Brian Hayes
Ceist:104 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the cost involved in respect of the revised programme for Government as it relates to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37326/09]
Priority Questions.
Programme for Government.
The revised programme for Government provides for a number of specific measures in the education sector, including a commitment to no further increase in the pupil-teacher ratio for the lifetime of the Government; 500 teaching posts over the next three years; funding for 28 additional psychologist posts; standard capitation grants to schools being maintained and an extra allocation being made available to schools for needs such as book rental schemes and curricular activities.
The commitment to maintain the standard capitation grants to schools will not give rise to additional costs except in so far as it relates to increases in the schoolgoing population, the costing of which would form part of the annual Estimates and budgetary process. While the precise costs of the additional teaching posts cannot be determined until the actual appointments are made it is anticipated that every teacher appointed will give rise to an initial annual pay cost of approximately €46,000 on appointment rising to an average of €64,000 over time.
Assuming 200 extra teachers from the beginning of next year and a further 150 teachers next September, the extra pay costs next year will be in the order of €11 million, and the ongoing full year pay cost when all 500 teachers are employed at average salary will be in the order of €32 million. The funding of the additional 28 psychologist posts is expected to give rise to an additional full year cost of approximately €2.3 million. The exact level of additional funding for schools for the consolidated grants will be considered in the context of the Estimates and budgetary process.
The revised programme also provides for other measures which have the potential to give rise to additional costs for the education sector. These include delivery of 100MBs broadband for all second level schools by 2012 and roll out of new digital access devices for teachers and students. In addition it provides for the development of a costed multi-annual plan to implement some priority aspects of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, focusing on measurable, practical progress in education and health services for children with special needs.
It is not possible, however, to give an exact costing on these issues at this early stage until the implementation arrangements are worked out. As the Deputy is aware the revised programme for Government is for delivery over the period to 2012.
I find it astonishing that the Minister cannot conclusively inform the House of the total cost of the revised programme for Government for his Department given that the alleged parties to the deal had such a long time to negotiate it.
Will the Minister give a specific answer to the following question? In the 24 hours following the publication of the revised programme for Government, three Cabinet Ministers refused to give an absolute guarantee to the public that college registration fees, which were massively increased last year from €900 to €1,500, would not undergo such a hike again this year. Will the Minister now give a categorical assurance in this House that he does not intend to increase college registration fees in the upcoming budget?
The first thing is that we must understand to what the registration fee refers. It refers to the services delivered by the universities and institutes of education to students. The Government decided last year that the universities and institutes could charge up to €1,500 per student on the basis that they were delivering that level of service. Until then it was felt that the full cost of services was not being borne by the student. In those circumstances, a ceiling was set and the universities and institutes, liaising with the Higher Education Authority and ourselves, gave a clear outline of the services they were rendering. It is, therefore, a matter for the Higher Education Authority and sector and the Department of Education and Science to determine what level of service exists. If a level of service beyond €1,500 is not being delivered by the higher level institutions, we cannot increase the registration charge.
Can I take it from what the Minister has said that there will not be an increase in college registration fees?
The Deputy asked me——
The Deputy should conclude his question.
I asked a question and the Minister failed to answer it. He gave a very interesting Second Stage type speech on college registration fees, but he did not answer my question. I will try putting the question again. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance, "Yes" or "No", that he will not increase college registration fees in the context of the upcoming budget? Will the Minister confirm for the House whether the universities and institutes of technology have sought an increase in college registration fees in the run-up to the budget?
I needed, first, to outline for the Deputy what the registration fee was about because, judging from the numerous statements and press releases the Deputy issues from time to time, he seems not to understand its purpose.
I know exactly what it is about.
I am not aware that third level institutes or universities have, up to now, requested an increase in the registration fee. However, all these issues are budgetary matters that will be determined by Government when dealing with the Estimates.
Schools Building Projects.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:105 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason he has spent only 52% of his capital allocation on school building projects of the year to date in 2009; if he will confirm that he put 24 school building projects out for re-tendering around June 2008 and that none had been successfully completed by June 2009; the number of school building projects which have been successfully re-tendered and constructed since he was appointed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37244/09]
John O'Mahony
Ceist:107 Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Education and Science the plans he has in place to ensure that all moneys allocated to the schools’ capital building projects for 2009 are spent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37328/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 105 and 107 together.
