Before I call Deputy O'Brien, I remind Deputies we have six questions today and there are eight minutes for each. Consequently, to ensure we do not eat into the budget debate time, I will be strict on time. Deputy O'Brien has three minutes.
Leaders' Questions
I will do my level best. We are all aware of the housing crisis the Government continues to preside over and of the details of the all-party Oireachtas committee on housing. This Government has been very good on announcements, particularly in the social housing area, but it has been scant and very short on delivery. It may come as no surprise to anyone that while the Government talks about building social housing, the allocation for local authority housing budgets has been cut by 7% for next year. Today, more than 2,300 children continue to live in emergency accommodation. Home repossessions continue apace and to increase because of an Act that the previous Government passed, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act. We have not done anything to stop families going into homelessness and losing their family homes.
The lack of supply is still a very serious problem and is causing issues for house prices as well as for the rental market. As the Minister knows, the rents in Dublin and across the country are back up to 2007 levels. There is a situation right now in which a two-bedroom apartment in this city costs €1,750 per month, yet this Government expects people to be able to save a 20% deposit to buy a house. Getting on the property ladder is practically impossible, yet the Governor of the Central Bank is still refusing to do anything with the deposit rates that he has set down. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has not been able to convince him that setting a ceiling of a 20% deposit for buyers in the market is next to impossible. It is ensuring that families, and young families in particular, are unable to get onto the housing market.
For a €400,000 house, the standard price of a house in Dublin, if one is lucky enough to find one, a person will require an €80,000 deposit, yet the Government has failed to persuade the Governor that changes are required. The announcement in budget 2017 of the first-time buyer's grant initiative will do nothing but push up prices further. The issue of supply has not been addressed. Why would a builder or developer currently selling houses at €400,000 not increase the price? The Government has given them a blank cheque and those who will suffer are those who cannot afford to buy a house. That is why the issue needs to be addressed urgently. Is the Minister and the Government at all concerned about the impact the initiative will have on house prices? Will the Minister confirm if an impact analysis was carried out by the Government of how the initiative would affect house prices? If an impact assessment was carried out, will the Government publish it in order that it can be debated in this House?
I welcome the budget housing initiative. There is to be a 49% increase in the capital allocation for housing next year, a significant investment that underpins the detailed action plan for housing issued by the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney. Action is to be taken under the plan across a range of areas. As admitted by the Deputy, it provides for the provision of 47,000 social homes. There are other initiatives to help builders to start to build, including the affordable rent scheme and the upfront payment for social housing within private schemes. We recognise, of course, that there is a housing supply problem. From my experience in my area, very few starter homes are being built. There are plenty of expensive infilled homes to trade up, but there is a real problem in the starter home market. In the light of the deposit requirement set by the Central Bank for good banking reasons, the Minister for Finance has made provision in the budget for a help-to-buy scheme. First-time buyers of new homes will receive a tax rebate of up to €20,000 which will be immediately reckonable in meeting the deposit requirement about which the Deputy has expressed concern. This will immediately help more young people to get into the starter home market. The Deputy can see with his own eyes that there is no movement in the market. An analysis has been carried out of its different parts and how they are moving. The starter home market is one in which there is low volume and no movement.
If it costs €600,000, it is not a starter home.
It is for a millionaire.
The measure has been designed directly to help the very people to which Deputy Darragh O'Brien refers, namely, young people seeking to get on the home ownership ladder. They are living in expensive rental accommodation and find it difficult to put a deposit together. This is a measure which has been designed directly to assist them.
The Minister did not answer the question I asked him. Has the Government carried out an independent impact assessment of its first-time buyer's grant initiative? If it has, will it publish it? This is not a help-to-buy scheme but a help-to-sell scheme. That is actually what it is. In the few estates being built in my area starter homes are costing approximately €430,000. Will the Minister indicate to the House that he is confident that the initiative will not lead to house prices increasing further throughout the country? We are certain that it will. The Government has set a ceiling, but it will give a €20,000 rebate on a €600,000 house. We should be seeking to set a cap and looking at construction costs, but the Government has no initiative in that regard. It has done nothing about development levies, certification costs, VAT on construction, off-balance sheet developments and other such matters. It could bring in the credit unions which could fund schemes to build affordable homes, but it has done nothing to stop families from falling into homelessness. The number of home repossessions is increasing day after day and the Government is not tackling the root cause of the problem. Has it had an independent assessment carried out and, if so, will it publish it? Will the Minister indicate to the House that he is confident that this initiative will not lead to further increases in house prices because the Government is not addressing the supply issue?
