. This is the first brake; there will be many more.
It was not right to group the amendments in this way. It is inappropriate that the committee would discuss together the regional education boards and the boards of management, which is a totally different issue. I understand that is the way it has been done and it would be difficult to change at this stage, but it is not appropriate. If we are to talk about regional education boards, we should talk about them separately.
In her opening remarks in support of amendment No. 1, subsection (3)(a), which states that "An order shall not be made in respect of any provision in Part II of this Act without the prior consent of the Government", the Minister used an interesting word, "safeguard". From where did that word come? Who has introduced it? I am nearly inclined to support the amendment because there should be safeguards but I will not because I am totally opposed to the notion of regional education boards. This is the first time I have heard the Minister use that word. Why did she arrived at that particular form of words? Who, according to her, thinks there should be safeguards? Does this point to the fact, to which both Deputy Martin and I on previous occasions alluded, that there is severe disquiet among the Government parties, and the Fine Gael Party in particular, about regional education boards? Does this relate to every regional education board?
We know little about how the boards are to be set up. This relates to the commencement process. If the Minister of the day decides to establish education boards, the consent of the Government would be necessary on ten occasions. In addition, subsection (3)(b) states that "the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft order has been passed by each such House". The Houses of the Oireachtas will have the final say, according to the Minister, but the approval of the Oireachtas goes with whoever holds the majority there. The Minister was talking about responding to the will of the people — I am paraphrasing her — but I do not think the people are in favour of regional education boards.
Will the Minister clarify the various issues which have been raised?
First, there is no plot. On the publication of this Bill on 27 January 1997, I said "An order shall not be made in respect of any provision in Part II of this Act without the prior consent of the Government", so there is no brake being put on it. In addition, the White Paper referred to the phased introduction of the boards. We are conducting a radical reform of the delivery of education as we know it in Ireland. As a member state of the European Union we know that the delivery of education has been criticised for being extraordinarily centralised and bureaucratic. The proposal to deliver education regionally is one which radically reforms a centralised system of education which has been delivered from the centre even before the foundation of this State.
The delivery of education has been criticised for being centralised and for the need of every decision, from painting a school in Donegal to replacing a boiler in Kerry, to be referred to the Department of Education. This Bill and the White Paper introduce a well charted and radical reform of the education system following extensive consultation. There are no changes from the Bill as proposed as to the mechanisms to be introduced. An order will be placed before the House to allow the Minister introduce the boards on a phased basis.
I have no comment on the speculation of the thought processes of colleagues. This was signalled not only to the members of the Government in the White Paper but to everyone here when the Bill was published on 7 January 1997. No brake has been put on it over the past few months. However, it is wise to phase in such a radical reform and restructuring of the Department.
The White Paper does not mention the prior consent of the Government in relation to regional education boards. It seemed to be in favour of such boards. I disagree with the Minister as to their merits because, irrespective of what she said, many schools enjoyed considerable local autonomy in terms of operational management. They do not have to operate under any regional authority when developing a school plan or act in accordance with policies set down by a regional authority as they will have to if this Bill is passed.
I have served on boards of management of post-primary schools. They will lose considerable powers and autonomy under the so-called regional delivery of education. The powers that will be given to the regional director, for example, are akin to the powers enjoyed by a county manager over county councils. Anyone with experience in the operation of local authorities will know that the manager is a very powerful individual. I predict that the regional director will in time become a very powerful person on the regional education boards in the delivery of education and will ultimately call the shots. That is how structures such as this inevitably evolve.
I have read the considerable powers of the director under the Bill. Interlaced with this are the ministerial powers and the Minister's policemen, namely, the inspectorate, who will also be given a strong and powerful role their relationship with the regional boards. This is anything but devolution of authority; it is the antithesis of devolution. It is increased centralisation and uniformity. The regional boards will bring second level schools, where there is a rich diversity, under the one heading and force them into line.
