Vol. 700 No. 3
6 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Education and Science if discretion can be given to schools to use the recent ICT funds dispensed by his Department for the purposes of enhancing ICT, particularly when advanced systems, such as whiteboards and so on, are already in place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4032/10]
The Deputy will be aware that in November last year I published the Smart Schools = Smart Economy report, which is the new action plan for integrating ICT in schools. The report, which was produced by the joint advisory group, which the Minister established earlier last year, builds on the earlier strategy group report, Investing Effectively in ICT in Schools. It makes recommendations to support the integration of information and communications technology in teaching and learning in schools and contains recommendations across a number of areas, such as ICT infrastructure, enhanced broadband connectivity, initial teacher training and continuing professional development, provision of digital content, etc.
I am in the process of setting up a steering group to advise and oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the report. It will comprise key interest groups including teachers, parents, industry, relevant Departments and students, and will commence its work shortly. As a first step in implementing the recommendations of the report, €22 million in ICT grants was issued to primary schools in November 2009. Funding for post-primary schools will be made available this year.
While the opportunities for student participation offered by the use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom are recognised, effective investment in this technology is dependent on an existing positive ICT culture in schools, and on an existing desirable level of ICT access throughout the school. For these reasons, the priority use of the ICT grants issued in November is directed to ensuring that there is a teaching computer and digital projector in every classroom. The teaching computer will be connected to the schools' local area network and to the digital projector in order to access and show curriculum-based digital content. The reports I mentioned, Investing Effectively in ICT in Schools and Smart Schools = Smart Economy, advise that this combination is an extremely useful and effective teaching tool that facilitates a range of learning opportunities in whole-class teaching scenarios.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
However, where a school already has a teaching computer and digital projector in place in each classroom, the school then has discretion to use the ICT grant to purchase other devices such as digital video devices, visualisers, printers, speakers and interactive whiteboards, to further develop the school's ICT infrastructure. Digital projectors are a prerequisite for subsequent interactive whiteboard purchase and, as such, their purchase as prioritised by my Department, does not militate against purchasing an interactive whiteboard later. Similarly, if a school already has a digital projector in place in a classroom for use with an interactive whiteboard, there is no need to purchase another digital projector for the classroom in question.
All purchasing by schools must be from Department of Finance framework agreements, where available, and in compliance with public procurement procedures generally.
Schools welcomed both the announcement by the Minister before Christmas of €22 million in funding and the decision to lodge the funding in school accounts before the Christmas break. I have been approached by individuals from a number of schools who argue that digital projectors are old hat. Many schools which have advanced far beyond this technology want to use the money provided by the Department in a creative manner, either by paying back loans for whiteboards or acquiring other technology. I do not want to discover later in the year that a large chunk of the €22 million has not been or could not be spent by virtue of the rigid conditions the Minister is setting. I ask him to reconsider the matter and allow schools greater flexibility. Many schools, thanks to having good ICT co-ordinators and principals, are miles ahead of what the Minister is establishing as a basic requirement.
All the reports received by the Department indicate that a digital projector is needed in every classroom. Digital projectors are not old hat if they are not available in classrooms at present. This is required technology which is regarded as a valuable teaching resource. The Department is flexible to the extent that it will allow schools which have achieved the basic level of provision, as set out by the Department, to offset the money they spent on doing so against the grants. That is the key point.
The Department is setting minimum thresholds in terms of the technology available in classrooms for teachers to do their work. It is not open to schools to indicate they are doing something else. They must provide a baseline minimum standard in terms of access to technology. If they have done so and projectors are in place, they can use the money for other purchases, provided these are within the criteria set out by the Department.
Have schools been officially informed to that effect?
Yes, they have been officially circulated that information, which also forms the basis of the reply to the question.