The published expenditure figures show that my Department's capital expenditure to the end of September is €455 million, which is €112 million behind the profiled or projected figure of €568 million.
My Department's total budget in 2009 for primary, post-primary and third level capital is €841 million. Expenditure on the large number of individual projects included in a capital programme of this magnitude is subject to very considerable variation on a calendar year basis. It was in recognition of this that the current framework of rolling multi-annual capital envelopes, encompassing a carry-over facility of up to 10% of the total amount available in any one year, was introduced.
The principal area where expenditure is running behind profile is schools' major capital projects. These projects comprise new schools, major extensions and refurbishment projects. The main reason for the underspend against profile on the major schools' capital projects is that my announced programme of 78 projects to commence construction in 2009 has been slower to get started on site than initially expected. Another significant factor is that tender prices obtained for this programme are yielding a reduction of up to 30% compared to prices obtained at the height of the construction boom.
The position regarding the re-tendering of school projects is that, on 29 September 2008, I announced 25 projects to progress to tender and construction. My Department received a derogation from the Department of Finance to proceed with five projects which had previously been tendered under the old form of public contract. These five projects commenced on site within a matter of weeks of my announcement. One is already complete and the other four are due to be completed shortly. Six more of these projects are under construction, six are at tendering stage and the remainder, which are at pre-tendering stage, will be progressed to site as soon as possible.
Some 20 of the projects I announced in September, along with a further 53 that I announced in January and February of 2009, were required to have associated documentation prepared or amended to comply with the new form of contract. Of these 53 projects, eight are already under construction or at completion stage and 21 have already been tendered and are expected to commence on site before the end of this year or early in 2010. The remaining 24 projects will go on site in 2010, as soon as the tendering and contract formalities have been completed.
In addition, an extensive programme of smaller-scale schools' capital projects is being delivered, mainly through the summer works scheme which this year includes an energy efficiency component for which in excess of 1,500 schools have now been approved. Also, there is a significant amount of capital expenditure in the programme for the remainder of 2009. Expenditure trends in recent years bear out the fact that an increased amount of invoices and other claims for payment are made in the final quarter as builders complete projects and schools draw down their capital grant approvals.
I am keeping the position under close review and considering all appropriate options regarding the expenditure position. These options include the possibility of carrying forward funding into 2010. As I have already mentioned, if necessary, and in agreement with the Minister for Finance, up to 10% of the overall allocation of €841 million can be carried forward to 2010.
Since I became Minister for Education and Science, I have consistently emphasised my determination to ensure value for money in capital projects and that the available funding is spent in a prudent way. I am particularly pleased to note the 30% reduction in tender costs for capital projects. I intend to continue to maximise value for money and to ensure that as many schools as possible will benefit from the very favourable tenders that can now be obtained in the construction sector. In this context, my Department is currently finalising a further programme of major capital projects for 2010, which I will announce in due course.
The Minister provided a significant amount of information in his response. I will try to focus on some of the headline parts and we can return on another day to other elements. Will the Minister and the Department recognise we face a threefold crisis? First, we have a crisis in terms of student numbers, which are growing exponentially; the highest birth rate since 1896 was recorded this year. Second, we have an already overcrowded school system and, third, we have a crisis in employment and in the construction industry sector. Is it not time to think outside the box and consider invoking the strategic infrastructure legislation where planning permissions are a problem, although the Minister has not said that they are and nor do I have evidence that they are?
Is it not essential to accelerate the building programme? The Construction Industry Federation and the schools' management authorities would say they cannot get a response from Tullamore quick enough to deal with the problems that confront them. I note from the Minister's response that he has made progress on some projects, but progress is slow relative to the demand in the construction industry for more work and its willingness to get started. If the Minister and Department officials in Tullamore are suggesting that builders are sitting on invoices and not submitting them because they are flush with cash, I suggest they should enter the real world. That is not the case.
We are anxious to ensure that when we announce a project, it goes to construction as soon as possible. There are two reasons for the difficulty this year. One is the new form of contract. As the Deputy knows, these new contracts transferred major liability onto whoever was doing the construction. This new format created a difficulty in architectural and other offices with regard to interpretation of the contract.
They had plenty of time to interpret them.
The difficulty was such that we invited them to Tullamore to brief them and outline to them what was required. This caused a delay in its own right.