Subsection (3)(a) as proposed in the amendment represents a lack of confidence in the concept by the Government. It seems to suggest that the Government is inserting a safeguard to ensure that regional education boards can only be established with the prior consent of Government. If there was confidence in the concept that safeguard would not be included. Anybody in politics realises the implications of the safeguard, namely, that a campaign will be mounted in every region where it is intended to establish regional education boards. Cork and Kerry will be one region and no doubt Kerry people will be up in arms about Cork being the centre of power of the new regional board in the south-west. As one parent said to us during a submission two weeks ago, it is bad enough for one's children to be born in Cork without having them educated under the remit of Cork authoritarianism. As sure as night follows day this will happen. It reflects the lack of confidence in the concept by all parties in the Government and is a further brake on the legislation.
Even though we want to delete reference to the regional education boards from the Bill, it would be interesting to see how future Governments grapple with this. There is the option of leaving it to one side or establishing one board in Dublin, which I heard sources close to the Government say was the preferred option in the short term. The central issue concerns the reform of structures and how education is to be administered. It does not alter in any fundamental way what happens in the classroom.
The Deputy is discussing the question of regional boards. Subsection 3(a) was in the original Bill although the amendment deletes the section and re-enters it. The issue arising concerns the board of management in subsection 3(b) of the amendment. The Deputy has been given latitude.
But it has been tabled as an amendment.
I am allowing latitude but the central issue relates to boards of management rather than regional boards.
It shows that discussing them together is inappropriate.
The two issues should not have been taken together.
We can deal with the issue raised by the Deputy under a later section.
Are we discussing section 37(7) separately?
The amendment tabled concerns subsection (3). It is important as the Government has to consent to the establishment of the boards and we are entitled to discuss it even if it is in the original Bill.
I am merely pointing out that it was in the original Bill.
I am aware of that. I am questioning the thought processes behind its insertion. If I was fully supportive of regional boards I would support implementation of the legislation. However, a brake has been put on this.
We are interested in making progress. I asked the Minister about using the word "safeguard".
This is a long awaited, much demanded democratic structure for delivering education in a regional manner. To dismiss it as an administrative decentralisation takes no cognisance of the fact that the structure of the board reflects the partnership in education within which this radical reform of a system which has served the State since the middle of the last century is being framed. We have come relatively late to the establishment of a regional tier for education in comparison with what exists in EU member states. Modern international thinking is in favour of administrative structures at regional level with the central role of the State confining itself to overall policy matters, curriculum supervision and quality assurance.
This cannot happen overnight and I have stressed that in my White Paper. If the motives are doubted I can bring along a copy of the White Paper and refer the Deputy to it. This issue was clearly signalled two years ago at Easter and the Bill is long awaited.
It is not long awaited.
It is.
The impression we received from representations made to us is that people wanted this Bill to be delayed in Never Never Land.
Going back through Administrations, there has been acceptance of the fact that we, in Ireland, should respond to the national and international criticisms levelled at the centralised nature of Irish education. It is for that reason I say the Bill is long awaited; it was awaited before I became Minister for Education. It was agreed that we would respond to the critical analysis of an education system which served us well as an island on the periphery of Europe. We are no longer considered to be an island on the periphery of Europe which could operate an education system put in place when the standard of education expected for the majority of citizens ranged from junior infants to seventh class.
Irish citizens can be, and are, empowered to mobilise regional and community resources and have their voices heard. That is why I spoke about the regional education boards during Question Time recently. There are 3,600 parish communities serving the primary school system and 400 serving second level. If the Deputy were to refer to the questions asked of the Minister for Education week in and week out he would realise how individual the problems are which land on the desk in Marlboro Street. This is happening because there is no intermediate tier in education. That tier would be democratically structured and would reflect partnership in education.
Given the consultation which has taken place in the preparation of the framework for this legislation, there is an expectation that we will finally recognise that a decision making process should operate at regional level. I look forward to the day when a regional voice will be part of the decision making process and will decide on the expenditure of the £2 billion or more which Irish taxpayers invest in the education system.