For the purposes of clarity, will the Minister of State consider issuing another circular to schools because there is some confusion on the matter? I am not sure if the Minister of State is as familiar with the position as I am given that I visit schools on a daily or weekly basis. Whiteboard technology is being used in many schools as an interactive tool, in other words, it allows children to get involved in work using a whiteboard. They cannot do this with a digital camera. This is what school principals are telling me.
It is akin to the difference between VHS and DVD.
That is correct. The other important issue principals are raising is that while it is great to have a digital camera and projector or whiteboard, if one does not have broadband or if one's broadband connectivity is poor, the type of equipment available in a school is irrelevant. Schools must be given a little more flexibility and clarity.
Broadband is available in 97% of schools.
It is not available at the speeds required.
The Deputy is not the only Member of the House who regularly visits schools in his constituency. I remind him that the whiteboard is not the answer to everyone's problems in the classroom setting. Those who are a little older sometimes believe that whiteboards are the answer to all the technological and educational needs of teachers and pupils. It is only of use to the extent that teachers are familiar with it and trained in how to use it appropriately in the classroom. I do not accept the argument implicit in what the Deputy inferred from his question.
I did not infer anything.
The purpose of this funding is to improve broadband access by 2012 and ensure teachers are trained to deliver the technology in an appropriate manner. I suspect the school my children attend is far ahead of other schools in terms of its adoption and use of technology. Some schools have been proactive and have pressed ahead, which is good. If schools have established a minimum standard, they can recoup money for the investment they have made.
Have schools been informed of that in writing?
Yes, and if they examine this exchange, it will become clear that the intention of the Department is that schools which have met the criteria and standards in terms of what technology is available will be able to recoup investment. I do not know which teacher referred to digital projectors as being old hat but that is not the experience of most teachers. Some of the Deputy's correspondents are not up to date.
I suspect the Minister of State does not know what he is talking about.
7 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Education and Science when the Student Support Bill 2008 will be enacted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4063/10]
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. These are the development of a single unified grant scheme and reform of the administration of student grants. A number of amendments to the Bill in relation to legal and policy issues which have arisen since Second Stage are being advanced by my Department in close consultation with the Office of the Attorney General.
The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for a unified student grant payment scheme to replace the four existing schemes. The Bill, as published, also makes provision for the transfer of administrative responsibility for student grants to the VEC sector.
In light of the commitment to put all student grants on a statutory footing, I am anxious to provide a statutory basis for all student grants for any interregnum period that may arise, pending transition to new administrative arrangements. This transitional period will necessitate retention of the existing administrative structures in the immediate term. In bringing amendments to Committee Stage I will, therefore, endeavour to provide for existing administrative arrangements for this transitional phase, while progressing to a single scheme of grants as provided for in the Bill at the earliest possible date.
In the context of the Government's wider programme of public service reform, I am also reassessing organisational options for the grants administration function in the longer run, with a view to revisiting the current proposals provided for in the Bill. Possible options for a more significant centralisation of functions are being explored with a view to streamlining operations and maximising administrative efficiency.
These developments have required consideration of a complex set of legal options regarding further amendment to the Bill and my Department has been working closely with the Office of the Attorney General to address the issues in that regard. These proposed amendments are at an advanced stage of preparation. Subject to the technical, drafting and legal considerations arising, I hope to be in a position to have these amendments advanced sufficiently to move to Committee Stage early in the current session.
I believe I am correct in observing that the Minister inherited the Student Support Bill from his predecessor who moved the legislation and the debate on Second Stage. Many of the issues surrounding the legislation have been resolved. For example, the Irish Vocational Education Association has proposed a centralised system of administration which would, by and large, give new legitimacy to the organisation by finding a new role for it, while also delivering the efficiencies sought by the Department. Why is it that the Department is able to provide a five page reply to every parliamentary question it receives but is incapable of showing the same level of productivity when drafting legislation?
A new sense of urgency surrounds the Student Support Bill. The downturn in the economy has created acute problems for students seeking to secure grants under the existing system. Will the Minister speed up the review and establish the centralised system, for which a plan has been drafted but left on a shelf in the Department?
