Skip to main content
Normal View

Thursday, 7 Mar 2013

Priority Questions

Higher Education Grants Eligibility Criteria

Questions (1)

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

1. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills when the report of the capital asset implementation group will go to Cabinet; if he is considering proposals that children from a farm with net assets of more than €750,000 will be excluded from third level maintenance grants; where such a figure originated from; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12114/13]

View answer

Oral answers (7 contributions)

The capital assets test implementation group report will go to Cabinet in the coming weeks. Due to timetabling issues I cannot be more specific about a date at this time.

The Deputy will understand that I am not in a position to provide details of the contents of the report until I have completed my own consideration of those details and discussed them with my Cabinet colleagues. I can say, however, that no decision has been taken on the treatment of farm or other business assets or on the setting of a limit on the value of assets that may be included in any new means-testing arrangements. Any such decision will be a collective Cabinet decision requiring legislative change.

I am disappointed the Minister did not answer the question I asked, whether he is considering the introduction of a capital assets test that would see productive assets in excess of €750,000 included when assessing families for a maintenance grant. I would like a direct reply to that question. It has been given wide coverage in newspapers. If it is the case, where did the €750,000 figure come from, especially for agricultural land? There was speculation in the media that the figure was provided by Teagasc. Is that the case and can the Minister give a breakdown of the figure?

It might help if the Minister could provide some reassurance to some of his coalition partners in Fine Gael that it is not his intention to create a communist state, about which some of them seem to be alarmed. That might be a bit over the top, even for the Minister. It indicates, however, the serious alarm among farmers and the self-employed about the Minister's plans. The Minister must be clear today because there has been a lot of contradictory comment from Government Deputies and Ministers on this. Will he inform the House that he will not include productive assets for the self-employed? There is only one way to assess people's income and that is to look at the real income.

I am not in a position to answer the Deputy's supplementary in the way he would like. It is part of the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility that I must bring proposals to that group in the first instance for their consideration. It would be improper of me to speculate in advance of Cabinet colleagues having a chance to consider the memorandum.

This is an important issue and the timetabling difficulties I mentioned arise because of Easter and St. Patrick's week, and the fact Ministers will be travelling. I am travelling tomorrow myself for nine days and that means I will not be at the next Cabinet meeting, there will not be a Cabinet meeting after St. Patrick's Day and then it is Easter. That is part of the delay at present and I regret that in advance of the Cabinet discussing the matter, I cannot share it with the Dáil. In due course, as soon as we have a decision about the memorandum, I will bring the details into the public domain and we can have a discussion consequently. Legislation will be needed no matter form the decision takes.

Does the Minister stand by earlier comments on this issue he made on "Newstalk Breakfast" in March 2011, when he said that he wanted to reform the way in which student grants would operate and that, until now, there had been a bias towards the self-employed and the agricultural community, who were able to manipulate their income so their children could avail of grants? Does the Minister stand by that statement? If he does, can he outline how these people manipulated their incomes? If manipulation was going on, Fianna Fáil would have no problem dealing with it. It is unacceptable, however, that the Minister is now attaching a notional income to a productive asset that people use to derive an income, often a very modest one. The average farm income in 2011, which was a very good year, was €24,000.

As I said more recently to Deputy Dara Calleary on "The Week in Politics", manipulation of accounts was a feature of the past. It is less possible to do now, not because people have changed their ways but because the Revenue authorities and the taxation code are more stringent and transparent.

Does the Minister not believe figures are being manipulated now?

It is less likely they can be manipulated now than was the case in the past, but it was a bone of contention for many decades in all parts of the country. The system of assessment for student grants must be reformed and I stand by that.

School Staffing

Questions (2)

Jonathan O'Brien

Question:

2. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he is satisfied to allow primary school classes to double up to numbers in excess of 40 children per classroom, in order that teachers can, as mandated by Croke Park II, cover for colleagues who are on certified sick leave because substitution is no longer permitted. [12113/13]

View answer

Oral answers (5 contributions)

The proposals put forward by the Labour Relations Commission on an extension to the Croke Park agreement, which include a requirement for teachers to provide cover for the first day of certified sick absence, arise from an intensive and difficult set of negotiations between the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Government. These negotiations took place against a backdrop of continuing significant difficulties in the finances of the State.