Parliamentary questions are the ultimate manifestation of democratic accountability. Communities throughout the country seek, via parliamentary questions, responses to issues of concern to them through their elected representatives. I am not convinced that those same communities will receive the same type of response under the regional structures which have been proposed given the extent of their geographic remit. The 3,600 parishes, to which the Minister referred, will not have representation on regional education boards and in my view it is politically incorrect to mislead people by suggesting this is a local or community type structure when it is a regional one. If one looks at the logistics of regional boards' composition and representational scope, one is talking about a maximum of 42 people being on the south-east regional education board and so on. We do not know whether primary or second level will receive representation.
ASTI has issued a very strong note of concern in relation to the regional boards. It fears that these regional boards will become a buffer between the Minister and local schools and communities. In future, it will not be possible to table parliamentary questions or raise issues pertaining to a particular area because a stock reply will come back, as it does in relation to health boards, that "that is a matter for your regional education board". The lack of resources or provision for a variety of services will be referred to the regional education boards.
There are other ways in which administrative reform could take place. The Minister, in a previous response, described the regional boards as administrative changes; she will see that if she reads over the record. Regional education boards are fundamentally changes in administration. One of the most evident examples of the way in which education could be reformed was provided by the establishment of the National Council for Curriculum Assessment in 1987. The NCCA has been the driving force behind very significant curriculum changes in Irish education. Such changes commenced with the reform of the junior certificate syllabus, initiated by Deputy O'Rourke. The leaving certificate applied and vocational programmes were also introduced. The NCCA is a classic example of the way in which something can operate outside the confines of the Department. In consultation with all the partners in education, from teachers to parents, the NCCA has made an outstanding contribution to curriculum change. We did not have to wait for new regional structures to be put in place to achieve that. If we could have similar structures or agencies across the board, there would be a speedier and more effective response to many of the issues in education.
Deputies are beginning to tire of some of the stock replies received to parliamentary questions recently which state that when regional education boards are established they will do a, b, c and d. Those boards will not be in place for some time.
I would like the Minister to refer specifically to the points raised. She said that regional education boards are essential if there is to be partnership in education. I fundamentally disagree with that. The points made by Deputy Martin in that regard were valuable.
All the submissions, bar one, which we received from the various partners in education expressed fears about the bureaucracy which would be created by the establishment of regional education boards, the way in which that bureaucracy would be funded and so on. Even if we were to take a more sympathetic view, we would not, as spokespersons on Education, be in a position to provide any reassurance on the issue as we could not get any ourselves. One of the submissions inquired whether a cost benefit analysis had been considered or embarked upon in relation to the regional education boards. The submission suggested it would be essential to do this before processing any legislation. I know the Minister has appointed consultants, although I am not sure what their particular remit is within the Department. Is it the Minister's intention to carry out a cost benefit analysis in relation to each of the education boards before they are set up?
Deputy Keogh seems to think I am not replying to the questions asked so I will endeavour to do that. Deputy Martin raised a query about education agencies; the Green Paper on Education —Education for a Changing World— proposed the establishment of education agencies to take on responsibilities in various areas. I remind members of the committee that Education for a Changing World was a discussion document. From the discussion initiated by the paper we proceeded through the education convention and arrived at the policies outlined in the White Paper. The concept of educational agencies was considered at some length. Perhaps I will provide the Deputy with a report by the National Education Convention which considered the Green Paper in the process of preparing the White Paper. The participants came to the view that educational agencies would not be an appropriate response to the needs of the system. In the course of the debate we moved from proposals to describe the different groups in education as parties to describing them as partnerships. To say education can be delivered by agencies amounts to an administrative break up of my Department and misses the composition of the education boards, which reflect the Bill’s central theme of partnership as does the composition of the boards of management.
This is a historic provision, providing for the first time for partners, teachers and patrons to have a right to be involved in and contribute to the educational decisions that are being made at a regional level. It does not amount to the break up of an administration which, in theory, amounts only to decentralisation. Rather, it entails the regional development of education through a board, which reflects the central theme of partnership. The composition of the board at regional board level is, therefore, very important because it is the partnership that will devolve decision making and decisions to the partners, the owners, the parents, the teachers — they will have a statutory voice — and the community.
