Tom Hayes
Ceist:6 Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason he has blocked funding for a centre (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26798/09]
Other Questions.
Special Educational Needs.
I assume the Deputy's question relates to the recent decision to pause the increase in funding for the centre in question.
I am pleased to advise the House that funding for the centre has not been blocked. Indeed, funding provided this year has allowed for an increase in the number of staff at the centre. The Department has put on record that it is anxious to continue to work with the centre to develop additional programmes.
Given the current economic climate, a thorough review of all educational projects and programmes requiring expenditure was undertaken. I am sure the House appreciates that the level of competing demands within the education sector and the overall demands on Government finances has meant that it was not possible to provide additional funding to fully develop all projects currently under way.
The outcome of this process means that the Department is, unfortunately, not in a position to provide the funding required to expand the centre as had been intended this year. It had been intended that a major capital project would commence on site and that significant additional personnel would be recruited over the course of the next 18 months. However, it simply was not possible for my Department to provide the additional funding at this point in time.
I must stress that this decision does not mean that funding has been blocked. The centre will continue to be enabled to provide services and to develop some additional services. The Department is anxious to ensure the continuation of ongoing training and research programmes. I can assure the Deputy that the Department will keep expansion of the centre under review in the context of improved financial circumstances.
I wish also to assure the House that the Government will continue to prioritise funding to ensure that pupils with special educational needs will continue to receive an appropriate education, a commitment reflected in the allocation of more than €1 billion in 2009 to support pupils and young people with special educational needs.
Has the Minister of State had an opportunity to visit the Midleton Centre for Autism? I and other colleagues visited it some months ago and saw at first hand the extraordinary work taking place there, bringing together children from the North and South on a collaborative basis to try to deal with many issues attached to autism.
Will the Minister of State accept that there was an implicit agreement on the part of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic to fund the capital programme and outlay attached to this particular centre and that without that funding, which has been paused, the centre will not be able to develop its full potential? Will he provide further information to the House on the nature of the pause in capital funding currently taking place?
While the Minister has visited the centre, I have not yet had an opportunity to do so. As this matter comes within my area of responsibility, I will take the opportunity to visit the centre during the next six weeks.
The pause in funding in this regard is the same as that which applies in respect of every Department in terms of spending given the current economic situation. We believe that when the upturn takes place we will be in a position to fast track issues of importance such as this.
The Deputy made an important point in regard to North-South projects. This project is one on which we entered into agreement with our counterparts in the North. However, careful consideration must be given to all projects when funding is tight. Very difficult decisions had to be taken. The reality is that the Department cannot provide funding to every project currently under way. The Department is aware of the sensitivity that attaches to North-South projects, in particular those providing services in the area of special needs and has contacted our counterparts in the North to explain the difficulties in which we find ourselves, while reaffirming our commitment in this regard.
The level of ongoing research and training at the centre gives credence to the Department's commitment to reactivate funding in this area.
The Northern Ireland Minister expressed surprise to hear of the Department's decision not to proceed with capital funding for the Midleton Centre for Autism. Was the Minister for Education in Northern Ireland informed in advance of the decision being taken? Will the Minister of State indicate to the House the scale of the pause? This unique project in Midleton is about bringing together children and their parents in a residential setting for a number of days or weeks to deal with the issue of autism on site. Without capital funding, it cannot progress. It is important the Minister of State points out the scale of pause involved.
The Northern Ireland Minister for Education, Ms Ruane, was made aware of the decision. I reiterate the Government's commitment to education by way of its €1 billion investment this year in support of children with special needs. I am not in a position to state the length of the pause or what will be its impact. However, the matter raised by the Deputy is being prioritised within the Department, as has been made clear.
It is important to state on the record that the Minister meets regularly with his opposite number in the North to discuss a wide ranging agenda consisting in the main of special educational needs, educational under-achievement, teacher mobility and so on. The Government is committed to providing the best it can given the scarce resources available.
Leaving Certificate Vocational Programme.