Of course, an independent analysis has been done by the Department responsible for developing these programmes.
Will the Government publish it?
The problem we are addressing is that many builders cannot afford to provide the top-up funding needed to get starter homes. Large estates of 100 houses or more are not being built.
It is a mansions grant.
The Minister has taken direct action to help the starter home market, which is a very important part of the market.
Will it lead to house price increases?
For example, he is making provision for an affordable housing scheme under which developers, many of whom are not back in the market, can get access to cash on a guarantee that they will make homes available at affordable prices.
The scheme is a massive grant for south Dublin.
It will push house prices up further.
They are also getting upfront payment in respect of social homes. We continue to have a problem which the Deputy seems to ignore, namely, that young people are paying expensive rents and cannot put together the deposit the Central Bank, for proper reasons, has set. We do not want a repeat of the banking bubble, which is the reason the Central Bank has set down requirements. The Government is introducing a scheme that will help young people to provide a deposit to be able to purchase homes that are not being built at the moment.
It is a help-to-sell scheme.
I asked if the proposal had been the subject of an independent impact assessment and, if so, whether the Government would publish the results. The Minister did not answer my question.
After all the pronouncements about the universal social charge in Tuesday's budget package agreed by the Government and Fianna Fáil, a worker on €20,000 a year will benefit to the tune of €1.92 per week, while those on €30,000 a year can look forward to an increase of €2.88 per week and a person earning €45,000 a year can expect a whopping increase of €4.43 per week. Pensioners, carers, citizens with disabilities and others in receipt of social welfare payments will get a little more - a whole fiver per week - but not young people who are worth only €2.70 per week, according to the Government and Fianna Fáil.
We have not been told exactly when people will receive these increases but the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, indicated it will be some time in March. As it happens, around the same time another group of citizens will receive an increase in their pay. I am referring of course to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister, his colleagues in Cabinet and the Deputies in the Chamber today. Politicians will not be fobbed off with an increase of a fiver per week though. The Taoiseach is in line to get an increase of almost €5,000 next year, and a further €5,000 per year in the following two years, bringing his salary to an even €200,000. The Minister will not do too badly either, as he will receive almost €4,000 per annum for the next three years, or almost €12,000 in total. There will be no waiting, uncertainty or measly €5 for them. What of Deputies? In April 2017 and again in the following year, they will receive more than €2,500, giving a total increase of €5,200 over two years. This is not exactly fair, is it?
This morning, we were told in some media outlets that Ministers will be asked to defer their salary increase. That is not good enough. A stop must be put to all these increases. When citizens are struggling that would be the fair, right and decent thing to do. It is once again a case of one rule for ordinary families and citizens and another rule for those who are in power. It is an example of looking after No. 1 while the rest can wait. The Government tells us this is new politics but it is the good old days again, which is perhaps not surprising given that Fianna Fáil's fingerprints are all over a budget once again. I have a simple question. Will the Minister assure the House that no salary increase will be paid at this time to the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Ministers, Deputies or Senators?
I thank Deputy McDonald for her question. I am surprised she is not praising the Government for providing an increase for 850,000 people who have not received an increase for eight years, including carers, people with disabilities, people on invalidity pension, blind persons and the unemployed.
I would have thought the Deputy would particularly welcome the fact that, for the first time, we have a very strong, progressive Government, the budget of which will have a very positive impact in helping those who are paid the lowest, as shown in the ESRI's SWITCH model which does not even take into account the additional €8,000 that will be made available to parents availing of child care services as part of the very good initiative introduced by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Katherine Zappone. We have a budget which is balanced and very fair.
I absolutely agree with the Deputy that politicians need to take the lead in being more economical and that is what she will see from the Government. As she knows, we did not accept any of the increases during the term of office of the last Government. In the past few years the pay of Ministers was cut by 35%, as was right. We have also curbed expenses, done away with State cars and sought to make the Dáil a more effective workplace. That needs to continue and the Government will confirm next week that Ministers will not be availing of the proposed pay rise.