Genuine questions were asked and fears raised about the board. The preparation for Committee Stage gave me an opportunity to respond to some of the points raised through representations to the committee. Since I do not expect the Deputies opposite, given the partnership they are in, to start defending the role of the delivery of education, regionally and in partnership, I will use this opportunity to allay fears and answer questions.
With regard to the cost benefit analysis, consultants have been employed to look at the structure of my Department. The board will be established with the minimum of administration, as will the role of the partners, and that part of education which is delivered centrally will be broken up on behalf of the regions. That is why we have discussed at length such matters as the cost of teachers' salaries, inspectors, psychologists and remedial teachers.
We are looking at the cost of an education system that, in my tenure alone as Minister, has increased by nearly 50 per cent. Given the money involved there is a need to better deliver the system. The high level of investment in education will continue. We spend £1.10 in every £100 administering the system. It is a very good investment, to which I believe all parties in the House are committed.
The regional delivery of the service will be made through a board that reflects the partnership in education, which will be a good investment. The first role of the board will be to invest in the classroom and it will take decisions in a regional way on the delivery of benefits and support services. I have seen schools, even classrooms, oppose each other in the search for priorities. Prioritisation is made harder if there is only one Department.
Other European countries are empowered to act in this way. They are educated in a way that makes them want to take these decisions and not look to the Minister for Education to decide on the priorities for their regions.
The Department is telling the areas what are the priorities.
The Minister kindly said that she would try to answer my questions. I understand that a cost benefit analysis was not done.
We know the costs of the administration of education. Every time the Deputy's party undertakes a cost benefit analysis the costs rise by the millions.
No.
There is an administrative cost to education at present which will have a bearing on the regional development of the budget and the education system. If the pay and administrative costs already incurred on the inspectorate side are taken into consideration, then all that is being put in place here is a small administrative structure that will deal with what is already being delivered in classrooms and schools. The provision of support services, such as remedial, resource and travelling teachers, is the big factor that will make a difference to the regional delivery of services. They are already part of the payroll but they are administered from one, central decision making place. The administration of a system and the delivery of classroom provisions and support services will be done regionally.
Does the Minister not accept that of the many disparate organisations which appeared before the committee, the vast majority expressed deep concern about the cost of this? No cost benefit analysis has been undertaken and there are no proposals regarding the costing of these boards. We have asked about this incessantly, including by way of parliamentary question, yet she refuses to say how much it will cost and gives the impression that she does not know. That does not inspire confidence about the running of the boards. Virtually every organisation expressed the view that money expended on bureaucratic structures would be much better spent on the delivery of the education service.
The Minister criticised my party for attempting to put a figure on this. It is a reasonable undertaking because, at the very least, it challenges her. Capital and running costs will be incurred. The boards will have, say, 35 people, who will require administrative support. Those who serve them will presumably not do so on a voluntary basis, yet the Minister is unable to advise how she intends to deal with these aspects. This cannot inspire confidence in her proposals.
All interested parties have raised this as a main issue, irrespective of the input of the political parties. In view of this, will the Minister not give at least some indication of how her proposals will operate? Will she also indicate the parameters on budgetary costs?
Are there no costings at the Minister's disposal for the establishment of the regional education boards?
The establishment of the regional education boards is to take——
I have not finished. I hoped for a yes or no answer.
It is not that easy.
It is. We have been discussing this issue since the White Paper was published two and a half years ago. One would have thought if one believes in something, wants to sell it and gain acceptance for it, one should cross the ts and dot the is, present a cogent case and tell people what is envisaged. I appeared on a television programme with the Minister a few weeks ago and she confirmed that the directors of the regional boards will be paid a salary equivalent to that of a secretary of a Department, which is a significant cost. She also confirmed that new headquarters would have to be bought or rented in each region. Then there are officers on the boards who must be paid.
Deputy McDowell put down a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance, as I did subsequently, on this issue and he replied that a cost analysis was undertaken by his Department in regard to the proposals in the White Paper. He also stated it would not be appropriate to publish it on the grounds that there were variables in education expenditure, such as personnel and staffing. I do not accept that. In the era of freedom of information, it is not appropriate that a Government should refuse to publish such a cost analysis. I have no doubt that such an analysis must have included, at the very minimum, a preliminary cost analysis of regional education boards as they formed a central part of the White Paper. It is incredible that the Government does not have costings for the boards. Do they exist?
