Vol. 669 No. 4
6 Deputy John Perry asked the Minister for Education and Science his views on a newspaper article (details supplied) regarding the issue of bogus teachers taking up teaching positions in schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44203/08]
I am concerned by the newspaper report to which the Deputy refers. This matter serves as a timely reminder of the importance of carrying out adequate checks when school staff are being recruited. The recruitment and selection of staff whether for teaching or other positions in a school rests with boards of management, as employers. Good practice should involve the checking of recent employment records, qualifications, experience and names of referees. While many substitute teachers have previous experience of working in schools and may be known to the authorities in particular schools, there is clearly a heightened requirement for vigilance in checking the prior employment record where the person seeking employment is not known to the school or is approaching it for the first time. Good practice is warranted in any event, regardless of the specific issue with regard to safeguarding against any child protection risk.
In the context of child protection, the arrangements for vetting of teaching and non-teaching staff are set out in Department circular 0094/2006, which issued to all schools in June 2006. This circular is available on my Department's website. The arrangements for vetting new teachers at the time of their initial registration with the Teaching Council — regardless of whether they are likely to enter permanent employment or take up appointments as substitute or part-time teachers — were introduced in 2006. The procedures also apply to prospective employees for posts that involve working with children, such as those relating to special needs assistants, bus drivers, bus escorts for children with special needs, caretakers and other ancillary staff in schools.
As the expansion of service by the Garda vetting unit is rolled out, my Department will be consulting the relevant education stakeholders on how best to introduce vetting of existing teachers that are working in any capacity — permanent, part-time or substitute — in the school system and other existing education staff working with children. The circular requires the vetting of any person being appointed to a teaching position — whether permanent, part-time or substitute — who has not been employed in the school system in the previous three years.
Irrespective of the position on vetting by the Garda vetting unit, where facts or information come to a board of management's attention calling into question a person's suitability to work with children, it is a matter for the board to be satisfied that the person is suitable to work in that capacity. The position will naturally have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. A board of management will be obliged to consider the various circumstances of the case, give due weight to all relevant factors and afford fair procedures to the individual concerned before making a decision.
I am extremely concerned by the blasé, hands-off attitude displayed by the Minister in respect of this serious incident, which was reported in The Sunday Times. Two journalists were able to use aliases in order to gain entry to a school and teach two separate classes. Neither their qualifications nor their standing as teachers was checked by the authorities at the school. The Minister has adopted a kind of hands-off approach and stated that this is a matter for schools and that schools must be aware of the contents of the 2006 circular from his Department. Is he not concerned that someone who does not possess any relevant qualifications can log on to a website, gain entry to a school and then teach 20 or 30 students?
In his initial reply, the Minister commented on vetting. I did not inquire about that matter. However, in the case to which I refer, there was no indication that the two people involved were qualified teachers. Is the Minister concerned about this matter? What further measures does he intend to put in place to ensure that incidents of this kind will not happen in the future? Would it not be sensible for his Department to be involved in the construction of a system that would guarantee that substitute teachers possess the requisite qualifications. Will the Minister treat this issue with greater seriousness?
I would not like the Deputy to impute that I am in any way not treating this matter seriously. I was quite concerned by the newspaper article to which the Deputy referred. This matter serves as a timely reminder of the importance of carrying out adequate checks when school staff are being recruited. I have asked my officials to bring to the attention of all schools the difficulties to which this case has given rise. As already stated, all schools must, as employers, be vigilant in this area.
Schools must be made aware of the Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN, website, which contains a "text-a-sub" service. It would be appropriate that any school taking on a substitute teacher who is not known to it would, in the first instance, require that details of his or her teaching qualifications be provided. As the Deputy is aware, all teachers are obliged to register with the Teaching Council. It would also be appropriate for the school to establish details of an individual's background in teaching. Every effort must be made to obtain the relevant information in order that it might be established that a substitute teacher's qualifications and behaviour reach the required standard.
I support Deputy Brian Hayes in respect of this matter and the Department's lack of alacrity and speed with regard to dealing with bogus institutions advertising themselves as universities. Deputy Brian Hayes and I are stating that the Department must be much more proactive in respect of these matters. The Minister cannot step back and state that these issues must be dealt with by schools. Some of the comments he made in his reply to Deputy Brian Hayes's supplementary question were of far more assistance than the information contained in his initial reply. I agree with the Minister in respect of the IPPN, which is an excellent organisation. In the context of bogus universities, which do terrible damage to the third level sector in this country, and bogus or unqualified teachers, is there not an onus on the Department to move from first gear straight to top gear in the context of becoming more proactive?
Deputy Quinn will accept that the Department cannot micromanage schools and that schools are responsible for employing teachers. I take very seriously our responsibility to emphasise to all schools the importance of vetting all applicants.
I recently took part in a trade mission to China.
We heard about it.
One of the issues raised with me during my visit was that relating to the status and standing of universities. I have decided that the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland will be given responsibility for registering all institutions that offer courses through their so-called international schools. We must ensure that the high quality of education provision associated with Ireland is maintained. I also intend to ensure that Enterprise Ireland will continue to have responsibility for marketing these international schools.