Jimmy Deenihan
Ceist:7 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason he has reneged upon a commitment to fund the leaving certificate vocational programme for some post-primary schools from September 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26782/09]
The leaving certificate vocational programme, LCVP, has been in existence since 1994 and its introduction was designed to enhance the vocational dimension of the leaving certificate. This two-year programme combines the traditional academic strengths of the leaving certificate with a focus on self-directed learning, enterprise, work and the community which are included in the link modules.
There are currently 508 second level schools offering the leaving certificate vocational programme and the programme is taken each year by approximately 10% of second level pupils. Participation in the programme is supported by an enhanced pupil:teacher ratio and by the provision of professional development support to schools and teachers. My Department received applications from ten second level schools for approval to introduce the programme in their schools from the commencement of the 2009-10 school year.
The first point to be clarified is that teaching resources will continue to be provided to the 508 in receipt of such resources and that it is the ten applicant schools that will not receive additional resources. In framing the budgets in October and April, a range of difficult choices had to be faced by Government across all areas of public expenditure, including in the field of education where in future a ceiling will apply in respect of the overall number of teachers. Clearly, any expansion of the programmes must be considered in the context of existing policies and available resources.
The first priority is to maintain existing service levels to the greatest possible extent. In the context of the limits on overall numbers employed in the public service and how they are to apply to the schools sector, it would not make sense to expand this service and further increase the upward pressure on teacher numbers at this time. The Department has, however, outlined to the schools concerned that those that wish to provide the leaving certificate vocational programme from within their existing staffing resources will be facilitated.
The Minister of State is all heart.
It is called kicking the matter to touch.
A number of schools involved have been visited by the relevant professional development support service to discuss their proposed participation in the programme. Some schools have expressed an interest in providing the programme from within their existing staffing levels. Given that during the years approval was given regularly to schools wishing to introduce the leaving certificate vocational programme, it may be the case that schools which have submitted an application might have expected the application to be granted. The Department did not give approval at any time to any of the ten applicant schools.
Therefore, the upshot is that the Minister of State will allow the ten schools to take part in the leaving certificate vocational programme but will not give them any money; that will be the position from next September. I am not sure who made this decision — the Minister of State or the Minister — but departmental officials were touting for schools to offer the programme in March. In April the ten schools in question were informed that funding would be provided but then on 10 June they received letters telling them there was no money and that they could not have the scheme funded in September, despite the fact that teachers had been trained for it, kids were ready for it and timetables had been drawn up. The carpet was pulled from under them. Did the Minister of State make the decision?
The programme will continue to be provided by 508 second level schools.
I know that.
We are dealing with ten applicant schools. In the current difficult financial position the priority is to maintain existing services, that is fair to say across the Department, rather than to expand. I do not have responsibility for the area in the Department; it was a decision made by the Minister in consultation with departmental officials. It was one that was necessary, however, given the difficult financial position we are in. Some schools have still expressed the desire to participate in the programme. There was an expectation because sanction had been automatic in previous years that it was just a question of applying.
Having regard to current economic circumstances, did the people who made the ultimate decision know some of their colleagues were out the previous week encouraging others to make applications? If that is the case, one side of the Department does not know what the other is doing. Does that not make manifest our assertion that the Department is essentially dysfunctional? If the Minister of State knew in October that there would be no money available, why did he allow people to go around looking for others to participate in the scheme and then, within days, send a letter from another section in the Department to them stating there was no money available?
It was clear from the budget in October 2008 and the supplementary budget in April that a ceiling would apply to the overall number of teachers. That was the background to the decision and I have nothing further to add. I do not believe the Department is dysfunctional; I fully support the views reiterated by the Minister. The Department is trying in difficult circumstances to maintain existing programmes.
Does the Minister of State realise that these are mainly early school leavers and that the benefit of the programme to them is enormous? If there is a failure to recognise this within the Department, the situation is serious. How can any Minister say to schools that they must provide the programme within existing budgets that have already been cut to the bone? The schools do not have the resources to operate the programme.
I take on board the point that we should concentrate on disadvantage in education. For that reason the commitments given on the junior certificate schools programme are being honoured under the DEIS programme, as well as commitments given in the programme for Government and elsewhere. We are trying to target our resources; that is why the commitment to expand the junior certificate schools programme is being honoured. In this case, we were talking about ten schools and difficult choices had to be made.