While I accept that this has taken a long time, the Deputy must also accept that significant legal difficulties have arisen. I had to approach the Attorney General on this issue to try to ensure we could advance the process. The Deputy will be aware that a judicial review which was taken created some issues for the Department.
Yes.
He will also recall that one of the fundamental issues that arose during the Second Stage debate was a grant system for part-time courses.
On the issue of having the administration and operation of grants located in a single co-ordinated area, we had to leave the Bill in its current form owing to the economic downturn. This meant we had to address various legal definitions and changes. It is my intention to bring the Bill to Committee Stage in this session.
Deputy Quinn asked a fundamental question about students waiting for grants to be paid. I am concerned that the payment of grants is taking such a long time. As a result of a 30% increase in the number of grant applications this year, the vocational education committees and local authorities are having great difficulty in processing applications. I am examining ways to make the system more user friendly in the meantime. I have asked my Department, the local authorities and the Higher Education Authority to examine ways to speed up the process. For example, I will make the applications available earlier in the current year and we will try to do much more work on-line with regard to applications. When one considers that 50% of all returns to the National Educational Welfare Board are made on-line——
If the Minister will allow, I want to invite other speakers.
——there are greater efficiencies, even under the present operation.
That is welcome news.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the new Bill will be enacted before the next academic year so that students need not undergo the crisis which many of them faced this year? In some cases landlords threatened to throw students out and many payments were not made until December or January. Can we have that level of assurance from the Minister today?
I welcome what the Minister said in respect of the bringing forward of the date of application. It makes absolute sense that at very least applications would be cleared pending the CAO's offer. The Minister might get that information out to the 66 awarding bodies. Presumably they will still be in place next September.
Will the Minister confirm to the House that, according to information I recently received from his Department, there are still 6,500 applications pending? If one takes as a conservative estimate that 60,000 people obtain student grants, effectively one in ten of all students who applied for student support has not obtained the grant some five months later.
As I recall, the last time I answered this question there were approximately 10,000 students in this situation. I do not have the actual figure but will get it for the Deputy. A statement was put by students giving a figure of 6,500. I cannot confirm that now but shall get the exact figure. We are not satisfied with the process. I am seeking to have EFT transfers to banks used as part of the overall process and I will make that available too.
The Minister must ensure the banks do not pocket the money.
Regarding the actual grants, I have asked, through the HEA, that third-level institutions should be flexible with regard to payments on the basis that grants have been held up so much this year. I understand that flexibility applies.
8 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Education and Science, further to Parliamentary Question No. 1053 of 19 January 2010, the amount of moneys spent on grants aiding the purchase of temporary prefab accommodation for schools in respect of the years 2008 and 2009; the number of schools that spent more than €100,000 renting temporary prefab accommodation in 2009; the number of schools that spent more than €50,000 renting temporary prefab accommodation in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4149/10]
Since the beginning of 2008, 557 schools have been approved for funding to purchase prefabs, with an alternative option to build permanent classrooms. To date, 201 schools have indicated a preference to build rather than purchase or rent prefabs. A further 249 have opted to purchase prefabs; the remainder have yet to indicate their preference. In 2008, just under €26 million was spent on purchasing prefabricated accommodation. This reduced to €7 million in 2009. In addition, just over €2 million was spent in 2009 on buying-out existing rental contracts in respect of 105 units in 15 schools, arising from my Department's review of the provision of temporary accommodation.
Of the 790 schools renting temporary accommodation in 2009, 92 schools received over €50,000 in rental grant aid and 73 schools received over €100,000. It is a key priority for my Department to reduce rental costs and achieve better value for money. Significant progress has been made in reducing spending in this area in the last year alone.