Clearly, we are in a situation where we are producing a budget that seeks to address the needs of the country in a balanced way. There are, of course, those who are pressing for pay increases. In the budget we are offering an extra €300 million for increased pay, an extra €300 million for increased social welfare payments and €300 million in tax reductions. The Deputy is right to say these amounts will not have a huge impact in each individual case, but they are fair and balanced. They are being given against a background where we are recruiting an extra 7,000 people for services in the areas of health, education and policing, across all front-line services where there are really pressing needs. The budget takes a balanced approach to delivering for people, not just a sustainable path to achieving full employment but also fairness in a way that will help everyone. This is particularly the case for young people on lower rates of social welfare, to whom the Deputy referred. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, has provided that they will receive the full rate of payment for participating in the Tús programme, back to education schemes and all of the other initiatives that can help to put them on a path towards finding permanent work. A lot of effort is put into building those pathways through traineeships and apprenticeships, in which we are again investing in the budget.
Nobody with an ounce of common sense could claim fairness for a scenario where pensioners, older citizens and carers who save the State a fortune are meant to be thankful for being given an extra fiver a week, while, at the same time, those who hold the highest office in the land are in line for a bonanza in a pay increase. I hear the Minister's response that Ministers are voluntarily forgoing the rise, but that is not what I asked him. I told him - I put it to him again - that the Government had to put a definitive stop to all of the proposed pay increases. That is fair and the decent thing to do and is, I think, what is expected of us, as political leaders. That includes the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ministers, every Deputy and every Senator. I again ask the Minister to tell us if the Government will put a definitive stop to the increase, not provide for a voluntary pause. If it fails to do this, I want him to be aware that we will act to ensure the increases are stopped by way of an amendment, whether it be to the Finance Bill or enabling legislation.
I am surprised at the Deputy. She is the very one who opposed the FEMPI legislation which applied progressive cuts and under which the cut in the Taoiseach's pay was 41%, while those on the very lowest rates of pay were not subject to any cut.
Absolutely.
They are undermining the Haddington Road agreement.
The legislation to provide for a fair allocation of the burden was brought before the House and voted on, but Deputy Mary Lou McDonald was one of those who refused to support it.
(Interruptions).
They can receive health care treatment in the United States.
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald is shedding crocodile tears when she says some individuals should not receive pay increases.
They should renounce the Queen's payment.
It is the pay of the highest paid which should be cut.
We must have order in the House.
We are being very clear. The Government will lead on this issue.
Once again, Ministers will not be accepting the pay increases to be awarded under the restoration of pay arrangement that applies elsewhere. That is to be welcomed.
What about Deputies?
Táimid ag bogadh ar aghaidh go dtí an tríú ceist, in ainm Independents4Change. Tá trí bhomaite ag Deputy Catherine Connolly.
I understand a trade agreement in our name is to be signed by the European Commission on 28 October, having been given the thumbs up by the Government. Unbelievably, it is an agreement that has not been discussed or put to a vote in this Chamber. In reality, it has not seen the light of day in Dáil Éireann. It has been left to voluntary groups, community groups, trade unions, local authorities and non-governmental organisations to inform us of this matter and bring it to our attention. This far-reaching agreement is known as the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, the agreement that dare not speak its name in this Chamber. Fortunately, the public-driven awareness campaign throughout Europe has alerted us to what is going on. There are serious concerns being expressed by Germany, Austria, Hungary and Belgium, to name but a few of the countries, about the agreement. Moreover, the European Court of Justice is examining the EU–Singapore free trade agreement, another new generation deal intrinsically related to CETA. The ruling in this case which will be significant is expected in the spring and shall have significant implications and consequences for how CETA is applied. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has acknowledged that the outcome of this case will have an impact on the scope of the provisional application of CETA. Effectively, the Government is planning to allow the Commission to sign up, in our name, next week to provisional application of the agreement and find out what this actually means in the springtime.