As Deputy Keogh said, every representative group, from teachers to parents' associations, has expressed a fundamental fear that the boards may divert badly needed resources from the classroom. If money is to be spent, it should be in the classroom initially and as a priority. The only way to counter that argument is for the Minister to outline the structure of the boards in terms of staffing and costs. That should have been done before the publication of the Bill. We only have a vague notion of phased development. Consultants are now being employed at the end of the process to figure out a model for its evolution.
There is a reluctance to go down the road of costing this because there is a fear that the Minister will receive a fresh avalanche of criticism about the concept.
The Minister quoted the national convention report and asked to me to read it again. One of the critical recommendations of the education convention report by Professor Coulahan was that the White Paper should not be put on a shelf and left there. He said we should have a chapter on costs and a chapter dealing with implementation over a specific time frame. We must prioritise the priorities in the White Paper, outline what we want to achieve over the next five years and set a target implementation date. That has not happened. The Minister should be wary of quoting selectively from the education convention report because its central recommendation was not carried out. We have not received a definitive response on the costings of the boards.
This is a good opportunity to respond to queries from various interest groups which appeared before the committee recently and to allay their fears. We are discussing the education enterprise in which £2.3 billion is invested annually. It is spent on teachers, support services, the inspectorate and administrative staff in the Department and on the funding of vocational education committees. The Bill proposes, in the regional delivery of education, to take decentralised decision making on resources. An alternative structure is not being set up and there are no proposals to set up a parallel structure. I expect investment to rise and this should be done regionally to ensure the greatest benefit is derived from it. An implementation document was published by the Department of Education at Christmas. In it it is clear that areas of administration in the Department will not remain centralised, such as the composition of the vocational education committees and the commission on education accommodation. The first task given to the commission by the Government was to prepare rationalisation proposals for the vocational education committee administrative system to move forward to the establishment of regional boards when it is expected that there will be a transfer of resources and personnel not only from the Department but also from the vocational education committees. The bulk of the costs for the boards will be determined by salaries.
Were costings done for them?
Deputy Keogh said I plucked a figure of 35 members out of the air. I did not pluck anything out of the air.
It is reported that the south-east regional education board, as proposed in the Bill, will need 38 members. Deputy Keogh referred to that. I am surprised the Minister is not aware of that.
In administrating the £2.3 billion investment, we are not looking for a parallel system to the Department but rather a board that reflects the partnership of education at regional level. I refer the Deputies to the implementation document A Strategy for Change, the broad parameters of expenditure already there and the transfer of resources and personnel from the vocational education committees.
Was any costing done on this?
No, there are broad parameters of expenditure of £24 million to £25 million. I have given this figure consistently and I have not convinced the Deputy. It is not my practice to lie in the Dáil. Being subjected to these questions again suggests I either lied or denied the figures in the Dáil. I reaffirm what I have always said there — we are moving forward to expenditure at regional level. The grants payable to schools under section 37(3) shall be a first charge on the expenditure of an education board in each school year. I say that for the benefit of some of the partners who are concerned that the first costs will be on a bureaucratic structure that would mirror the bureaucracy already in the Department.
Was a cost framework undertaken by the Department of Finance?
There are costings as under any budget.
Did the Minister not agree with me that there was a refusal to publish the cost framework?
I did not.
It is in a Dáil reply.
I do not want words put in my mouth.
I have the Dáil replies. The Minister Deputy Quinn said to Deputy Michael McDowell two years ago that he would not publish the cost framework to the Department of Finance in relation to the White Paper.
We are looking at the costings and headings of the annual budget.
What about the White Paper?
I have said as much as I intend to say on the matter. The Deputy has suggested there is a cost benefit analysis in the Department of Finance which has not been published. If that is the case he knows more than I do. The headings have been completed.
It is in a Dáil reply Deputy Michael McDowell received two and a half years ago.
I have the parliamentary questions Deputy Martin last asked.
That was last week. The answer has changed. The Minister said last week that the Department of Finance made observations.