I am asking on the floor of the House that the Minister of State reconsider this decision for the ten schools out of 780 post-primary schools.
The schools have been contacted and we have had discussions with the professional development support service to see what its intentions are. We will see what arises from that process.
Higher Education Grants.
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:8 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Education and Science the position on proposals to combine the administration of the third level maintenance grants under the aegis of one body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26467/09]
The passage of the Student Support Bill will facilitate progress on the two significant pillars of an overall programme of legislative and administrative reform of student grants, the development of a single unified grants scheme and the consolidation of the administration of student grants within the VEC sector. Amendments to the Student Support Bill are at the final stages of preparation and the Department is working closely with the Office of the Attorney General to finalise any outstanding matters.
The introduction of the new administrative arrangements will have to be considered in the current and prospective economic and budgetary context. The situation is being kept under continuous review in the context of progression of the legislation, the availability of resources and emerging developments in transforming public services.
The Department is continuing to work closely with the IVEA and other relevant stakeholders to develop the new administrative structures required to support the efficient delivery of the new unified grants scheme. A fundamental review of the entire business process is well under way, with a view to ensuring consistency of application and a more streamlined and effective service for students. This includes matters relating to application, assessment and payments arrangements.
Significant progress has been made on a number of these issues. Where there are opportunities for the introduction of early service level improvement, the Department has endeavoured to work closely with the relevant stakeholders to make improvements in the shortest possible timeframe within the existing arrangements. These include the introduction of a downloadable version of the application form and guidance notes for the first time in 2009 and the commencement of a test phase which will provide for maintenance grant payment by electronic funds transfer to a limited number of students for the forthcoming academic year.
Forgive me for thinking the Student Support Bill was introduced by the Government and that Second Stage was concluded a year ago. When will Committee Stage of the Bill be taken, given that before the last general election, the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, issued five specific press statements to the effect that from September 2009 we would have the new, unified system operational in every local authority?
The hope is we will have it ready for the autumn and be ready to present it then.
After the Lisbon treaty referendum.
The Minister of State said a number of amendments were still being worked on in the Attorney General's office, which was not known when Second Stage was concluded. How many amendments are we talking about? I understood there was general support in the House for the Bill on Second Stage and that there were no outstanding legislative difficulties. What is causing the delay? Is the delay in the Department or elsewhere?
One of the legal considerations for the Attorney General concerns the introduction of grant support for part-time courses. The economic circumstances are not exactly benign for the prospects of funding short-time or part-time courses but it is hoped that an enabling amendment will be added to the Bill to facilitate that in the future when resources become available.
Does the Minister of State really believe that?
He is working on it.
He must think we are eejits.
We may have to go back to Cabinet on these matters.
Is the Minister aware that many students have not yet been paid their grants for the last academic year? Local authorities have been short-changed by the Department in respect of money to pay the grants.
Yes, we are in debt.
The academic year is over and the grants have not been received. Can the Minister justify such a situation?
It is a great source of disappointment to me that people are still waiting for their payments from a public service organisation. If the Deputy has details about the circumstances we would be delighted to see them so that we can determine why a blockage has occurred. The purpose of this Bill is to transfer these matters to the VEC sector.
They are already in the Department.
It will involve streamlining and produce greater efficiency in the scheme. We also hope we will be able to electronically transfer some of the funds.
In what year does the Minister propose to put in place this new, streamlined system?
The year 2020?
If we are introducing the Bill in the autumn we would hope to have it in place in the years ahead. Again, it will be subject to the resources available to the Department.
Full marks to the Minister of State for doing his homework.
We are facing into a difficult period of Exchequer retrenchment so I will not commit to any particular timeframe.
School Patronage.
Kathleen Lynch
Ceist:9 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Education and Science his views on convening a national forum to discuss the future of school patronage in schools here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26680/09]
Changes in the landscape of Irish society as well as current economic constraints provide a backdrop for the challenges facing our education system over the coming years. In June last year I hosted a conference on the governance challenges for future primary school needs and the need to provide an opportunity for patron bodies, the wider education partners and others with an interest in the future of our primary education system to collectively reflect on the challenges we face in shaping the system to respond appropriately to changing societal demands.
