Written Answers Nos. 61-67
61. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Education and Skills if his attention has been drawn to the backlog in processing student grants (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47330/13]
View answerOfficials in my Department have been informed by Student Universal Support Ireland (SUSI) that there is currently no backlog in the processing of student grants, all priority applications have been processed and SUSI is meeting its targets for the processing of completed grant applications currently on hand.
SUSI is calling on those students who have not yet submitted the documentation or additional documents requested to support their application to do so as soon as possible to ensure an early decision on their grant application.
62. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the progress to date in determination of an appeal for a higher education grant in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47353/13]
View answerOfficials in my Department have confirmed with Student Universal Support Ireland (SUSI) that the student referred to by the Deputy appealed the original decision of the awarding authority. The appeal was received by SUSI on 24th October, 2013 and it is intended that it will be dealt with within the statutory timeframe of 30 days set down in the Student Support Act 2011.
Where an appeal is turned down in writing by SUSI and the applicant remains of the view that the scheme has not been interpreted correctly in his or her case, an appeal form outlining the position may be submitted by the applicant to the independent Student Grants Appeals Board. The relevant appeal form is available to download from http://www.studentfinance.ie/downloads/1375344221/2013_SGAB_appeal_form.pdf.
63. Deputy John O'Mahony asked the Minister for Education and Skills if his Department has ever seen a statement from the auditors of Bus Éireann stating that Bus Éireann does not make a profit from the school transport scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47360/13]
View answerParliamentary questions linked to the substance of the High Court case taken by Student Transport Scheme Ltd against my Department, including the arrangements between my Department and Bus Éireann, have been raised on a number of occasions in the House recently.
For this reason, I feel it is appropriate to give a background to the conduct of the particular case. In doing this I will not stray into the area of issues that were raised before the Court and which were appropriately dealt with in that forum. Nor will I comment on matters which may be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court.Student Transport Scheme Ltd is a company first incorporated in June 2011; it initiated the legal action against my Department in October 2011. Bus Éireann was joined as a Notice Party in the proceedings at the direction of the High Court. The records with the Companies Registration Office show that the sole shareholders of Student Transport Scheme Ltd are Mr Tim Doyle and Mr Brian Lynch who hold 101 and 99 shares of €1 each respectively, or a paid-up share capital of €200. The company was represented in the legal action by Brian Lynch & Associates, Solicitors.
Given the fact that the company had effectively no assets, my Department judged it prudent to seek an Order from the High Court for security for costs. This process preceded the actual hearing of the court case. In January 2012, the High Court gave the Department an order for security of costs. The effect of this was to provide the tax payer with security in the event, as actually occurred, that the Department won the court case and received an order in its favour in respect of its costs. In the absence of such security the taxpayer was at risk in relation to the costs of the action.
The essential thrust of the legal action was to seek an Order from the High Court setting aside the existing arrangements for the provision of national school transport services. The case was heard over a six day period in the Commercial High Court spanning the period from 10th July to 18th July 2012. During this period Counsel, on behalf of all parties (the company, the Department and Bus Éireann) advanced the detail of their respective cases and the legal arguments to the Court. The High Court Judgement was given in October 2012. The detail of this Judgement is available on the Courts Service website and other than to make the point that the Court found decisively in favour of the Department, I do not propose to comment further on the detail of the case.
It is worthy of note that the court case was litigated in an unusually belligerent manner by the applicant. The Department is in receipt of very extensive correspondence accusing the Department of illegality, obstruction of a solicitor, tampering with evidence, perverting the course of justice and drawing purported parallels between my Department and a fiefdom of thugs in Limerick City. At trial, Senior Counsel for the company apologised for the excessive zeal of this correspondence.
Subsequent to the Court Judgement in favour of the Department the company, through their solicitor, Brian Lynch & Associates initiated an appeal to the Supreme Court. In addition the company, again through their solicitor Brian Lynch & Associates commenced an action against two named officials of the Department, the Chief State Solicitor and a named official of the Chief State Solicitor's Office. This action alleged contempt and sought committal of the public servants in question. The Department and Bus Éireann also sought security for the legal costs in relation to the appeal to the Supreme Court. The underlying purpose of seeking this security was to safeguard the taxpayer against the costs to be incurred in defending this appeal. In the event the issues of contempt/committal and security for costs came before the Supreme Court in February 2013. The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt/committal issue. The Supreme Court also awarded the Department and Bus Éireann security for their costs in an amount to be decided by the Master of the High Court in the event of the appeal against the High Court judgement proceeding.
