I thank the committee for the opportunity to make an opening statement on the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report.
Chapter 1 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report reviewed the operation of the supervision and substitution scheme in second-level schools. This scheme is one element in school substitution arrangements. While the report recognised the value of the arrangements to utilise existing teaching resources in supervision and substitution and the practical difficulty of matching the committed hours against short-term school needs, it nevertheless identified issues relating to the operation of the scheme dealing with the usage of the 37 hours commitment of a teacher and the grant funds paid. It concluded there appeared to be some scope to refine the operation of the scheme to improve the value obtained for the State's outlay.
The report reviewed the operation of the scheme in respect of the 2007-08 school year. In the meantime, as a result of changes arising from the October 2008 budget and introduced with effect from January 2009, the direct availability of substitution cover for teacher absences arising from uncertified sick leave and official school business was removed and each post-primary school was provided with defined number of hours of substitution cover, outside of the supervision and substitution scheme, to provide cover for teacher absences arising for those reasons. The introduction of this arrangement encourages a more effective use of the supervision and substitution scheme.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report highlighted a number of aspects of practice in some schools which was not in line with the provisions set out in the Department's circulars. The relevant provisions of the Department's circulars have been drawn to the attention of schools following publication of the report. This has reminded schools of their responsibilities with regard to matching the available hours with demand for supervision and substitution; the accrual of contract rights for external staff; and the teaching role of teachers when substituting.
New arrangements have also been introduced with regard to the payment of the grant and the treatment of any balances outstanding at the end of the year.
At the time of the introduction of the arrangements last January, it was agreed that a review of the supervision-substitution scheme and related matters would take place. The interim outcome of the review has concluded with agreement to continue with the availability of the defined number of hours of substitution cover outside of the supervision and substitution scheme for uncertified sick leave and official school business for the 2009-10 school year and the review is continuing over the school year 2009-10, with a view to examining implementation of the revised arrangements in a full year and the issues arising. The reason for this interim review and the decision to continue it was because the new arrangements were introduced from January 2009, which is a partial school year. We consider these measures are addressing issues arising from the report and the Department will keep the situation under review.
Chapter 2 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report reviewed issues arising from a case where a lecturer in Athlone Institute of Technology was also holding a full-time post in NUI Galway. The report concludes there is a need for greater transparency regarding delivery of services in the contracts for lecturers in institutes of technology. The Comptroller and Auditor General also identified the need to review the extent to which the recommendations of the independent review commissioned by Athlone Institute of Technology are being more widely implemented across the sector.
Under the provisions of Towards 2016, it was agreed that current academic contracts in the institutes of technology sector would be examined to take account of the totality of the service to be provided in terms of teaching, research, learner support, supervision of postgraduates, course development, committee work and administration. In light of the changed economic circumstances, it was agreed in November 2008 that this review would focus in the short term on agreeing measures to achieve significant cost economies. If agreement was not reached, both parties agreed to enter third party facilitation under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.
Proposals from management to address the issue of achieving significant cost economies with regard to the review of the academic contract were put to the staff side at the institute of technology forum earlier this year. No agreement was reached. The matter has now been referred for facilitation under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.
At the Department's request, the Higher Education Authority circulated the report of the independent review to the presidents of all third level higher education institutions and has drawn their attention to the recommendations of the review. In doing so, the HEA reminded institutions that as employers they have the primary responsibility for ensuring staff employed by them adhere to the terms and conditions of their contracts of employment. This includes the practice whereby academic staff pursue external work. The HEA also sought details of procedures currently in place whereby staff undertake external work. Based on the responses received, it is understood that all institutions have in place, or are in the process of putting in place, a policy or procedure with regard to the practice of staff undertaking external work. This would commonly take the form of a specific clause in a staff member's contract requiring the prior written consent of the institution before he or she may engage in any external work. In some institutions this requirement is outlined in a formal policy of the institution.
The implementation of the findings of the independent review is part of an ongoing process whereby the HEA is engaging with higher education institutions to strengthen accountability and governance procedures. The HEA, along with the institutions, is committed to ensuring that such procedures demonstrate the responsibility of employees and employers in higher education institutions and in so doing ensure the accountability of the higher education system in Ireland as a whole.
At the Minister's request the HEA is also engaged in a process with the institutes of technology and the universities to identify the scope for increased efficiencies through, for example, the development of shared services and procurement arrangements. The effectiveness of use of existing resources across the higher education sector generally is also being addressed by the strategy review group on higher education which is expected to complete its work early next year.
Chapter 3 of the report relating to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse focuses on the timeframe and cost of the commission's investigation. The report acknowledges that "the work carried out by the Commission was both necessary and valuable". It is true that this inquiry has taken longer than originally anticipated and will cost more than originally estimated. However, this must be viewed in the context of the nature and subject matter of the inquiry. It was unique in many respects and there was no solid basis from which to estimate with any degree of accuracy the likely costs or the timeframe involved. As the inquiry progressed, various factors contributed to sizeable delays, such as the numbers applying to the commission, various legal challenges and judicial reviews. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report outlines these issues. In terms of the operation of the commission, while funding is channelled through the Department of Education and Science, the commission is independent in its functioning. The findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report highlight certain inadequacies from which lessons can be learned in providing a template for any future inquiries of this scale.
The commission's report, which was published on 20 May 2009, consists of five volumes comprising some 2,500 pages. It is a major and significant piece of work and has had a huge impact. I wish to acknowledge the work of the commission under its chairperson, Mr. Justice Seán Ryan, and his predecessor, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, for the immense contribution represented by this work. As the committee is aware, the recommendations of the commission's report have been accepted by the Government and an implementation plan was published on 28 July. While the commission's report has been completed, work is continuing on processing third party legal cost claims and other issues related to the winding-up of the commission. It is expected this work will be completed by the end of next year.
I am happy to respond to questions from members.