I would like to see the projects up and running. However, the Deputy should understand there has been significant activity on the ground and it is only the major projects that are being held up. The summer works scheme, for example,——
I have no problem in that regard.
It is important for me to outline how the Department has moved ahead with over 1,200 summer works projects. The energy efficiency scheme has 1,500 projects up and running. All the devolved small local schemes are up and running and on schedule.
While some of the bigger projects have been delayed, we are quite happy that the amount of money we have set aside for them will be required and there will be a carry-over into 2010. That is normal. Looking at the profile up to the end of the year, I see we will have substantial spending before the year ends on the major projects.
I do not want to go over the ground covered by Deputy Quinn, but the Minister has tried to tell us that the reason the major projects are slower has to do with the new contract or tendering processes. I am somewhat confused as to why there should be such a hold up that almost half of the money has not been spent. I suppose it makes a change for us to be discussing money that was made available and not spent, but there is a great deal of confusion in all our constituencies as a result of the figures that were released a few weeks ago. The Minister visited my constituency last May, for instance, and met many delegations. He basically told people that he found it difficult to honour the commitments that had been made by his predecessor. There is also the question of more than €100 million being spent on prefabs because money was not available for permanent buildings, and this has confused the situation.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will this money be lost or will it be put in as part of the capital programme for next year? In other words, will a sleight of hand be done as regards the programme for building, next year, and what measures does the Minister envisage taking to ensure this does not happen? It is difficult for us to explain the situation to boards of management where the schools are falling in around them. I have had plenty of offers in the past week, as I am sure every Deputy has, from interested parties to the effect that they will show the Minister how to spend the half a billion if he does not know how.
I am glad of the opportunity to be able to expand on what has been said here. I have saved something in the region of €14 million already on prefabs so far this year compared to last year. We are delighted with these savings. I introduced an initiative which gives the option of erecting a permanent structure as against a prefab, and 159 schools have taken up the option. A classroom can now be built for less than €100,000. Two classrooms today cost €132,000, so there is outstanding value for money to be had.
We started the year believing we might, perhaps, get a saving of 15%, and we now have 30%. Therefore I was able to increase the number of summer work schemes and the amount of money put into energy conservation as well as putting €30 million into minor works in schools to enhance the environment. We are doing an outstanding job, I believe, this year. The only area in which we have a difficulty is in the larger projects. The Deputy asked whether we will spend the money, and of course we will. We were allowed a derogation of 10%. My total budget was over €841 million, therefore I could carry forward those projects that were not completed in 2009 and finish them in 2010. That is what I intend to do, and I emphasise I will not be giving any money back to the Exchequer. All that money will be spent on the projects as outlined.
The Minister, in his supplementary response, said that 159 schools had opted for a permanent as distinct from a prefab structure. Will he make those details available?
Yes, I will.
School Staffing.
Brian Hayes
Ceist:106 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of principals, deputy principals, assistant principals and teachers with special duties who have retired to date in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37327/09]
A total of 850 primary teachers have retired on pension to date in 2009 and the corresponding figure for secondary, community and comprehensive schools is 738.
Within the overall total, 253 principals have retired from primary schools while 68 principals have retired from secondary, community and comprehensive schools. Deputy principal retirements total 260 of which 208 were primary and 52 were from secondary, community and comprehensive schools.
Also within the overall total, assistant principals account for 588 retirements of whom 132 retired from primary schools and 456 from secondary, community and comprehensive schools. Some 171 teachers with special duties posts retired from primary schools while 104 retired from secondary, community and comprehensive schools.
While these figures do not include retirements in the VEC sector for which my Department does not have figures as they are not on the payroll, there has been a significant increase in retirement numbers in this sector also. Teachers who have the requisite service or reached a specified age threshold are required to give three months notice to the board of management of their school of their intention to retire.
The vast majority of teachers choose to retire before reaching mandatory retirement age. This year some 88% of primary school retirements and 84% of secondary, community and comprehensive school retirements fall into this category.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He has just put an extraordinary fact on the record. If one takes the post-primary sector for example, he has just told the House that one principal in every school effectively retired in the first ten months of this year. If that is not a flight from the profession, I am not sure what is. That is a very serious loss of senior and middle management within the education system, as I am sure he will accept. While it could be argued that this creates opportunities for younger teachers to take on new posts, there is an issue of concern here, given the importance of leadership within our schools, particularly at primary and post-primary levels.