The litigation in this case continues to be conducted in a most unusual, threatening and aggressive manner. Brian Lynch & Associates on behalf of the company, and Mr. Tim Doyle, as managing director of the company between them have written many hundreds of letters to Ministers, Deputies, the Department, Bus Éireann, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and to individual officials and retired officials of the Department. Elements of this correspondence allege corruption, refer to an ongoing investigation of corruption by Brian Lynch & Associates, and repeatedly raise issues and contentions which were either the subject of the failed High Court challenge and/or are proper to any appeal to the Supreme Court.
It should also be pointed out that earlier correspondence to Bus Éireann contained references to bias, bribery and bullying and these allegations are now the subject of separate defamation proceedings initiated by Bus Éireann against Mr Tim Doyle.
I consider it necessary to bring the foregoing information to the attention of Deputies. It is important that litigation be conducted in the appropriate objective forum, namely the Courts, and that Ministers refrain from comment on matters which are the subject of further legal proceedings. Myself and my officials have sought to respect this principle in our approach to the litigation. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor has corresponded repeatedly with Brian Lynch & Associates pointing out that issues in relation to the proceedings should be dealt with in the appropriate process and will not be debated in the course of correspondence by either my Department or that Office.
Subject to provision of the appropriate security for costs as directed by the Supreme Court and as determined by the Master of the High Court, my Department will deal fully with the relevant issues and contentions raised by Brian Lynch & Associates in the context of the Supreme Court appeal.
The following additional information was provided under Standing Order 40A
The arrangements between my Department and Bus Éireann, referred to in the reply, are those under which the school transport scheme operates. These are set out in a document of 1975 which provides the basis for payment to Bus Éireann.
The Department receives a copy of the Statement of Account for School Transport, prepared by the CIE Group auditors, each year which confirms that, in the opinion of the auditors, the Statement of Account has been prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the Summary of Accounting Arrangements relating to the Transport Scheme for Primary and Post-Primary School children dated 1 January 1975 and with the bases and assumptions disclosed therein. This Statement of Account is not required to contain any statement to the effect that Bus Éireann do not make a profit from school transport.
Bus Éireann has confirmed to the Department that they do not make a profit on School Transport and my Department accepts this confirmation.
64. Deputy Jim Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills if time spent completing an internship under the JobBridge scheme at a primary school can be counted towards supplementary panel rights for the teacher; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47387/13]
View answerThe core function of the redeployment arrangements is to facilitate the redeployment of all surplus permanent teachers to other schools that have vacancies. Thereafter, schools are required under the panel arrangements to fill permanent vacancies from supplementary panels comprised of eligible fixed-term (temporary/substitute) and part-time teachers. Preparation for the staffing and redeployment process for the 2014/15 school year is currently underway in my Department. The arrangements for access to the supplementary panel will be published in the relevant circular which is expected to be placed on the Department website in the coming week.
65. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the protections in place for whistleblowers in the private sector who are self-employed or commercial agents as opposed to employees. [47212/13]
View answerPending the enactment of the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 the protections currently available for persons in the private sector who are self employed / commercial agents as opposed to employees depends on the provisions of the sectoral statute under which the whistleblower makes his or her disclosure and, in particular, the definition of the term ‘employee’ contained therein.
The Protected Disclosures Bill 2013, which recently passed Committee Stage in Seanad Éireann proposes to amend sixteen sectoral statutes containing protected disclosure provisions. The effect of these amendments will be to ensure that disclosures made under a relevant sectoral statute which are protected under the Protected Disclosures Bill will fall to be dealt with under the Protected Disclosures Bill rather than the original sectoral legislation.
The definition of ‘worker’ contained in the Protected Disclosures Bill extends beyond that of ‘employee’ contained in the sectoral provisions and encompasses the widest possible range of contractual arrangements including contracts of service and contracts for the provision of services.
66. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the impact the recent breakdown in negotiations between the An Post management and the group of unions will have on his Department’s efforts to progress the new national lottery licence recently awarded to Premier Lotteries Ireland. [47230/13]
View answer67. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the failure of the recently concluded Labour Relations Commission negotiations between An Post, the An Post Group of Unions and his Department to gain acceptance by workers will impact negatively on the current negotiations with Premier Lotteries Ireland regarding the new national lottery licence. [47231/13]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 66 and 67 together.
As the Deputy is aware, the issue regarding the staff of An Post National Lottery Company was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). The LRC has prepared a proposal regarding the issue and these proposals have been put forward to An Post management, the An Post Group of Unions and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on the basis that the relevant parties agree to recommend them for acceptance. Deliberations are still in progress and have yet to be formally concluded between the parties concerned.