Will the Minister be introducing the education Ireland Bill?
I have decided not to introduce that legislation. Responsibility for registering international schools will be conferred on the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. I will set out clear parameters in respect of this matter. Enterprise Ireland is doing such a good job in the context of marketing that I am of the view that responsibility in this regard should remain with it. I know Deputy Brian Hayes would not like me to establish another quango.
Particularly when teachers are losing their jobs. Does the Minister believe it is good enough that an excellent organisation such as the IPPN must devise a website and system to ensure we have an adequate supply of qualified substitute teachers? Is it not the responsibility of the Department to do this and to do so in a co-ordinated manner so that the Minister can guarantee the qualifications of the people who go into our schools as substitutes? Will the Minister give consideration to this matter?
In terms of the Minister's dialogue with the Teaching Council, will he provide the House with information in respect of the number of unqualified teachers currently in our primary school system?
The Teaching Council is responsible for registering teachers and ensuring they have the required qualifications to do their job. I am sure Deputy Brian Hayes is not suggesting I duplicate that process within the Department of Education and Science.
In respect of substitute teachers.
I am not going to do that.
I do not have with me the information in respect of the number of unqualified teachers currently in the system but I will forward it to the Deputy. We are anxious to ensure we reduce dramatically the number of unqualified teachers in our schools. Some of the unqualified teachers in our system have been doing excellent work. The schools in question are satisfied with them. However, it is far more appropriate to have a qualified rather than unqualified teacher acting as a substitute.
7 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the support provisions in place for social welfare recipients, who are marginally over the income levels, due to the Christmas bonus payments, for support under third level grant schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39447/08]
33 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science if support provisions are available for children of social welfare recipients, who are marginally over the income levels for support under the third level student grant schemes, to have their grant applications reviewed in conjunction with his Department and the Department of Social and Family Affairs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39448/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 33 together.
Students who qualify for a maintenance grant for their attendance on a recognised full-time approved course in a third level institution or PLC centre may also qualify for the higher, special rate of maintenance grant if they satisfy the relevant terms and conditions.
To qualify for the special rate of maintenance grant, usually referred to as the "top-up" grant, an applicant must qualify for the ordinary maintenance grant in respect of the relevant academic year. In addition, total reckonable income must not exceed a specified amount which for the 2008-09 academic year, namely, €20,147 in the 2007 tax year. Finally, the source of income must include one of the eligible long-term social welfare payments prescribed under the scheme.
The number of students qualifying for the special rate of grant is now in excess of 13,500. I would like to assure the Deputy that the Department of Social and Family Affairs Christmas bonus payment is excluded when calculating the reckonable income limit for the special rate of maintenance grant. While a limited number of grant awarding authorities may have, in error, included the Christmas bonus payment as reckonable income, my Department recently issued a letter to awarding authorities indicating that reckonable income should be net of the Christmas bonus payment.
The annual income threshold for the special rate of maintenance grant is increased in line with the relevant social welfare payments. Students eligible for the full non-adjacent rate of grant receive a standard rate grant of €3,420 and a €3,270 top-up amount, giving a total special rate of grant of €6,690. Applicants with reckonable income above the threshold for the special rate may still qualify for the standard rate of maintenance grant.
The student maintenance grant schemes also contain a change in circumstances clause whereby the eligibility of a person may be assessed or re-assessed by the grant awarding body in the event of changes in circumstances which are likely to be permanent, relating, inter alia, to the candidate’s reckonable income. In addition to the maintenance grant schemes, other supports are available for students who may be marginally over the income limits.
The student assistance fund is designed to assist students who, having commenced a third level course, experience financial hardship that may render them unable to continue their studies. In addition, the millennium partnership fund which has been in operation since 2000 provides support to students from disadvantaged areas with a view to improving participation and retention in further or higher education. These funds are administered on behalf of my Department by the National Office for Equity of Access to Higher Education in the Higher Education Authority and are funded by the Government under the National Development Plan 2007-2013.
My Department is currently working with the National Access Office and Pobal in regard to the re-orientation of the millennium partnership fund to support the development of a whole-community approach to equity of access to higher education. In this regard, a consultation process with community partnerships and other stakeholders is currently under way.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply.
8 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of the redress scheme established to compensate victims of abuse in residential institutions; when he expects the redress board to conclude it’s work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44131/08]
The primary function of the redress board is to provide financial redress to persons who, as children, were abused while resident in industrial schools, reformatories or other institutions subject to State regulation or inspection. The closing date for receipt of applications was 15 December 2005 by which time the board had received 14,513 applications. The board has received a total of 14,549 applications (including 36 late applications accepted up to 31 December 2007).
Up to 3 November 2008, 12,280 applications were processed by the board. The overall average award from the inception of the scheme is €64,892. Awards are determined by the board having regard to the severity of the abuse, the severity of physical and psychological injury and the loss of opportunity resulting from the abuse. The level of awards range in value from €0 to €300,000.