I realise the Government is under pressure from the President of the European Commission, Mr. Juncker, although it did stand up to him in the case of Apple when it suited it. Mr. Juncker is on record as saying the credibility of the European Union's trade policy is at stake. What is at stake is the credibility of our democratic system if the Government allows such an agreement to be signed. In this regard, as the Minister is aware, a recent Red C poll commissioned by Uplift Ireland and which is of help to him informs us that 74% of the population of the country who still believe in democracy want a referendum not only on CETA but also on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. Moreover, the Seanad has passed a motion calling on us not to sign the agreement and, more importantly, to uphold Article 29.5.2° of the Constitution. That article sets out that the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement have been approved by Dáil Éireann. Clearly, the agreement's allowing of businesses and companies to sue states will have serious implications for the public purse. In the circumstances, I am asking the Minister, as a democrat, not to sign up to it. Moreover, he should immediately instigate a frank and open debate in this Chamber.
I thank the Deputy for her question. It is important to bear in mind that well over 200,000 Irish jobs are directly dependent on our trade. In the face of Brexit, which will put pressure on companies selling into the UK market, it is important that Irish businesses gain access to other markets such as the Canadian market. This is an agreement which has been negotiated between the European Union and Canada to allow greater entry to the Canadian market for certain products such as Irish dairy products which, as the Deputy knows, have been blocked. It would open the market to many other Irish companies selling manufactured and other goods. The Canadian market is a good one. It is one in respect of which there is a lot of common knowledge and understanding of the trading approaches adopted. This is an area in which Irish business will use the opportunities provided by the removal of non-trade barriers and the reduction of tariffs to allow Irish companies to create employment. That will be important in the coming years. We need a strong trading economy to enable us to work our way out of our current position.
In principle, the agreements with Canada, the United States and other states are to be welcomed. Of course, as in any negotiation, we must ensure our interests are protected.
Particular concerns have been raised about, for example, the dispute mechanisms surrounding investor agreements, which, I understand, have not been carried through into the Canadian agreement. There will be amendments to those sections and they have been agreed by the trade Ministers.
This trade agreement will be brought before the House for debate in the usual way when its details have been finalised. That is the approach that has always been taken in these agreements. Under EU law, the European Commission is responsible for the negotiations and it carries them out in an increasingly transparent way. Cecilia Malmström, the Swedish European Commissioner for Trade, has made huge efforts to make sure that trade unions and community groups, for example, get access to those papers in such a way that they can understand what is being negotiated. However, in the long term, a trade agreement is good for a small, open trading economy such as ours. We need those markets, particularly in light of Brexit. We need to look at the detail of this agreement and not to leap to the conclusion that any trade agreement is bad. We depend on trade agreements, and many overseas companies invest in Ireland because of the openness that we adopt to trade. I, therefore, ask the Deputy to suspend her judgment on this until we see the final document and the opportunities it presents and we protect ourselves against any risks. There are always risks in any negotiation.
I agree with the Minister on one point, namely, that we need to consider the details of the agreement. That is exactly what I am asking for, that we do not sign up to an agreement about which we know nothing but that we bring it before this House. Is CETA on such thin ice that it cannot withstand free speech and free debate? Is that what the Minister is saying in the context of new politics in this Dáil? I ask him not to sign up to this on 28 October, but to bring the matter before us so that we can discuss it. It is disingenuous of him to say that we need trade agreements and that they are good and to suggest that those of us who raise questions are not behind trade agreements. I am absolutely behind trade agreements and creating jobs in this country. In fact, there is a crisis in the regions because of a lack of jobs. This agreement has nothing to do with that. This trade agreement opens us up to neoliberal policies without any regulation. It opens up our public services and makes it extremely difficult for us, if we change Government in the future, to go back and bring public services back under public ownership. At the very least, if the Minister wants to stand by this agreement, he should bring it before us and let us discuss it in an open and fair manner.
Finally, I was horrified to learn just before I spoke that it would seem a French MEP has been refused entry into Canada because he was to speak on this agreement.
Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.
I am not sure if that is entirely true, but that is what is being reported. If it is true, it certainly indicates-----
Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.
-----how difficult it is to raise any awareness about these trade agreements.
Tá do chuid ama caite.
It is important to recognise that this agreement, even before the negotiating started, guaranteed under its terms that no public service could be interfered with. It guaranteed that there could be no diminution in health, safety or workers' or other rights as a result of the agreement. It provided for protection for many of the things about which people are concerned. Of course, there has been agreement which will open up sectors, so Irish food companies, including those in the Deputy's area, will have opportunities to trade into the Canadian market, which is to be welcomed. The Minister has been very alert to the concerns expressed in this House, and there have been debates on these agreements before Deputy Connolly's time.