In 2009, expenditure on the rental of temporary accommodation fell significantly to €39 million, a saving of €14 million over 2008. This is a clear indication of my success in tackling this area of expenditure in 2009. Furthermore, the number of schools which are renting temporary accommodation has reduced by almost 10% in the last year and I intend to make further reductions in 2010.
A specialist firm has been engaged to review and develop new procedures and systems for the provision of temporary accommodation with a view to achieving best value for money. The work of this review is now well advanced. The target outputs of the review include a set of standardised specifications and a suitable generic contract for the rental of prefabricated accommodation. These will be in place before the end of 2010.
Another important strand of the review is to buy out existing rental contracts. Fifteen of these, involving 105 units, have already been terminated. A further group of schools will be targeted in 2010, with a view to identifying and achieving the most cost-effective solution for bringing to an end the relevant rental agreements.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I shall go through some of the detail in due course and table supplementary questions.
In the light of this welcome departure in terms of policy, which I support, and speaking in a broader context, is the Department aware of the massive demographic cohort of new pupils coming through? The Central Statistics Office predicts an increase of as much as 20% within the next seven to ten years, depending on circumstances. The problem has not gone away, therefore. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that schools can have permanent buildings, now that the building industry has a massive capacity to respond very quickly? There would be three solutions: employment and tax revenue for the State and for those lucky enough to get back to work; decent accommodation for the pupils involved; and permanent building structures rather than the temporary structures that exist. For example, St. Oliver Plunkett's in Malahide is an absolute disgrace.
Deputy Quinn raised this issue with me and when I examined it I was not satisfied with what was happening within the Department in its regard. We have made dramatic improvements. I understood that Deputies Quinn and Hayes were invited to look at the Department's geographical website which shows the precise anticipated growth.
That was presented to the Joint Committee on Education and Science.
Both Deputies have seen it. Obviously, it is a major step forward and in terms of forward planning it identifies very clearly for us where the demand will be and gives us an opportunity to ensure we have proper school structures in place to meet that demand.
Taking my capital programme for this year, despite all that was said last September about my not spending the money I received, the Deputies will find there was a 79% carry-over. I was allowed to carry over 10% of the overall budget and all the spending took place. There is a carry-over of projects to be completed this year. In the capital budget overall, I will have €789 million this year which is on a par with last year. If I continue to get the 30% extra value for money that will obviously increase the output in terms of the number of schools we can build. I am very anxious to progress matters.
In addition, I have asked my Department to speak with the various entities, whether architects or engineers, and go through the new contract process. There was a delay last year and the last thing we want is to have delays in projects arriving on site. A good number of these projects are coming on site in January and February but I want to ensure that when I make an announcement on the capital programme within the coming weeks people will go ahead with plans and we will be able to sustain jobs. We reckon that with the current programme we will sustain approximately 7,500 jobs in construction.
I am pleased that the Minister is to announce more capital projects. He normally does this every February. Will he radically increase the number of announcements this year? The real problem we have had is that we do not get the schools through the planning, tendering and construction stages as quickly as we should. Some of that is down to the tendering process employed since 2008 in the Department of Finance. The big problem last year was that the Minister did not make enough announcements in February 2009. Will he ensure there are more announcements this year? Not all schools will get through to completion stage.
The Minister referred to the fact that €39 million was the rental charge for last year. That was a substantial improvement on the previous year but it is very far ahead of the sums for 2006 and 2007. Some of the money spent last year was in buying out the prefabs in question. Will the Minister agree to make public the findings of the expert group which was appointed by the Minister on foot of considerable parliamentary scrutiny by Deputy Quinn and me during the past 12 months? It would be good to see exactly what the group had to say about the way in which the Department of Education and Science's building unit organises itself.
Obviously, it is a success story and I am glad it is. This will be a public document and will be available. I have no problem in making such information available.
I refer to the capital programme. I will allow myself a wry smile because when I added two schools to the list last year, Deputy Brian Hayes informed me that I was complicit in being political.