Participants at the conference considered the long-term challenges of organising and developing our system of school governance to accommodate societal change and new parental demands and aspirations will be subject to consideration. The conference also dealt with a range of associated issues such as the challenges of capacity constraints, the provision of choice for parents, ensuring whole community inclusion in our schools as well as the implications of societal change on enrolment policies and approaches to the teaching of religion in multi-faith environments. Discussions focused on the particular challenges of ethos and inclusion for patron bodies, under old and new patronage models, including the model to be piloted in two community national schools, Scoil Ghráinne, Phibblestown, and Scoil Choilm, Porterstown from September 2008. While I would not rule out the possibility of holding a further forum on school patronage in the future, I believe that considerable further thought must be given to the timing and format of such an event.
My Department is currently consulting directly with patrons about specific areas where the establishment of new schools will be required and how emerging demands in these areas will be addressed and, as part of the process, will be seeking details of any schools where a change of patronage might potentially be relevant. A review of procedures for establishment of new primary schools is being undertaken by the commission on school accommodation. Among the range of issues being considered is the issue of patronage including the criteria that must be met to become a patron and the circumstances where changes to patronage may be warranted.
I believe it would be premature to embark on a national discussion on school patronage until these matters have been progressed.
Is the Minister familiar with the comments of probably the largest patron in the country, with responsibility for one seventh of all the primary schools in the country? I refer to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, who said at a Dublin gathering of the IPPN that the dominance of his patronage was a legacy of the past which no longer reflected the needs either of his church or the community.
Is the Minister aware that his Department has stopped the patron body of gaelscoileanna, An Foras Pátrúnachta, from moving its patronage model to a level of permanence? I refer specifically to Coláiste Chill Dara in this case, where the Department is refusing to allow its status to change from conditional to permanent, thereby blocking its funding. The Minister cannot make a decision on extending patronage to Educate Together for secondary schools, even though his Department is planning schools in the Lucan area.
Whatever form it takes, the archbishop has suggested a forum. I am aware that officials from the Department met with him after his comments at Kilmainham. This is not an issue about new schools but one where an existing patron of existing schools says he does not want to have them. How does the Minister deal with that? We also have problem with a patron who, according to all the evidence in the public domain, is not carrying out its duties in regard to Cabra.
What role is there in this for the Department of Education and Science? Its documentation suggests there will be an extra 100,000 pupils by 2013 on top of the existing 500,000. Does the Minister accept there is a crisis in patronage that must be dealt with quickly?
I met with representatives of Educate Together last week and indicated that I would give consideration to its application for patronage at second level during the summer months. However, I saw this as a serious policy issue and one I would have to bring to Government, which I propose to do.
My officials met Archbishop Diarmuid Martin in late 2007. We wanted to discuss statements he had made prior to that on the possibility of divesting patronage of primary schools in the archdiocese. We also had a separate meeting with Bishop Leo O'Reilly, who is the chair of the Bishops' Education Commission. We asked Archbishop Martin to let us know if he had specific locations in mind. He said he had no specific locations in mind where one or more schools under his patronage could transfer to another patron but that it might arise some time in the future. The discussion centred on the different issues that might arise and the need for such changes to be planned and managed. It also focused on the desirability of individual schools to enter into consultations with all stakeholders, such as parents and teachers, and it was agreed that the archbishop would make contact with us at an early stage if an opportunity arose to change patronage. Archbishop Martin has never made contact with us on that matter. At the recent IPPN conference the archbishop made a statement on similar lines, as a result of which we will consult directly with him again to see exactly what he has in mind. We will also consult with Bishop O'Reilly but the Department is not certain the Archbishop of Dublin and the chair of the Irish Bishops' Conference are in unison on this issue. It is only right and fair that we get a clear indication from the Catholic Church of its views on patronage across the country.
I suggest the best way to hold further discussions is some form of open dialogue.
Hear, hear.