The public service trade unions are currently considering the outcome of these negotiations. Their members now have an important decision to make and, in my view, it is better for us all to allow them the time and space to reflect and come to that decision without any perceived pressure from any side. In light of that, it would not be helpful to this ongoing process for me to comment or elaborate upon proposals which were carefully constructed by the LRC.

I take on board that it is now a matter for the unions to decide whether they accept the proposals, but does the Minister think it is satisfactory that, because the first day of sick leave absence will not be covered by a substitute, we could have class sizes of up to 40 students? I am not asking the Minister to comment on the proposals in the agreement. I am asking for his opinion as Minister for Education and Skills if the possibility of class sizes of 40 students is acceptable.

The Deputy referred to this in his question and I have a supplementary note that was provided for me. It states that the position set out by the Deputy in the question is not entirely correct. The question refers to substitution being no longer permitted for teachers on certified sick leave. The position as set out in the Labour Relations Commission proposals is that teachers will be expected to cover for the first day only of certified sick absences so substitution will continue to be provided for all subsequent days of certified sick absences. It is crucial to keep in mind the context in which these negotiations take place. The State is still in a very serious financial and budgetary situation. Whatever information the Deputy was given in good faith by someone else, the nature of these things is that clarification is part and parcel of how the LRC proposals will affect the broad public sector. The person who spoke to the Deputy might, according to my briefing note, have had an incorrect understanding of the proposals.

The proposal is that for the first day of sick leave, there will be no substitution and classes may have to double up in schools.

That is not my understanding of the situation.

Special Educational Needs Services Provision

Questions (3)

Finian McGrath

Question:

3. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will support full and proper resource hours for children with Down's Syndrome. [12117/13]

View answer

Oral answers (7 contributions)

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills

Supports for pupils with Down's syndrome are based on the extent of their general learning disability. Pupils with Down's syndrome receive additional teaching support either under the general allocation model in primary schools or equivalent provision in post primary schools if their educational assessments place them in the mild general learning disability category. Pupils with more moderate or severe general learning difficulty or more complex needs are supported through an allocation of individual additional resource teaching hours allocated by the National Council for Special Education.

I have asked the NCSE to provide me with policy advice on the issue of whether Down's syndrome should be reclassified as a low incidence or moderate-to-severe disability in all instances, regardless of assessed cognitive ability. This advice will be included in the NCSE's comprehensive policy advice on how the education system can best support children with special educational needs, which is expected in coming months.

I thank the Minister of State for his response and I welcome the aspects on which he reported in the reply. Is he aware that there are over 2,000 families in Down Syndrome Ireland and most of their children go to either mainstream primary or second level schools? At present, a child with Down's syndrome is put into one of two categories: the mild learning disability or moderate learning disability. A score of 49 or less for moderate learning disability will give one the resource hours. Many parents tell me that when they go to the assessments they hope their child will score 49 or less because they know then they will get the resource hours. Why does a child with Down's syndrome not automatically qualify for resource hours or a special needs assistant to help him or her navigate through the mainstream school? Why must such children fail assessments in order to have a chance of getting the resources they require? Why is a child with Down's syndrome not rewarded for his or her achievements by providing him or her with all the necessary resources and assistance to build on and nurture these achievements? Finally, why is a child with Down's syndrome is not afforded every opportunity to reach his or her full potential and be at his or her best?

Children with Down's syndrome whose level of intellectual disability places them in the mild general learning disability, GLD, range may receive individual resource teaching hours in the same manner as children with other low-incidence disabilities but they receive their support through the general allocation model, GAM. Schools have provision, under the GAM, to allocate and target resources to those children most in need of those resources and also to make the best use of those resources. Although not prescriptive, children with mild GLD will generally receive approximately 2.5 teaching hours per week under the GAM allocation. This provision is reflective of the resource teaching support which is provided for children with mild GLD prior to the introduction of the GAM.

Schools also have a discretion to supplement teaching support under the GAM through shared and group teaching for pupils with greatest need and where a child with Down's syndrome also had a diagnosis of moderate general learning disability and thus received an additional low incidence resource teaching allocation of 3.5 hours, the difference between that provided under the GAM, if the child was receiving 2.5 hours, would be one hour. However, the difference could be less if the school was supplementing teaching support under the GAM through shared and group teaching for pupils.

Can I beg the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence to complete the questions?

Historically, the Department allocates resources to support children with special needs on the basis of categories of disabilities but for many years children with special needs were primarily educated in special schools or special classes. These schools and classes were designated as catering for a specific category of disability, but the report of the Special Education Review Committee, SERC, of 1993 made a wide range of recommendations on the level of resources that should be allocated to cater for children in different categories of special needs. The SERC report still provides much of the basis which underpins the current policy and provision.