The Minister was complicit in being political at that time.
No one could ever accuse him of being political.
Now the Deputy is stating that I did not include a sufficient number of schools on the list last year.
All schools which made applications should have been included.
We included a sufficient number of schools on the list and we met all our commitments. The last thing I want to do is inform a school that it is being included on the list and discover that I do not have adequate funding available in respect of that particular building project.
Only seven of the 70 projects were completed.
Has the Minister had discussions with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance in respect of the schools building programme in the context of some of the reasons outlined by Deputy Quinn? Expanding this programme could act as a stimulus to the economy and could assist in returning people to employment. Has the Minister considered segmenting some of the projects, which would thereby allow them to come in under the EU's radar, in order that local builders and developers and, by extension, local economies might benefit? There are four schools in my constituency which are paying out in excess of €100,000 for prefabs. That is money down the drain.
I am sure the Deputy will communicate further with me regarding the four schools in his area. I met representatives of the Construction Industry Federation recently and discovered that some smaller building firms are concerned about the level of turnover they must have to qualify to tender for projects. I am sympathetic to their plight in that regard. I do not believe a high level of turnover is required in respect of some of the smaller projects. My officials are involved in discussions with the Department of Finance at present in an attempt to reduce the turnover figure to a much more realistic one.
I thought that was an EU threshold.
I do not believe so. One would not need such a level of turnover to tender for certain small projects in rural areas. It would be better value for the Department, in the context of contract prices——
We are only talking about amounts ranging from €200,000 to €500,000 in certain instances.
Yes. We are examining the position and I hope we will succeed in having the threshold lowered.
9 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Education and Science when a decision will issue on the campaign by Educate Together for recognition as a patron of second level schools. [4232/10]
My Department is considering a number of broad policy issues relating to the recognition process for second level schools. The application from Educate Together to be recognised as a patron body at second level is being fully examined within the context of the relevant legal, financial and other factors.
At a meeting last year involving officials from my Department and representatives from Educate Together, a wide-ranging and constructive discussion relating to the issues associated with Educate Together's application to become a patron at second level took place. The discussion also focused on the blueprint for post-primary education published by Educate Together in June of last year. This blueprint outlines the approach by Educate Together to providing an inclusive education where all young people, whatever their ability, will be provided with learning opportunities and classroom practices that explicitly take account of the different ways students learn.
In view of the range of issues involved, it has not been possible to bring this matter to a conclusion as quickly as I would have liked.
The Minister need not continue with the reply, we have already heard it.
He is just about to conclude.
However, it is my intention to finalise this matter and convey a decision to Educate Together at the earliest date possible.
I was trying to be of assistance in saving the House some time.
I appreciate that.
Why have legal issues arisen in respect of Educate Together becoming a patron at post-primary level when they did not arise in the context of primary level? Does the Minister accept that Educate Together schools provide a unique and high quality form of education? Everyone is of the view that there is a difficulty with Educate Together becoming a patron at second level. The question arises as to whether the Minister or someone within his Department is trying to prevent Educate Together's progress in this regard.
As Minister, I want to be in a position to ensure that if we make provision for something, it will stand up to scrutiny and that the legal framework relating to it is correct. Through my officials, I established that the Education Act does not contain a provision with regard to establishing a new model of patronage at second level. We were, therefore, obliged to consult the Office of the Attorney General to discover how we might put in place a proper legal framework. The latter has now been put in place.
The position relating to second level is much different from that which obtains in respect of primary level. In the first instance, it is much more expensive to procure a site, much more land is required and the cost of building a school is high.
That is the big issue.
It is then necessary to ensure the various curricular activities are provided. It is also necessary to consider what will be the impact of the opening of a new school on existing schools in an area and whether the former will be viable in the long term. We are obliged to consider all these issues.
