Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Apr 2017

Vol. 945 No. 3

Other Questions

Teachers' Remuneration

Thomas Byrne

Ceist:

34. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will implement equality of pay for newly qualified teachers. [16487/17]

This question seeks to ask whether the Minister for Education and Skills will implement equality of payscales for newly qualified teachers. This is a running issue. I acknowledge some progress has been made on it, and I was pleased to be able to utilise the pressure of the Fianna Fáil Party in this regard. We have a commitment on this. It is an issue that is affecting morale in many schools, despite the progress, because people will not be happy, and rightly so, until full equality of payscales is achieved.

Equality and fairness are, of course, at the heart of everything this Government is trying to do, particularly in the education area where I am particularly focused on creating better opportunities for people from disadvantaged communities in our schools system and in higher education. The recent budget included measures seeking to do this.

The public service agreements have allowed a programme of pay restoration to start. I have used this to negotiate substantial improvements in pay for new teachers. The agreement reached with the TUI and the INTO in September will see pay rises of between 15% and 22%, that is between €4,600 and €6,700, for new entrant teachers. The agreements also provide for earlier permanency for younger teachers, new promotion opportunities and new flexibilities in working hours. The pay increases for new teachers were, of course, also available to ASTI members but unfortunately in a recent ballot they were not carried.

The agreements have restored an estimated 75% of the difference in pay for more recently recruited teachers and deliver full equality at later points in the scale. This is substantial progress and strikes an equitable balance with other claims for funding on my Department, particularly for example enhanced services for children with special educational needs, disadvantaged schools, growing schools, higher education and apprenticeships. I could list many more.

Further negotiation on new entrant pay cannot focus on just one sector. A broader assessment of pay and new entrant pay across the public service will be informed by the analysis of the Public Service Pay Commission, and it will look at individual sectors such as teaching. I accept the teachers' unions have outstanding pay demands and that the new entrant deal does not travel the full distance they set out to achieve. However, it does represent significant progress and the door is not closed to the trade union movement seeking to advance the issue further in the context of future public service pay talks. Negotiations on a successor agreement to the Lansdowne Road agreement will shortly get under way.

I and my party have repeatedly called on the Minister to make a full public statement on his and the Department's commitment to achieving equality of payscales and equality of pay for newly qualified teachers. While this is an issue across the public sector the number of public servants affected by this is disproportionately large in the Minister's Department and among teachers. This is why the Minister for Education and Skills needs to be at the vanguard of this, making the case at the Cabinet table and making the case publicly for our newly qualified teachers. This in itself will be a signal of seriousness of intent and hope for newly qualified teachers that they can get to a situation where their payscales are equal. It would also send out a strong message to the ASTI. There would be no excuse for rejection of what is on the table if the Minister was to make these types of statements. He has not done this and it has not helped the situation. He could do it in the way Fianna Fáil has done it, and perhaps offer a pathway to full equality and state this is when it can happen, that it will take time and that we have the public sector pay commission. Giving this indication as to how it will happen would mean a lot in terms of teacher morale.

As the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, has pointed out, full restoration of all of the cuts would cost close to €2 billion and we have to make a phased arrangement. Under existing arrangements we are making a commitment of not far off €1 billion in restoration over the period of this agreement. We have the public pay commission and I know the INTO and TUI will pursue the cases the Deputy has made. From my point of view, I have to deal with public pay policy and I also have to try to deliver equity to those who have need and a call on the Department. With regard to what we can achieve in any given year, we have to balance the rightful ambition for teachers and young teachers to see restoration of pay with the other demands on the Department. These issues are encapsulated in the Lansdowne Road agreement. This is the arena within which we seek to resolve these balances and it is continuing with the Public Service Pay Commission and the successor to the Lansdowne Road agreement. This is the arena where we have to address the issues raised by the Deputy.