No, there have not.
This has been an issue for some time. As the Deputy knows, the agreement has been negotiated over a number of years, so the Minister is very alert to those concerns, as are other Ministers. Modifications have been made to the agreement to take into account public concerns. It will come back for ratification in the House, as normal, and the Deputy will recognise the value of it.
For the record, there has been no debate on CETA until now.
Following this week's budget, we now have spending of €14.6 billion on our health services. That is a huge increase. It is almost 20% of total spending by this Government of taxpayers' money. We have one of the highest health spending ratios in the OECD but we continue to have some of the worst health outcomes. I acknowledge that there are many excellent outcomes and very good practices going on in our hospitals daily, but huge issues remain. The Minister's experience and that of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, who tried to divvy up the funding with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, means they understand the process. It is a headache. A sum of €500 million was already added in October by the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, whom I wish well in his post. Now €490 million is to be added to that.
That is almost €1 billion extra this year, on top of an extra €1 billion last year. There is no accountability. Unfortunately, our outcomes are not improving especially at our accident and emergency departments.
St. Joseph's Hospital, now called South Tipperary General Hospital, in Clonmel is a small hospital when compared nationally. It consistently has 30 or more patients on trolleys every day. The front-line staff are under enormous pressure. A long time ago, when the Minister, Deputy Noonan, was the relevant Minister, when there was agreement to amalgamate and move to Clonmel, we spent €20 million to upgrade Our Lady's Hospital in Cashel to a magnificent state-of-the-art facility and it lies idle. There are no lights on and the doors are closed except for some small activities during the day. It makes no sense.
Why do our citizens have to beg for home help? People with intellectual and other disabilities have to beg and have to deal with HSE bureaucracy. There is something really bad with the bureaucratic system of the HSE. It is past time for this to be tackled. We need to get accountability and proper standards, and we need care for our citizens. That is a very basic right: we are not in a Third World country.
Why are 24 year old mental health patients forced to lie in a psychiatric ward when they should be treated in the community? Mental health services were taken away from Clonmel without putting community services of any value in first. We are making these decisions.
As we speak, in Clare and north Tipperary there is a review of our first responders and ambulance services following the closure of accident and emergency departments in Nenagh and Ennis. Now these will be taken away from us. We have Civil Defence and Red Cross ambulances trying to bring people to hospitals, augmenting the service of the HSE.
I am asking the Minister, who is an experienced Minister, and his colleagues in the minority Government to deal with the layers of management in the HSE. We have 35% more managers in the HSE now than we had in 2007, right at the beginning of our crisis and all the suffering that went on. We have terrible outcomes and scandals such as the recent one with drug payment overcharging by a company, which just paid it back and nobody was held accountable. We need accountability in the HSE. I am demanding that the Government do it. The people want accountability but are not getting it. There are too many issues with people waiting for orthodontic treatment and everything else. There is no proper accountability or transparency.
I compliment the effort of people working on the front line in the health service. It has been a very difficult number of years for them. We have had almost a lost decade in terms of investment in the health service when we would have been building capacity in key areas and that has not been possible. However, despite that and despite a near 10% reduction in the number of people working in the health service, the statistics reveal a 20% increase in the number of patients treated in accident and emergency departments. There was a similar increase in the number of procedures carried out, indicating that our hospitals and care services are delivering.
However, we need to continue to invest and there are gaps, as the Minister, Deputy Harris, has made clear. This year for the first time ever, he will bring the HSE's budget in on target. He will do that next year. As the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, said in his budget speech, there will be very close scrutiny of the way in which health spending is being rolled out, with a precise eye to the sorts of issues the Deputy asked about: waiting times and the experiences of patients at the front line.
Two specific options are being explored in respect of the Clonmel hospital - a modular-build extension, fitting out space in an area currently under construction; and in parallel the HSE will examine the potential for the development of a step-down facility in Clonmel. It is recognised that there has been an 8.6% increase in the number of people who have come to the accident and emergency department in this hospital in the past 12 months, which means there is increasing pressure on those services from growing patient need. The winter initiative specifically targets that hospital as part of the initiatives being taken to try to relieve that pressure.