I made it clear, in my reply to a previous question, that we will shortly be making a decision on this matter. I also indicated that I will be bringing the matter before Cabinet soon because I am of the view that the Government should make a policy decision on establishing a new model of patronage at second level.
The emergence of a legal problem has come as a great surprise to people outside the Department of Education and Science. Educate Together did a great deal of work in respect of removing impediments to recognition and with regard to having its existing patronage extended. Is the Minister prepared to publish the legal advice he received in respect of the impediments and difficulties that exist in order that we might be of assistance in resolving this problem? I do not believe he is opposed to Educate Together becoming a patron at second level. However, a barrier exists somewhere. For as long as that barrier remains secret, obscure or incapable of being explained, all sorts of suspicions will be bandied about in respect of the Minister and his stewardship of the Department.
I accept that Deputy Quinn is suspicious of the Department of Education and Science.
Only in the absence of fact.
Two issues arise. First, it became clear that there was no provision in the Education Act in respect of establishing a new model of patronage. In such circumstances, I was obliged to ask my officials, in conjunction with the Attorney General, to consider the position in order that we might overcome that difficulty. The provision contained in the Act related to the provision of new schools rather than developing new models of patronage.
The second issue is that surrounding the making available of legal advice. Deputy Quinn has served as Minister for Finance and he is aware that it is not normal practice to make the advice of the Attorney General publicly available.
I accept it is not normal but it certainly is possible to do so. A precedent exists in this regard.
Section 10 of the Act imposes an obligation on the Minister for Education and Science to provide parents with a variety of options in respect of their children's education. That is his constitutional and legal responsibility. This issue does not merely relate to Educate Together. There is a view among many of the partners involved in post-primary education that any new post-primary school established is ostensibly a VEC. There are many Catholic and Church of Ireland education providers who ask why they cannot provide post-primary schools in emerging areas.
The Minister's assertion that legal advice has been sought in respect of this issue is new. I was of the view that the Education Act makes it clear that patronage is there for all to see. This is especially true of Educate Together which has already established its patronage.
One of the criteria to which the Minister referred is the fact that any new patron would be obliged to cater for a broad spectrum of individuals from the communities it intends to serve. Does he accept that Educate Together is probably to the fore in catering for the needs of the broadest possible spectrum of such individuals?
I accept that Educate Together is very expansive in the context of what it does. I am of the view, however, that the other patrons are equally expansive and forward-looking. Therefore, I tend to place them all on the same footing.
If another organisation had sought to be established as a patron at second level, I would still have had to consider the legal framework — a process I have now completed — in the same way I was obliged to do in respect of Educate Together. The legal framework has been examined and our work in respect of it is complete. It is just a matter of my bringing the matter before Cabinet.
Will that happen days, weeks, years or decades from now?
The Deputy should not try my patience.
10 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Education and Science his plans to review the allocation of English language supports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3675/10]
Significant support is given to schools by way of language support provision. The level of extra teaching support provided in respect of language support to any school is determined by the numbers of eligible pupils enrolled and the associated assessed levels of those pupils' language proficiency. This is done through an annual application process in the spring and summer of each year.
Following the Government decision in budget 2009 on language support provision, my Department published circular 0015/2009 which sets out a structured and transparent process for the allocation of up to four language support teachers to schools. Additional support is available for those schools which have at least 25% of their total enrolment made up of pupils who require language support. Such applications for additional language support are dealt with through the staffing appeals process. In the current school year this additional measure for those with a minimum 25% concentration of pupils needing additional support saw 73 additional language support posts allocated to 64 schools with some of the schools having up to five or six English as an additional language, EAL, teachers because their specific needs were deemed to warrant such intensive support.
Overall, the total number of EAL teachers in the current school year is approximately 1,185 at primary level and approximately 365 at post-primary level. The challenge for schools is to ensure that this very significant resource is used to maximum effect.