Observations are quite different to a cost benefit analysis.
The first phrase used two years ago was "cost framework".
I asked was it done and the Minister said no. I did not suggest otherwise. Whether it is called a framework or observations, the Department of Finance gave some idea of the proposals in the White Paper. We want to know what they are.
The Minister said last week the Department made observations.
There are headings on which expenditure is delivered. When I entered Government one of my first tasks was rationalisation of the vocational education committees. This came under the headings of administrative costs in the administration budget of the Department. There are salary costs which were under substantial negotiation when it was passed. In taking the £2.3 billion and delivering education regionally it can be seen there had to be rationalisation for the vocational education committees under that heading and the outcome of the teachers' pay review had to be included. I looked at this from the point of view of the headings under which the expenditure was paid. I cannot say it any differently from what I said in the House.
We are talking about two different things. The Department of Finance undertook some analysis which has been described as a cost framework of all the proposals contained in the White Paper. The most recent Dáil reply described it as Department of Finance "observations" of the costings. We were told in Dáil replies that because these costings could be variable, they would not be published. If one is told that in a Dáil reply it establishes that some type of operation on costings has been undertaken by the Department of Finance. To decide not to publish something means that something actually exists. Otherwise one would not receive a Dáil reply saying it is not to be published. It should have been published a long time ago.
A White Paper is a set of Government decisions. It is not just a discussion document like a Green Paper. Since the foundation of the State and constitutionally, the Department of Finance has a veto on decisions that emanate from other Departments. A cost analysis invariably has to be done for the Department to approve any decisions. My colleagues on the front bench, many of whom have considerable ministerial experience, speak at length about the efficiency, diligence, zeal and enthusiasm of Department of Finance officials in analysing any proposal which comes before them, in terms of future cost implications for the Exchequer. The suggestion that the Department does not have any idea of the cost implications is extraordinary. I suspect it has and that we are denied the information which is locked in a safe somewhere.
I refer again to the introduction in the White Paper, the education Estimates for the year in question and the last three guidelines in the overall context of the budgetary parameters, which is under the Department of Finance. There are headings in the framework and the figures are variable under the vocational education committee administrative budget and teachers' pay. In the breakdown of the £2.3 billion certain headings have changed and will change. The Deputies can see the text of the introduction of the White Paper, the incremental costs of the board in the context of the education Estimates and the budgetary parameters approved by Government.
Does the Minister mean the section in the foreword to the White Paper?
Yes.
That was the Department of Finance putting the brakes on quickly.
It was the Government agreement in which this was formulated, at a time when the brakes had come off expenditure and there were no cuts in the school building programme.
I have the Minister's replies to questions tabled by Deputy O'Rourke last week which suggest significant increases between 1989 and 1992. The Minister should not try that one on us.
Teachers marched, classes got together and 300 schools were left totally uninhabitable. The suggestion that an increase of 45 per cent or 46 per cent in a budget is not investment dismisses the massive investment people know has happened. There have been great improvements.
We are rejecting allegations without substance which the Minister has made as regards previous Ministers.
We have established that the imposition of education boards will be a gradual process and there will have to be prior consent of the Government etc. In terms of setting up the boards, has the Minister and the Department gone so far as to establish priority areas? Have capital costs been identified and have decisions been made as to whether REB headquarters will be built or rented? What are the parameters of what may be needed as a structure?
No. Consultants in the Department are looking at the structure of what can be regionalised. The implementation document A Strategy for Change probably pinpoints certain areas. There are demographic dividends in the rationalisation of vocational education committees. On the building side no money has been put aside for capital projects. Even the competition which Deputy Martin suggested might ensue between counties such as Cork and Kerry has not occurred. No specific discussions have taken place. The decision has been made on the areas that will best deliver education regionally. The details about bricks and mortar, the site and planning permission will await the passing of the Bill.
We have spent a long time on this section.
It is a critical section. The Minister has articulated her views at length and it is only fair that we should be allowed to respond. It is an important amendment.