We will not solve a lost decade of investment in one or two years. This will take a systematic programme of reform and delivery. From the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, and his predecessor, Deputy Varadkar, we have had a clear strategy to implement change within the health service and deliver better at the front line as well as a better working experience for those in it.
I would like the Minister to correct the record. At the Government formation - he was there - we were told there was an overrun of €200 million to €300 million at that time. As he knows, the Minister, Deputy Harris, recently added €500 million. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, needs to correct what he said about it coming in on budget this time.
We are looking in the wrong places.
Fundamentally, the HSE has cannibalised itself and it is not fit for purpose. It is outdated and unfit. We cannot continue to throw money at problems; €1 billion extra last year and €1 billion this year is phenomenal money. I acknowledge there are good outcomes but there could be more although it does not help when the Government closes services in Nenagh and other locations, such as the backup services in Waterford, where patients were coming. We need to correct the record and not throw money at a dysfunctional outfit which is outdated and wasteful. The Minister said we wasted a decade but where was the decade of reform? I want a reply also on the issue of so many less staff in the HSE. There are front-line nurses and doctors, our best, brightest and educated, who will not work here. We cannot keep them in Ireland and they are being sought after worldwide. Why are there 30% more managers? There is a problem in the mushrooming of management while there are no front-line services. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum in the HSE and it is time they were reined in. I want the record corrected by the Minister that health is coming in on budget this year because €500 million has already been added, and with the additional allocation of €490 million it will be €1 billion extra this year.
I understand the budget will come in on target. We will wait and see at the end of the year. I also understand that the provision being made this year for a €900 million increase will allow the HSE to develop a service plan, soon to be available to Members, that will show significant improvement in service across the board. The plan will be monitored very closely to make sure that it too comes in on budget and delivers the improvements. It will include the employment of 1,200 extra people at the front line. There are already 92 primary care centres and the plan includes a continued roll-out, with 30 more under construction and moving into place. That is the sort of long-term reform that would take pressure off the hospitals, see more patients treated within their own communities and have more access to home care support, which is the kind of environment in which people want to be treated. There is a real direction of reform but it will take time. I agree with Deputy McGrath that we have to monitor carefully that the money we put in delivers the results. One could see from the Ministers for Health and for Public Expenditure and Reform a very clear commitment that the monitoring will occur in the next 12 months and we will expect to see value for the money that we ask the taxpayer to put in.
We will not.
I want to raise the issue of the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS. This service offers a wide range of supports with regard to behavioural and emotional difficulties, critical incidents in schools and in meeting the needs of vulnerable children. The service also has an important role in providing educational assessments and necessary reports in order to assist schools in identifying the needs of individual pupils with special educational needs. Under the current system these assessments are critical so children can access basic and vital supports and resources to pursue the best education.
The Education Acts say that every child in the State should be entitled to a high-quality education, but how can they attain a high quality-education when there are not the necessary supports in place? It makes no sense. The practice we have is certainly not in accordance with the Acts. Since 2010 we have seen a cut in funding to the service from €22.5 million to €18.25 million in 2016. It was ironic that only yesterday in the Chamber we had Deputy Micheál Martin crying crocodile tears about the lack of funding for NEPS services, when it was Fianna Fáil that cut the services in the first place when it was in power. Fianna Fáil, despite all its spin, bluster and meaningless waffle, will facilitate the ongoing lack of investment by supporting budget 2017.
The cuts in funding to the NEPS service have had a huge impact on children. As a former acting school principal I know only too well the frustration of trying to secure resources for children under our current system. I know the difficulties that schools face in choosing between the students with regard to resources. We are told that we can only refer one or two children for assessment in a particular year. I have felt the frustration and sheer disappointment of knowing that a child could achieve so much, and could achieve his or her potential with the right, basic supports. They cannot access these supports if there is not an assessment report in place, so the report is needed. We have a cruel situation where parents and schools that can afford it send the children for private assessments.
Not every parent or every school has this luxury. Children from disadvantaged communities are left behind and in some cases they wait years for the proper supports and they fall behind and fall through the cracks in our education system. I have raised the issue on a number of occasions, most recently last week in the Chamber. The budget, supported by Fianna Fáil, allocates no additional funding to this vital service in 2017. How can the Minister possibly justify the lack of additional funding for this service in this year's budget?