My Department is carrying out a value for money review of expenditure on the EAL provision for those primary and post-primary students who do not speak English as their mother tongue. This review is complemented by the evaluation of the quality of teaching and learning as it relates to EAL being carried out by the Department's inspectorate. The review and evaluation are expected to be finalised in the coming months. An OECD report on migrant education in Ireland was also recently published and this will be another source of advice and guidance on EAL provision for schools.
It is important to note that the resources allocated to schools to meet the needs of pupils learning English as an additional language are additional to other supports and funding provided for schools. All pupils including migrant pupils, irrespective of their English language proficiency, are counted for the regular pupil-teacher ratios in schools. Schools have flexibility in how they deploy their EAL teachers to meet the needs of pupils that require language support.
Since the decision was taken in budget 2009 to reduce the number of teachers, what has been the total loss of teachers? The Minister of State has informed the House that approximately 1,500 teachers are in place during this school year. What was the requisite number for the previous school year?
I believe the figure is approximately 600. In my previous portfolio with responsibility for integration, one of the priorities was that if there were to be reductions in the language resource teachers, it would need to be a balancing item in particular in those urban areas, most acutely in suburban Dublin where in the west of Dublin——
Was it a loss of 600?
We will need to confirm that figure for the Deputy.
My priority as Minister of State with responsibility for integration at the time when the reductions were being discussed in the Department of Education and Science——
That is fine. I appreciate the information.
The important point is that there is flexibility in the system where there is a very strong concentration of migrant children.
I call Question No. 11 in the name of Deputy Lucinda Creighton.
We got that answer already.
We shall take it as read.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
11 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Education and Science if he has calculated the rebranding and re-signing costs to constituent colleges of the decision to close the National University of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4226/10]
13 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will reconsider his decision to abolish the National University of Ireland; if his attention has been drawn to the repercussions such a decision could have on the international reputation of higher education here; the way he will abolish the NUI without amending Article 18.4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann; if he will hold a referendum to change the Constitution accordingly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4138/10]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 11 and 13 together.
I stand by the Government's decision to dissolve the National University of Ireland. Since 1997, the NUI has not been a federal university in any real sense. All significant powers ordinarily associated with a university are directly assigned to the four constituent universities of the NUI. They make awards themselves and have their own quality assurance procedures which are externally reviewed not by NUI but by the Irish Universities Quality Board.
While the NUI Senate provides a forum for discussion, on most major issues, the universities themselves make the decisions. Awards of the four constituent universities may continue to be titled NUI awards and I have commenced discussions with the constituent universities about an appropriate mechanism to ensure the protection of the national and international reputation of the NUI degree.
NUI performs a wider range of functions for its recognised colleges — Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), National College of Art and Design, Institute of Public Administration, Shannon College of Hotel Management and Milltown Institute. This includes making awards and acting as an external quality assurance agent. In the context of the new qualifications and quality assurance agency that is being established, I consider that the arrangement where a separate awarding and quality assurance framework is maintained by NUI for a small number of recognised colleges is not sustainable. When the awarding and quality assurance functions are removed, it is difficult to support the continuation of NUI to carry out its remaining functions, the bulk of which would most likely be performed by the constituent universities themselves, as they are by non-NUI universities.
The three then constituent colleges became constituent universities of NUI, along with NUI Maynooth, in the Universities Act, 1997. Two of those universities chose to use "NUI" in their working title. I have no objection to their continuing to do so. No re-branding arises. Most of the five recognised colleges of NUI have already been exploring possible future options for award making and when the dissolution is completed these colleges will need to enter new awarding arrangements. The recognised colleges could enter a quality assurance and award making relationship with the new qualifications and quality assurance agency or with an existing university. However, the names of these colleges will not change and I expect that any re-branding costs would be minimal. Furthermore, the RCSI is seeking to have its statutory degree-awarding powers commenced and I am now moving to have an appropriate review process put in place in this regard.