The disability category set out in the SERC report formed the basis of resource allocations. That report did not identify Down's syndrome as a particular disability category for the allocation of resources and consideration of the categories of disability to be catered for under the GAM based on high incidence or less severe disability was centred mainly on the category of mild general learning disability detailed in the SERC report. I refer the Deputy then to my original reply.

The Minister of State referred to what children with Down's syndrome may receive. In this day and age, that is not acceptable. The rights of children with Down's syndrome should be stronger. Also, as the Minister of State will be aware, the GAM is not one-to-one provision.

I take the Minister of State's point about moderate general learning disability because most parents are reasonably happy about this, but my complaint and that of parents is that the rest of the children with Down's syndrome, particularly the ones who are "good", have more potential to develop if they are given the supports and fantastic work can be done with them. Also, we feel strongly that a child with Down's syndrome in mainstream school will regress if he or she does not get such supports.

The Minister of State will be aware that there are great examples of good practice in the quality of services for Down's syndrome but we need to develop them further and we need to include the right. I ask the Minister of State to prioritise this issue over the next 12 months. It is in the programme for Government. I accept we are in difficult times, but children with disabilities should always be given priority.

I acknowledge the points made by Deputy Finian McGrath. They will be taken on board.

Student Grant Scheme Delays

Questions (4)

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

4. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills if it is true that he had just one informal meeting with the CEO of City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee and that there was no other correspondence between his office and the CDVEC during the entire four months of the student grant crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12115/13]

View answer

Oral answers (9 contributions)

In accordance with normal protocol, it is the function of officials to conduct business with the chief executive officer of the City of Dublin VEC on the operation of Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, and to report to me on developments as appropriate. While I had a meeting with the CEO, my views are communicated to the chief executive officer by my officials through this process.

When SUSI was established, a project team comprising Department officials, the chief executive officer and other senior SUSI staff was set up to oversee the implementation of the operation, to respond to issues arising and to report to me on how the operation is progressing.

This team convenes on a weekly basis and regular processing reports are compiled by SUSI and made available to the Department. These reports are sent to me by my officials who also keep me fully orally briefed on the situation.

I thank the Minister for his reply.

In the economic times in which we have found ourselves recently with the financial pressures that are on families, particularly those sending students to school and, most of all, third level, it is a travesty that the biggest cause of financial hardship and stress in the past academic year for those families has been the Minister's failure to properly implement the centralisation of grants. For months after the academic year started, students and families throughout the country were struggling to try to keep their children in college. There were families who were waiting on the special rate of maintenance grant of over €6,000 who are dependent entirely on social welfare who had to try to keep their child in accommodation and in maintenance in college while they waited, in many instances until early in the new year, to receive their grant.

Through the freedom of information request to which I referred in the question, my party has found out that during that period the Minister met the City of Dublin VEC, the body in charge of SUSI, on one occasion only. Today, the Minister stated that normal protocol is that he engages through his officials. He had no problem in coming up front when he established SUSI and enlightening us all on how it would be a key initiative within the Department. The Minister was taking political leadership of it then. However, there was no sign - the evidence now points this out and the Minister admitted it here today as well - of him taking that political leadership in the crisis when thousands of students were not getting their grants as a result of the failure of the Minister's project. It is most disappointing.

I would ask the Minister to at least ensure that he does not repeat those mistakes. Unfortunately, having listened to his earlier response on the capital assets test, the Minister is talking about a report on how grants will be assessed next year not coming before Cabinet until, perhaps, Easter. He also referred to legislation being required to implement that and to what will happen in terms of getting grants processed properly for next year. This is also unacceptable.

I would ask the Minister one question. Why, when there was such a crisis in the student grant submission system, did the Minister not take control personally and show the leadership required to get it addressed? It was not resolved, with many students waiting until the new year to be paid.

The Deputy's freedom of information request was such that he did not necessarily get the entire picture. The implementation group comprises officials from the Department, the chief executive officer of the CDVEC and senior SUSI personnel, and I get regular reports after they meet. I would never attempt to chair that meeting or project-manage that group myself.