Can we get beyond the squinting windows of dialogue and the cultural deference of the past? Can we have a seminar in which everybody can hear what the participants are saying? Archbishop Martin has an obligation to the Minister in exercising his duties as patron because the Minister is paying the tab for the 477 schools — 93% of the total — which are involved in Dublin. The current operator is saying he is a reluctant patron and I can understand some of the difficulties. However, instead of polite conversations with officials, can we hold the dialogue in the open? Some officials are characterised in the Ryan report as having a culture of deference so can we help to weaken that deference? This concerns the futures of all our children.
I did not rule out a forum in the future. Equally, however, I held a conference in June of last year in Kilmainham at which representatives all of the main patrons spoke.
It is important to remember that there is also a commission on school accommodation in place. I emphasised to the commission that I wanted it to report to me in respect of school patronage. I see this as a working forum in progress in respect of patronage, particularly as all the patron bodies are represented on it.
Is the Minister referring to the commission on school accommodation?
Yes. The various patron bodies are represented on this commission.
In addition, there are two model VEC schools in operation. It is our intention to evaluate what will be the results of these two pilot projects. It is very early days, however, as these schools have been in operation for under a year. We will await the outcome of these pilot projects.
Reading between the lines, it is fair to state that the Minister has a more open position in respect of this matter than his predecessor. It was his predecessor's decision to hold the half-day conference.
It was announced on the eve of the INTO conference.
That is correct and it was seen as a sop to the INTO. It was not, therefore, the Minister's decision to hold that conference but he was obliged to give a speech at it. However, let us leave that matter to one side.
I believe the Minister has an open view on this matter. If ever there was a need for a talking shop in respect of a particular matter, then this is it. Such a talking shop would have to be in operation for a long period because there are no easy solutions in respect of this matter.
Yes.
Issues such as patronage, ownership, governance and whether to have religious or non-religious schools are of considerable concern to society. I request that the Minister reconsider this issue during the summer recess. I understand that the deadline regarding the submission of working papers to the commission on school accommodation is set for later this month. If, therefore, I wanted to submit my views, I only have a number of weeks in which to do so. At the very least, the deadline should be extended because this matter does not merely involve Bishop O'Reilly, Archbishop Martin, Deputy Quinn or me——
Those days are gone.
——it also relates to parents being allowed to listen, in public, to the views of all the partners in education, engage with those views and pose questions in an open manner. Bilaterals are a thing of the past. I request that the Minister give further consideration to this matter during the next two months or so, particularly as he seems to be more open in respect of it than his predecessor.
As already stated, there is no reason a forum could not be established in the future. However, I must be informed as to the exact position. I have put in place the commission on school accommodation, on which all of the patron bodies are represented and to which they are all providing of their expertise, and I would like to await the results of its deliberations. In addition, particular groups have indicated to me that they are seeking movement in respect of the matter of patronage. I have also put in place two model schools, in the form of pilot projects, and I want to measure the success of these schools and discover what can be learned from their operation. This is particularly relevant in the context of the forum we will obviously need to establish some time in the future.
What is being done in this area is work in progress. It would be premature to establish a forum at this stage. I intend to await the results of the commission's work and the evaluation of the operation of the model schools. At that point, it would be important to establish an open forum.
School Management.
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:10 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Science further to Parliamentary Question No. 495 of 23 June 2009, if he will change the system of information storage in order that his Department can access, horizontally, information such as this, and other information regarding schools at primary level in order that his Department is properly equipped to efficiently manage the primary school building infrastructure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26685/09]
In order to improve the information systems available to my Department in respect of primary and post-primary schools, my Department's forward planning section uses geographical information system, GIS, technology which contains a certain level of information on all schools in the country at both primary and post-primary level. I understand the planning and building unit recently gave a demonstration to the members of the Joint Committee on Education and Science on the use of the GIS. A range of demographic information is linked to the relevant schools and this allows the Department to map various demographic scenarios at local level.
To further expand and improve the capabilities of the system, arrangements are being made to conduct a survey of accommodation at primary and post-primary level which will be linked to the GIS. It is intended that this will establish the position in respect of the extent of all school accommodation. The specifications for this inventory are being finalised at present.