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue because it is very important. I assure the Deputy we are recruiting extra people to NEPS and it is within our provision. As part of the programme for Government we have committed to increasing the NEPS service by 25%. This year in the budget we have made provision for 900 additional resource teachers. This is specifically designed to reform the system so there will not be the same extensive reliance on the assessments to which the Deputy rightly describes as often having arbitrary access. The current system is highly dependent on these assessments and we will move away from them in a new model developed by Eamon Stack and the NCSE. The advantage of this model is that it will give schools a guarantee of the type of support they will get, based on the individual needs of the children. They will not have to rely on psychological assessments and will have other data to use to provide this allocation.
This is a very progressive move, which will free up the services of NEPS to provide the type of whole school support for which it was intended. It was not intended to do assessments only: it was intended to support schools in their ability to deliver to children with special educational needs. I am proud that even in the recent very difficult years we got a 46% increase in the number of resource teachers for children with special needs and a 22% increase in the number of special needs assistants. This is a real investment and commitment by the Government to try to support these children. The new model, which frees up the NEPS resources to do more holistic support for schools, which will see an investment over the coming years in more NEPS staff, will be a win-win, with a better outcome for those children who depend on the services. It is an exciting programme and I am very glad to have been able to get the funding this year to commit to this roll-out, which will make a difference to the type of experience the Deputy had in her school in the past.
Why is the funding not mentioned in the budget? Too many children in the State need a report with recommendations to get accommodation in exams, and teachers need the reports to plan. I welcome the idea of the resource teaching model, and we will see how it will work, but the fact it will be nine months before it comes into effect is not good enough. Children are waiting. As it is, it is dire, and the fact they must wait another nine months for a service which may not work, and I have my doubts, is not good enough.
The new resource allocation model should not be used to paper over the cracks caused by the chronic lack of investment in our education system. Educational assessments and other services provided by NEPS will still be critical to provide proper supports for vulnerable children and children with special needs. The programme for Government states a clear commitment to increase funding for the NEPS service, but it is not mentioned in the budget. I do not buy this and I do not accept it as an excuse. Sinn Féin proposed an investment of €3.5 million in our budget. Will the Minister commit to providing additional resources to NEPS, particularly for assessments? I know about this as a teacher, and many teachers have told me they do not buy into the airy-fairy notion of other resources being put in place which may not work.
As I indicated, the programme for Government commits to a 25% increase in the staffing in NEPS and this is one thing we will implement. We are also trying to move to have less reliance on the types of assessments to which the Deputy rightly said disadvantaged children have less fair access. We are moving away from this high reliance. For example, we are simplifying accommodation of exams to make it easier for children who get accommodation at junior certificate to carry it into the leaving certificate. We are trying to free up NEPS to do the type of real work that needs to be done, not writing reports about submissions to get access, but to do work to support schools. At the same time, we are increasing the commitment to resource teachers.
The material in the school to provide those children with the supports they need, therefore, will be increased and we will free up NEPS staff to do the work that was intended. This approach should be welcomed and I look forward to working with the Deputy at the committee on this roll-out, which will make a difference. We are committed to increasing NEPS staff in the programme for Government and this year we are recruiting within our existing provision.
I have just left the meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Skills where we had quite the discussion on an issue relevant to the Minister and to many junior cycle students and their parents as we near the end of the first term of the school year, which is the worry and uncertainty about the distinct possibility that because of the Government's ongoing dispute with the ASTI, thousands of students will automatically lose marks in their English examination next summer. Two weeks ago before the same committee, the Minister said he could not guarantee that students taught by ASTI teachers would not lose out on 10% of their English grade if the dispute affects their ability to participate in classroom-based assessments. As it stands, we have no confirmation from him that every junior certificate student will be assessed equally and awarded an equal grade for equal quality of work, regardless of the union to which their English teacher belongs, and this is simply not good enough.
Alternative models are in operation, which could help solve this problem and provide a guarantee to students that they will not be adversely affected. For example, students who do not participate in oral examinations in junior cycle languages have their written examinations marked out of 100. This means students who do not take an oral component in a language examination do not automatically lose marks. This, or another model, may not be ideal but I ask the Minister to accept the urgent need to have a contingency plan in place. Such a plan requires a great deal of preparation. Will the Minister outline the steps he is taking to make sure these students do not suffer because of a dispute that does not involve them?