However, 13 group meetings took place between 16 November 2011 and 24 September 2012. In addition 19 meetings took place on a weekly basis between 15 October 2012 and 3 March 2013. Meetings were held on a monthly basis prior to the October 2012 process. These project-group meetings are continuing to be held on a weekly basis. SUSI was a national agency processing in an unsatisfactory way, as I have said, and we will learn from that. In terms of the impact on families across the country, comparing like with like - in other words where we were in terms of the processing of the 66 various bodies that processed heretofore and SUSI - SUSI was approximately a week ahead in the relative comparisons. The main difference was that we now had one centralised figure, whereas previously we had 66 figures. There were difficulties for families in the past, which was one of the reasons SUSI was established. The Deputy's fellow county-man, the president of the USI, will tell him that from his knowledge the previous situation was unsatisfactory. Owing to the distress being caused for some families, which I openly admit, we made an additional €3 million available through the HEA for the welfare officers in all the third level offices to address the kinds of hardship problems the Deputy mentioned.

Given the particular problems, the Minister's hands-off approach was not acceptable. When we tabled a Private Members' motion highlighting the issue, the Minister's initial reply was that he would have a conversation with SUSI on foot of this Legislature stating publicly and democratically that we had a problem. That problem was clearly highlighted in advance of that, but it was only after it was brought to the floor of the House that the Minister started to deal with it. We need to stop repeating this fallacy that SUSI was a week ahead or somehow comparable to what happened in the past.

Could the Deputy ask his supplementary question, please?

I know there were certain issues with how particular local authorities were handling it in the past. The Minister's objective was to equal or improve on that. The reality was that he equalised that by making it equally poor for everyone in the past year. We need to ensure it does not happen next year.

Given the delays in the capital asset test, I have concerns that we are going about it the wrong way again this year.

In addition to the meeting to which the reply to the question refers, I have had numerous telephone conversations with the chief executive officer, Ms Jacinta Stewart, arising from my receipt of reports and my concern over the lack of progress, as I perceived it.

Departmental Staff Rehiring

Questions (5)

Jonathan O'Brien

Question:

5. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills if the delay in introducing legislation to ensure unemployed teachers get priority for available teaching posts has led to a situation in which in December 2012, some 22 out of 104 retired primary teachers employed in schools were on long-term contracts and that 82 retired teachers were employed as short-term substitutes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12189/13]

View answer

Oral answers (5 contributions)

In May 2011 my Department issued circular 31/2011 which sets out a cascading set of measures for appointment of teachers with effect from September 2011. These measures are stringent and require schools to prioritise unemployed teachers over those in receipt of a pension where possible.

It should be remembered that the schools themselves employ teachers. Some 55,666 teachers were employed in primary, voluntary secondary and community and comprehensive schools and paid by my Department in December 2012 - this excludes VEC schools. Of those 55,666 only 153, 0.27%, of these teachers were also in receipt of a pension.

Feedback from schools indicates that the reasons for recruitment of retired teachers include the number and pattern of hours available at school level; the paucity of appropriately qualified and registered teachers who are not retired in certain areas, such as special needs; and the unavailability, at short notice, of appropriately registered teachers who are not retired.

While 153 retired teachers is a small number relative to the overall amount, given the number of newly qualified teachers who are struggling to find work, it is unacceptable that the circular issued by the Department is being flouted by so many schools. It is up to the schools to employ the teachers, but when the Department issues a circular instructing that priority must be given to newly qualified teachers, that needs to be done.

The Minister outlined the feedback from schools - I know he said in January that he would contact the schools. Two of the reasons were that the hours available were so small that retired teachers would fit that and that they had the specialist qualifications such as in the area of special needs. I missed the third one and the Minister might repeat it in his supplementary reply.

Does the Minister have a breakdown of the 153 retired teachers who were rehired on contract? How many of them were special needs teachers?

I do not have a breakdown of those teachers. The reply to a later question gives a breakdown of the distribution of the teachers and I can give it to the Deputy then. We are continuing to press the matter with the schools' boards of management and the unions. There are texting services for getting at short notice relief teachers where there are vacancies. However, in some cases the school may be located in a place without a young teacher wishing to take up the hours and they may be very limited anyway.

Was the third reason location?

To facilitate the Deputy I will repeat part of the earlier reply. Feedback from schools indicates that the reasons for recruitment of retired teachers include the number and pattern of hours available at school level; the paucity of appropriately qualified and registered teachers who are not retired in certain skill areas, such as special needs; and the unavailability, at short notice, of appropriately registered teachers who are not retired.

Top
Share