As the Deputy will be aware, I also recently instructed my Department to compile information on school ownership details on the basis of files available in the Department. In general, the Department's property management files contain details of indentures entered into by the State with the respective school patrons. The primary purpose of these indentures was to protect the interest of the State in buildings constructed on sites not in its ownership. Due to the fact that this system of indentures has been in place since the commencement of the primary school system, the vast bulk of these legal documents predates the introduction of modern information technology systems. Indeed, many of these documents predate the foundation of the State.
As part of scoping out the scale of the exercise relating to establishing the ownership details of school properties, my officials recently met representatives from the Property Registration Authority and the Chief State Solicitor's office to ascertain the extent of the work involved and to determine if the information could be obtained by other means. However, it is clear that it will not be possible to obtain this information other than by a painstaking process of researching each individual file. It is also clear that compiling a comprehensive database of school ownership will be quite a complex task and will take some time to complete. I have asked my Department to provide me with a preliminary report on the timescale of this exercise and a full assessment of what is involved in terms of both staffing and financial resources.
In the meantime, my Department is finalising a list of school details setting out the names and addresses of schools, their roll numbers and details of the patron of each national school. I will arrange to have this information forwarded to those Deputies who have requested it as soon is it has been compiled.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I sympathise with him in respect of the difficulties he is experiencing. The Minister did not establish the Department of Education and Science and was not responsible for its operation over a long period.
It is incredible that some form of basic spreadsheet on which the information to which the question refers is not available. Deputies were treated to a very good presentation by officials from the Department's offices in Tullamore and were suitably impressed. In order to obtain the kind of lateral productivity to which many people have recently referred, I suggest that the Department work in conjunction with the VECs — which have a great deal of expertise at their disposal — and local authorities in respect of this matter. We should ask the engineering and planning departments of the various local authorities to carry out a conditions analysis in respect of existing schools. Those who work in these departments are public servants and they are not doing anything at present because there is no building work taking place. Some of the larger VECs have the capacity to do precisely what I have suggested.
Obviously, however, none of this has happened. We are going to be hit with a tsunami in the near future, with 25,000 additional pupils entering the system each year. Beginning this year and on the assumption that there will be 30 pupils per class, there will be a need for an extra 760 classrooms per year. The Department is not equipped to deal with this increase in demand and will only be able to do so it if receives assistance. I suggest that such assistance should be obtained from within the public service and that the Minister should not plead that there is a lack of resources.
I do not agree with the Deputy. The statistics available to me indicate there will be an additional 50,000 students in the system by 2015.
The figures to which I refer come from a document published by the Department of Education and Science in July 2008.
I am referring to the most recent information that has been made available to me.
With regard to the Department and the use of the GIS, two years ago we had a serious problem in the context of finding accommodation for the various pupils who entered the system. Last year, however, as a result of outstanding co-operation on the part of county and city managers, the Department accurately predicted what would be the level of demand. I am confident that we will continue to anticipate the emerging needs, particularly in light of the co-operation that exists among the various entities. The current system is similar to a one-stop-shop and I am delighted with the current level of co-operation. I thank local authorities and city and county managers for that co-operation. What we are doing appears to be working extremely well. The new GIS system can continue to expand.
However, I must consider priorities and as a former Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn is aware of how one prioritises one's spending within a Department. On foot of the exposition I have provided to him, he can see that putting in place the information he seeks will be an extremely difficult and long-term process. How strategic is this in the shorter term? Is it more strategic for me to spend money that will ensure I can put a roof over the children who will attend our schools in the present generation? Is it more strategic for me to understand that there are indentures in place that will protect the investment the State has made over time? At a time of limited resources, my emphasis must be on providing accommodation for the pupils who will enter the system and I consider that to be my first priority. I do not wish to take from what Deputy Quinn seeks to achieve, nor does this take from my desire to achieve it either, but the pace at which this can be done and the difficulty relating to collating all that material, some of which predates the establishment of primary schools, means this is a difficult and onerous task that will not be delivered within a short time.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.