We have made some progress. This time last year at their conferences, young teachers got together and demanded progress and the political system reacted. Fianna Fáil certainly used its position to make this progress happen with the INTO and the TUI and I congratulate their negotiators for the work they have done and which they continue to do in terms of putting pressure on the political system and forcing us to make sure their demands are heard. This was progress. There is nothing to say the Minister cannot say that as a political system and Government we need to acknowledge that pay equality is what we need to achieve. Nobody is expecting the Minister to write a cheque this year because we know there has already been an uplift in January and there will be another one next January. Nobody is expecting the Minister to write a cheque immediately, but he should give a signal that he is serious about this and that it can happen. The Minister gave this signal last summer when those negotiations started. We are at an early stage, but it is very important that in Dáil Éireann we continue to advocate on behalf of those newly qualified teachers and to state what has been going on with regard to their salaries is wrong, and that the Minister joins in this call, particularly at the Cabinet table.

I negotiated a deal with the three unions. In the event, one of them was not able to carry the agreement. It has restored 75% of pay and delivered full equality at later points in the payscale. I know the trade unions representing teachers will go to the Public Service Pay Commission, which is an objective, fair and independent body, to assess the very issues on the table. There will be various issues put forward by the trade unions in various parts of the sector. We must rely on the trade unions, the commission and the subsequent successor to the Lansdowne Road agreement to deal with these issues fairly and deal with the various elements of the demands for various parts of the public service unions. This is the arena we have created and it allows us not only to meet the rightful ambitions of workers in the public service but also to deliver the improved services for which the Deputy's party also asks. We are trying to strike this balance. We are doing the best we can with the available resources and we have a good process that gives people an avenue to pursue their concerns.

Question No. 35 replied to with Written Answers.

Permission has been given to Deputy Curran to deal with Question No. 36.

Special Educational Needs Service Provision

John Lahart

Ceist:

36. Deputy John Lahart asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason some schools are being unduly penalised in respect of their special needs teaching allocation under a new departmental circular, such as a school (details supplied). [16496/17]

On behalf of my colleague, Deputy John Lahart, I would like to ask the Minister why St. Killian's junior national school in Tallaght is being unduly penalised with regard to its special needs teaching allocation under the new departmental circular.

My Department's circular has set out details of the new model for allocating special education teachers to schools. The new special education teaching allocation provides a single unified allocation for schools, based on each school’s educational profile. No school, including the school to which the Deputy has referred, will lose supports as a result of the implementation of the new model. An additional 900 teaching posts have been provided to support the introduction of the new model. There has been a progressive improvement in resource teaching over the years since 2011.

The school referred to by the Deputy in his question had a general allocation of 50 hours - that is the general allocation model, GAM, element for 2016 to 2017. This, combined with 30.18 resource teaching hours allocated to the school by the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, for children with complex needs, gave a total allocation of 80.18 additional teaching hours for 2016 to 2017. As the profiled allocation for this school did not indicate an increased allocation requirement for the school in 2017 to 2018, the school maintained its existing level of allocation. The special education teaching allocation for this school is 80.18 hours for the coming year. There has therefore been no reduction to the special education teaching allocation for this school as a result of the introduction of the model. The NCSE has announced the commencement of an independent appeal process through which schools may appeal the allocation made to their school if they believe the data upon which the allocation is based is incorrect or has been incorrectly used.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I am looking at the figures he quoted. To be specific, he mentioned that the figure for last year was 80 hours and that it will be the same next year. He makes the point that this is not a reduction. The problem is that in this particular school in 2016 and 2017, the information is that there were 30 hours. However, if one looks back to 2015 and 2016, the same school had 60 hours in that allocation and had been at 50 hours over the five-year period. Effectively, the 30 hours that the Minister refers to in his answer to me today was the smallest recorded in any of the last five years. That is the basis for next year's allocation and is the issue that the school is complaining about. It is saying that it is not reflective of what had happened last year or over the previous five years. It is not out of kilter by a small bit, but is substantially out of kilter. That is the crux of the problem when averaging over a one-year period only and only taking last year's figure into account.

The model will provide for some additional provision in exceptional circumstances, where the school's new intake, in the case that the Deputy describes, is substantially different from the intake it had in the past. The school will have to demonstrate to the NCSE that this has been the case. The NCSE will work with the school to seek to resolve those issues. Additional hours may be made available to the school where it can be demonstrated. The merit of this is that the school has resources now. It does not have to wait for the assessment. This diagnostic test has been taken away. There are many advantages in the new model. If, as the Deputy says, there is exceptional change in the profile of the school, that is something that the NCSE will look at.