Expenditure associated with the redress board to end 2007 was €745,591,963. Based on the total number of applications received, the final cost of the scheme may be in the region of €1.1 billion, including legal and administration costs. Any estimate of the final cost of the scheme at this point will be tentative as the board has more than 2,000 applications to process and the level of award provided in these remaining cases may vary substantially.
The final cost of the redress scheme must be viewed in the context of the Government's acceptance of its responsibilities in apologising to victims of abuse and the very substantial costs that would have been incurred had no such scheme been established, with cases processed in the normal manner through the courts. The scheme enables victims to obtain compensation for their injuries without having to face the trauma of pursuing their cases in court.
The Government in establishing the scheme considered it was the just and humane thing to do as the State was responsible for children that were placed in institutions by the courts and other public bodies. With more than 2,000 cases yet to be processed, it is difficult to say at this point when the board will complete its work. However, from experience, as a board generally clears between 200 to 220 cases per month, and is likely to have completed processing claims towards the end of 2009. While the processing of awards should be completed in 2009, there will be some residual work to be completed by the board in 2010.
The Minister has informed the House that there are 2,000 cases pending. This figure does not take into account the potential impact of the Supreme Court decision in respect of the O'Neill judgment in the High Court last month. If the High Court judgment stands — I do not wish to speculate on the outcome in this regard — the cost involved will be substantially higher because a cohort people previously unable to claim, those between 18 and 21 years at the time the abuse occurred — will be able to claim.
If that happens the current total of €1.1 billion, for which the State will have to pick up the tab, will escalate further. In this context, will the Minister consider reopening the outrageous deal entered into by this State in 2002 with the religious orders whereby effectively they are handing the State €128 million, a substantial amount of which has yet to be paid, despite the fact that the total cost of the scheme is in excess of €1 billion? I put it to the Minister that if we lose in the Supreme Court, he should consider reopening the indemnity deal which his party put in place in 2002.
I am not going to speculate on the court case. The Attorney General and the Government are confident of winning that case.
Has the Government decided to appeal it?
We have appealed it. The appeal has been lodged. We did so on the basis that we are confident, on foot of the Attorney General's advice, we have an excellent case and we are not satisfied with the result of the court decision. As in other cases, the appropriate course is to allow the appeals process to continue. We will continue to process the 2,000 applications as part of the scheme and as soon as the appeal judgment is issued, we will then review any consequences — if there are any — on foot of that in regard to other matters that might apply.
I have two comments and two questions. The Minister complained earlier about the high volume of questions his Department is obliged to answer. If he examined the reply he just offered, he would note he was asked two questions to which he provided approximately 15 answers. That is his own fault in this case. He should parse and analyse the reply that was written for him. He was asked about how much the scheme will cost and when the board will complete its work. In answering it he made a mountain out of a molehill. We could get through far more questions if he answered the question he was specifically asked.
The Deputy will realise that I am given an allocated time to reply.
He is given an allocated answer.
I know, but he is adopting the same strategy that was adopted by his predecessor, which is to filibuster to the maximum in the time allocated.
That is right.
The Minister has given the information on this.
That is the Department policy. My point relates to the scale of the deal. Will the Minister agree that the Department of Finance recommended to his predecessor, Deputy Woods, that the religious orders should, in principle, bear approximately half of the cost of the restitution? That information is in the public domain. What is now emerging is that they will bear less than 20% of the real cost, if it is €1.1 billion, and, as the Minister rightly said, we cannot sign off on that figure. Irrespective of what the Supreme Court judgment may be, is it not time to revisit the whole compensation deal in the light of the unprecedented scale of the cost of the scheme, which we failed to anticipate at the time?
There are two aspects to this. One is that we have to await the outcome of decision on the appeal. The second aspect is that a definitive contract and deal was done between the church and State. As far as I am concerned, legally, that is the binding agreement that has been made. From reading the newspapers, I understand that is an indication from the church that it would not be prepared to revisit this issue. I have no detailed knowledge of the background to the agreement; I am dealing with its actuality and am quite satisfied the church is complying very much with that it and that great progress has been made.
There has been a transfer of property to the value of €66 million, a cash contribution of €52 million instead of €41.14 million and counselling as part of the service to the value of €10,000 has been provided. The church has met by and large with all the requirements.
There is time for a final supplementary.
I understand there are two properties for which the deeds cannot be found and they may be compensated for by way of cash.
I ask the Minister to have regard to the Chair.
It will amount to only 10% of the total cost.
Will the Minister agree that what is important is that this matter would be brought to a conclusion very quickly on the basis that the persons who were referred to in the High Court judgment last month by Mr. Justice O'Neill are well into their 70s? Is it not right that this issue should be quickly resolved? Will the Minister in discussions with the law officer in his Department and with the Attorney General's office impress upon those law officers and upon the courts the necessity to bring this matter to a conclusion for all our sakes?
The important point is that we would all like this matter to come to a quick conclusion. The last thing I want to be seen to do is to be in any way interfering with the courts. They are a separate entity, they do their own business, but we would like the appeal to be heard at the earliest possible date.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