Will the Minister tell the House the expected cost to his Department this year from the retirements to date? Has he been in discussion with the principals' associations at primary and post-primary levels to inquire why so many people are leaving the education system?
There is no doubt that the numbers are much higher than in previous years, and we carried out a survey to find out why. It showed that approximately half of those retiring gave "planned retirement" as their main reason, one third highlighted concerns about future taxation of their lump sum and the impact of recent levies and the remainder tended to cite general reasons such as lifestyle etc., and wanted an opportunity to avail of the good life in retirement rather than continue teaching.
It is quite clear that the doubt that exists as regards the taxation of the lump sum is a real issue for many principals. I would encourage the Minister to clarify that issue with his Government colleagues once and for all.
Where a principal or deputy principal retires, the position is advertised and a new person is placed. However, when it comes to assistant principals, or teachers with special duties, since there is a moratorium on appointments those positions are not fed back into the system. According to the information that the Minister has just given Dáil Éireann, 456 assistant principals have retired this year in the first ten months, and those posts are not being filled. It effectively means that their duties are being taken up by other teachers. It means the posts of those teachers who had special duty responsibilities in terms of games, debates, music or whatever are not being taken up this year.
Will the Minister please look at the moratorium issue again on the basis that it is causing enormous problems not only in the post-primary but also in the primary sector? Could he also put the answer to my first question on the record of the House, namely how much this will cost his Department this year?
I do not appear to have those figures although I have costings for teachers in various circumstances.
That detail was not included in the original question, so the Minister would not be expected to have the data to hand.
I shall provide that information for the Deputy. As regards the moratorium, as he knows we have a system in place whereby a principal or deputy principal can be replaced. That is a special concession that does not apply to other sectors of the public service. We ask schools to prioritise and reorganise posts that cannot be filled.
Some 50% of all teachers have a post of responsibility, it should be remembered.
That is nearly like the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party.
That has changed.
That has changed totally as the Deputy knows — it is a new regime.
The percentage of teachers retiring, therefore, is very small and we hope that given the circumstances that prevail schools will be able to juxtapose various posts to ensure all the important elements will be reorganised and people are transferred, as appropriate. I do not envisage looking for a derogation in this particular school year. However, if particular problems arise in a school where there are a major number of retirements that gives rise to serious concern, obviously I would be prepared to look at such a situation.
Is the Minister concerned about this?
I am not concerned, as there are enough posts of responsibility. There is enough flexibility within the schools so that they can reorganise, and it will be successful.
Question No. 107 answered with Question No. 105.
Grant Payments.
Brian Hayes
Ceist:108 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the discussions he has had to date in 2009 with the Protestant community regarding decisions taken in budget 2009 to reduce funding to voluntary Protestant schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37329/09]
My colleagues in Government and I recognise the importance of ensuring that students from a Protestant background can attend a school that reflects their denominational ethos. I have met representatives of the Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge and a rural Protestant fee-paying school. I will meet representatives of the Protestant education sector tomorrow.
The representations I have received have focused on two aspects of the budget changes. First was the allocation of teachers to all fee-charging schools. By making the changes to the pupil-teacher ratio, the Government recognised that such schools, regardless of religious ethos, have extra income which they can use and have used to employ additional teachers. If I had not made this change, I would have been faced with making a more severe change to the staffing position of all schools. I believe the measures that differentiated between those schools with fee income and those without were fairer all round. The case being put to me is that this change should not apply to Protestant fee-charging schools.
The second aspect is the withdrawal of certain grants that had been paid to Protestant fee-charging schools that were not paid to Catholic fee-charging schools. The argument being put to me is that the grants should be restored. I have emphasised that the Government decided to continue to provide the block grant, which was increased this year. It is targeted as a support to individual pupils to enable them to attend Protestant schools.
Article 44 of the Constitution permits State aid to denominational schools, but only on the basis that there be no discrimination between schools under different religious management. The advice of the Attorney General has been provided on the interpretation of this provision and I am satisfied that the budget changes are consistent with the Constitution.
From the discussions I have had, I am aware that the funding position of Protestant fee-charging schools in many areas may be more difficult than the position of Protestant fee-charging schools in Dublin. I have consistently said I am willing to consider any proposals that would more effectively focus funding on schools in rural areas. I have still to receive any such proposals. Any proposals and how precisely they are targeted will need to be considered having regard to the constitutional requirement.