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform referred in his budget contribution to fairness and said we are on a pathway to a just and fair society. He said fairness is about investment in education and education is the bedrock of our society. He spoke about access to education and how it has transformed our society and he is right. As John F. Kennedy said, education should be the greatest equaliser of them all. However, for all the Minister's talk of fairness, it is essential that we realise that the most important investment is in our children and in our students and that fairness means we must, first and foremost, make sure they are all treated equally.
The reform of the junior certificate is a huge investment in our young people and it is designed to ensure a much more balanced assessment of the way their learning is done and the way it is measured. Under the new approach, there will be a certificate of achievement, which will measure the projects they have been involved in across a range of subjects, thereby valuing intelligence of different sorts and not just the memory retention that is tested in written examinations. There will also be a classroom-based assessment which each student will write up and which will be examined independently by the State Examinations Commission, SEC. It will account for 10% of the overall mark while the conventional examination will account for the remaining 90%. The value of that approach is that it will allow teachers and learners to engage on subjects in a different way. I recently visited a school in Adamstown, County Dublin, and saw the value of it in teaching science and the way it transformed it. Students are doing projects and managing the understanding of science, not trying to remember what they learned three years ago and writing it down in a three-hour examination. This is something worthwhile.
Sadly, the ASTI has decided that it will not allow the classroom-based assessment to be completed, a decision I deeply regret. This examination process has been set by the SEC and the integrity of the process involves three elements. It is unheard of for a trade union to decide not to allow children to sit part of an assessment pathway provided for them.
Everyone in this House agrees that this pathway is the right direction, although perhaps not everyone else does. We have asked the ASTI to allow its teachers to derogate from the instruction that has been given, so that the English classroom-based assessment can be carried out and the young people sitting their junior certificate have access to that part of the examination. We need to be progressive about the way we teach and this is the right approach. We have invested in 550 additional teachers in this budget to support the roll-out of the junior certificate. Supporting teaching and learning in a new way, to progressively change the environment in which young people learn, is a very important element of the junior certificate. The Deputy stands up for the importance of education as a means to transform our society and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, whom she rightly referenced, recognises that if we want a fair and successful society, we have to value every element of our talent pool, not just the cohort who remember what they learned three years ago and can produce it in an exam. I hope the ASTI will allow pupils to complete the assessment system provided for by the State Examinations Commission.
In putting the question to the Minister, I was not asking him to defend the reform but to help the students and guarantee that they will not lose out on 10% of their marks in English. I hope the Minister can lead, prioritise, instil and inject a real sense of pressing urgency into the ongoing negotiations and that all involved will redouble their efforts to resolve the dispute but the possibility of negotiations failing necessitates having a plan B. The Government has a duty to the students and to the welfare of our young people to show foresight and see the consequences that might flow from its actions. It cannot flail from crisis to crisis without trying to anticipate the events it is putting in motion. The bottom line is that there is an ongoing dispute with the ASTI, which means junior certificate students are going to suffer. The Minister must find a way to level the playing field for these children. Next June, third year students will face their first State examination and no students should have to face that exam, to walk into the examination hall, knowing that before they put pen to paper, they are 10% down on their results through no fault of their own. The Minister for Education should not let that happen.
I regret that Deputy Martin is seeking to play political football with something that is really important. It is unheard of to advocate, in this House, that the State examination system, under which we provide an assessment of every child in the country, should be undermined because one trade union has decided not to co-operate in teaching it over the past number of years.
Deputy Martin did not say that
I am advocating for children.
That is a very irresponsible approach. Deputy Martin should be asking the ASTI to allow the derogation so that children who have studied the curriculum can sit the full examination as intended.
The Minister needs a plan B.
We have to defend the integrity of the examination system. We cannot have an individual union deciding that it will undermine something that has been negotiated with all the trade unions over years and agreed by all except one, in a vote in which there was only a 38% turnout. Now the children may not get the opportunity to sit that part of the exam.
Say that to the students, Minister.
Deputy Martin should not be playing political football with this as it is something that is important to our children. The ASTI should allow the pupils to sit the exam as intended.