The amendment states: "An order shall not be made in respect of any provision in Part II of this Act without the prior consent of the Government". Is that intended to control the actions of the Minister in that regard? What funds are being provided for the regional boards? I presume the Minister has that information.
That question was raised at length.
I was participating in the debate on the Public Service Management (No. 2) Bill in the Dáil so I missed the discussion.
I can start the debate again because that is where it began. I have answered those questions.
If the figure is available, the Minister could give it and settle the matter. What is the cost?
I will have the pleasure of going back to where the discussion began.
We have discussed the matter.
I was asked a question. The Deputy is entitled to ask questions that have already been answered. The White Paper indicated that the boards would be phased in. The Deputy's colleague suggested I was stalled in this regard, but the Bill as drafted in January this year provides that the boards be phased in.
This is an orderly introduction of a radical reform of the Irish education system. It has served the country well but it is in need of reform following critical examination both nationally and internationally. The proposal to deliver education regionally follows discussion of the Green Paper, the convention, round table discussions and the publication of many documents. It meets the criticisms that have been made about the system. I look forward to when regional communities will be democratically represented on these structures and will make the decisions which were previously made for them by the Department.
The proposal is radical but gradual and it originated prior to the Green Paper published by the Deputy's party. We are moving forward slowly. The concept of parties as outlined in the Green Paper has developed into a partnership mould which has enriched the education debate. The delivery of education boards has been long awaited and is in much demand. It will provide democratic structures. It does not imply a decentralisation of bureaucracy but the establishment of such democratic structures as exist in other European countries. The rights, roles and responsibilities of those involved will be spelt out in statute.
The recommendation is for the establishment of ten regional boards. The boards will achieve the regionalisation of the teacher provision, the inspectorate and support services. We have previously discussed competition between schools for remedial facilities or psychological services. We have seen schools competing against each other in towns and we have even seen streams competing with streams when people queue at the gates of the Department of Education to ask that facilities be included on a priority list. That bureaucracy has been criticised by the OECD as a classic centralised bureaucratic structure. My predecessors took that criticism to heart and set about responding to it.
We have an Education budget of £2.3 billion, an increase of almost 45 per cent during my short term in office. We will take that budget and the administration of the education enterprise and we will deliver it regionally. A sum of £1.10 is envisaged as the administrative cost for every £100 of investment spent by the Department. In doing this regionally we will incorporate current administrative costs. We are not setting up a parallel structure. We are responding in an honest and transparent way to achieve regional delivery of the £2.3 billion over ten regions.
In the White Paper the Government committed itself to that type of investment. The White Paper was published at a time when the Government was generously investing in education. The White Paper intends that future Governments should continue that rate of investment. As the investment increases it will include the costings of the administration in each year. We have received the report from the vocational education committee and the administration of the vocational education committees is being rationalised. Under the White Paper the setting up of the regional delivery of education will be done within budgetary parameters. There will be savings because each school will not need to get everything simply because they are in competition with neighbouring schools. We can save by making support services available regionally in response to demand rather than individually available to schools. There will, therefore, be savings in the regional development area. There is massive investment in education and administering it through the existing classic bureaucratic system is not the best way to deliver education. The regional system of delivery was long awaited and has been long promised.
There was a second part to my question.
We have discussed this at length.
I asked a simple question. This proposal has been approved by the Government. When a proposal goes to Government the Minister must produce the costings and estimates.
The White Paper.
When a Minister brings a Bill to Government he or she must say how much it will cost. Surely the Government has not approved the change without looking at the cost. I doubt the Department of Finance would approve it without examining the cost. If the Minister does not wish to reveal the cost, she should say so. The estimate must be available. I do not believe the Civil Service has deteriorated under this Government to such an extent that we do not have costings. This relates to section 2 — the proposal to set up the education boards.
It is now 4 p.m.
Will the Minister give us the cost or an estimate?
It was agreed to adjourn the meeting at 4 p.m.
Surely, the Minister can tell us the cost.
I asked if costings were done but I am still unsure of the answer. We have not received a clear reply.
I propose we meet on Thursday, 1 May 1997 at 2.30 p.m. in private for 30 minutes and then resume discussion of the Bill at 3 p.m.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m.