Is it not fair to say that the Minister is on a direct collision course with the Protestant faith in this country and that his handling of this issue has been utterly insensitive to Protestant schools and the ethos provided in those schools? When the then Minister for Education, Donogh O'Malley, introduced free post-primary education in the 1960s he did a deal with them. The Minister is breaking that deal and is doing so in the most insensitive way. He is doing it in a way that does not bring people with him and that loses confidence in his position as Minister for Education and Science. The Minister needs to deal with this issue once and for all. He has been putting canards into the public domain that in some way there is legal advice that he had to act upon this. For 40 years their situation was protected within Irish education. Since the budget of last year the Minister is undermining that. He is undermining their confidence in the Government's position in terms of denominational education and the rights of those 21 schools.
Schools will go to the wall, particularly Protestant schools in rural parts of the country unless he shows some flexibility and meets people half way. To date the misinformation he has put out first, that moneys existed in budgets that were not spent and, second, in respect of legal opinion that had never been sought in the past 40 years has resulted in a terrible loss of faith in his position as Minister for Education and Science among the minority community.
I am pleased to inform the Deputy so as to ensure he understands exactly what is happening. I have treated the Protestant bishops and any other group who have met me with the respect and fairness due to them and certainly the equity that was desired. This answer has been cleared by the Attorney General. He believes that to continue the grant that was available would be unconstitutional because it was being given to the Protestant denomination and being refused to the Catholic denomination.
The Deputy accused me of breaking what was an agreement between the then Minister for Education, Donogh O'Malley, and the Protestant churches. I say to him that I am not breaching that agreement.
That is not the issue.
The block grant was agreed between——
That is another canard.
——Donogh O'Malley and the Protestant churches. That block grant continues to this day. It is important that I further advise the Deputy that the grant that is made available to the Protestant schools amounts to €645 per pupil. The grant available to ordinary second level schools is €345. They are in a more privileged position.
There is a reason for it.
The Deputy has accused me of putting out misinformation. When I took away this grant, the Protestant bishops agreed with me that they had €2 million in the education committee's coffers that was not spent and that was derived from this grant. In the interim period I asked them to use that money to defray any difficulties that exist and come back to me with a scheme that would look at the Dublin and general urban situation where money is more freely available to families with a view to targeting together those rural schools that are experiencing problems. That was last November and we are now in October, and I am still waiting for the Protestant community to come back with its observations.
The Minister has a difficulty in reading the newspapers and in communicating with these people. If he is in constant communication with them, is he not aware that the Church of Ireland, the Methodist community in Ireland and the Presbyterian Church have publicly asked him to reverse these cuts as late as two weeks as ago? Regarding the Catholic fee-paying schools, the Minister said that he would be discriminating against one church in favour of the other. I suspect he is also unaware of the following point, because he barely understands the detail of this. When representatives of the sector appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science, those representing the Catholic schools made it clear that they had no difficulty in allowing the 21 Protestant schools continuing to have those grants because they respected the position that had historically come down from the time of the introduction of free education in the 1960s.
The Minister has continually put misinformation in the public domain about this issue, which has not been helped by his less than sensitive remarks today. I suggest that he needs to get this right. He is on a collision course that has considerable implications across the island, North and South. Before he goes down the route of seeking confrontation he should think again.
Does the Deputy want a Minister to allow an issue that is not constitutional to continue?
The Deputy is not allowed to answer questions.
I am not prepared to allowed to allow something that is contrary to the Constitution——
What about all the Minister's predecessors?
Allow the Minister to continue.
If I get that advice from the current Attorney General on that basis, then I cannot——
What about all the Minister's predecessors?
Allow the Minister to answer questions.
The Deputy should not ask me to do that. I refer the Deputy back to an occasion when the then Minister, Deputy Martin, was challenged by the Deputy's party on an issue in the health sector. Those in the Deputy's party asked him how long he knew that an issue was unconstitutional before he acted. Is that what the Deputy wants me to do? Does he want me to act as a Minister in an unconstitutional way?
It is a cutback.
I am not prepared to do that for anyone. I am very conscious of the difficulties that pertain to rural Protestant schools. I have pointed out to the Protestant clergy that I am prepared to talk to them and to target and focus. I want them to come back with their suggestions as to how that focus can be properly assigned.