The international reputation of Irish education must be based on the quality of teaching and research as well as the wider experience offered to international students. I do not believe that the dissolution of the NUI will have any adverse effect in this regard. Indeed, the new qualifications and quality assurance agency will be uniquely placed to employ an integrated approach to securing international recognition of Irish qualifications on the national framework of qualifications and providing external assurance of the quality of our educational institutions. In addition, the new agency will be given statutory responsibility for the administration of a new code of practice and quality mark for international education.
Provisions to dissolve NUI will be contained in the qualifications and quality assurance (education and training) Bill, which is included in the legislative programme. Government approved the general scheme of the Bill recently and it is hoped that it will be published before the summer recess. Article 18.4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states that three members of Seanad Éireann be elected by the National University of Ireland. However, it goes on to say that this franchise may be reassigned to any or all of the institutes of higher education in the State. In fact, it specifically provides that nothing in Article 18 can be invoked to prohibit the dissolution by law of any University mentioned in the article. I acknowledge that alternative arrangements to the NUI's role in electing members of Seanad Éireann need to be put in place in law in advance of NUI dissolution but a constitutional referendum is not required. I will work closely with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on this issue in the context of wider work on Seanad reform.
12 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Education and Science if he has responded to correspondence written by a group (details supplied) on the matter of women who were imprisoned in Magdalene Laundries; further to Parliamentary Question Nos. 547 to 550, inclusive, of 19 January 2010, if he has reviewed the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s position on this matter; if he has reviewed his position on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4152/10]
14 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Education and Science if, in view of new evidence proving the State’s complicity in the detention of women in the Magdalene Laundries, he will support extending eligibility for redress to these women. [4230/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 14 together.
A response has issued to the correspondence from the Justice for Magdalenes group and my officials have been in touch with the group to arrange a meeting with its representatives.
The residential institutions redress scheme was introduced as an exceptional measure to provide compensation for people who were sent as children to, and who were victims of abuse while resident in, industrial schools, reformatory schools and other institutions in respect of which a public body had had a regulatory or inspection function. The Magdalene Laundries were privately-owned and operated establishments which did not come within the responsibility of the State and were not subject to State regulation or supervision. Accordingly, the laundries do not come within the scope of the redress scheme.
In recognition of the fact that some children were transferred from State-regulated institutions to laundries, section 1(3) of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 provides that a child who was resident in a State-regulated institution and who was transferred to a laundry where they suffered abuse while so resident, will be deemed, at the time of the abuse to have been resident in the State-regulated institution. This provision was included on the basis that the State was still responsible for the welfare and protection of children who were transferred to a Magdalene laundry from a State-regulated institution provided that they were not officially discharged from the institution.
While the Justice for Magdalenes group acknowledges that the State did not license, regulate or inspect the Magdalene Laundries, it is calling for a distinct redress scheme for the former residents, including children and adults, on the basis of the State's failure to meet its constitutional responsibility to protect them.
The Justice for Magdalenes group has also raised the issue of girls being referred to the Magdalene Laundries via the criminal justice system. This issue is being examined by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the results of the research so far were outlined by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the replies to parliamentary questions last week, to which Deputy Rabbitte's question referred.
My statement in a letter last September to the effect that the State did not refer individuals to Magdalene Laundries nor was it complicit in referring individuals to them was based on my Department's understanding of the position. This was also the understanding of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Following an inquiry from my Department and contact from others, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform examined the matter and has since confirmed that some women were referred to laundries via the courts system. I accept that this was the position as opposed to the position regarding referrals outlined in my letter of last September. It remains the case that these institutions were not subject to State inspection or regulation.
My officials are continuing to liaise with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding its inquiries and expect to meet representatives of the Justice for Magdalenes group at an early date to discuss the issues raised.
Although the time has expired, I shall allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Quinn.
The Minister has answered my supplementary question. I was going to ask if he would meet representatives of the Justice for Magdalenes group. I now understand that that will happen. That was all I wanted to know.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