I welcome that there is an appeals mechanism. The exceptional profile in this case was that the resource teaching hours for the single year in question dipped to 30. It had been 60 hours in the previous year and the average over five years had been 50 hours. The exceptional circumstance was the dip. That is the concern with this general allocation model. One particular year is being taken on its own, which may not be representative, and is clearly not representative of what has happened in this case. I acknowledge that there is an 80 hour allocation, but that is under what would have been the norm for the previous years. I welcome that the appeal mechanism is in place.

The complex needs aspect takes into account the four cohorts. There are four years from junior infants right up to second class. It looks at the complex needs profile of those schools. That complex needs profile is delivered to the school. For that to be dramatically wrong, the cohort leaving the school must have dramatically lower special education needs than the cohort joining the school. If the school can demonstrate that the situation is that the new intake is dramatically different from the children who have moved on into third class and into another school, then that is the material that the NCSE would look at, and it would work with the school to resolve the situation. We need to see the actual enrolment. That would have to be evaluated exactly, based on the children concerned.

Third Level Funding

Thomas Pringle

Ceist:

37. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to introduce income contingent student loans as part of the future funding model of the third level education sector despite the concerns raised regarding the introduction of this type of funding model on access rates and problems associated with debt burden; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16504/17]

This question is about the Cassells report and trying to see what the Department's view is on the potential for student contingent loans.

The Cassells report considers a number of potential funding options, including for deferred payment of student fees. It is currently being examined by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills with a view to making recommendations on a long-term sustainable funding model for higher education. This process includes receiving input from relevant stakeholders. It will be important to obtain political and societal consensus on achieving a sustainable funding model for the higher education sector in the future and my Department and I continue to work with the committee as it undertakes its deliberations.

In a follow-up to the expert group report, appropriate technical work will be undertaken by an interdepartmental group chaired by my Department on income contingent student loans in order to inform future funding policy options, including in light of recommendations from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills. In advance of these recommendations, however, I have taken immediate steps to increase funding for higher education, the first such increase in nine years. Increased Exchequer funding of €36.5 million was secured in this budget for the higher education sector. This includes an increase in funding available to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and other under-represented groups to assist them in overcoming financial barriers to accessing and completing higher education. Provision is also being made in the Department's expenditure ceiling in 2018 and 2019 for demographic increases which cumulatively represent an additional €160 million investment in the sector in the period 2017 to 2019.

In addition, the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform are currently undertaking a public consultation process on a proposed Exchequer-employer investment mechanism for higher education and further education and training. It is estimated that the mechanism, which proposes an increase in the national training fund levy from 0.7% to 1% between 2018 and 2020, could yield close to an additional €200 million revenue in 2020. Comments on the proposal may be submitted to the Department by 5 p.m. on Thursday, 13 April. Full details of the consultation process are available on the websites of both Departments. The intention is that, taken together, these approaches will contribute to and inform the development of a long-term sustainable funding model for the higher education and further education and training sectors.

I thank the Minister for his response. It seems from his response that the Department is going ahead and doing much work on how student income contingency loans would work in practice alongside the work the Oireachtas committee is doing. The Department has not actually contributed to the work the committee is doing at the moment. It has not given evidence there. Why is the Minister developing the system parallel to the work the committee is doing if the committee might recommend that there should not be income contingency loans? Is it a case that it is actually a fait accompli and the decision has been already taken within the Department?

No decision has been taken. We should prepare if it is intended to make a move. Part of the Cassells report is that, over the last number of years, the higher education sector grew by something like 25% with no increased State funding. The report is anticipating another 25% growth and recognises that doing nothing about this is not satisfactory. It outlines three sources of potential funding. One is the Exchequer, which we are pursuing. The second is employers, which we are pursuing. The third is the possibility of this student contribution mechanism. It would be imprudent of us not to look at the technical side of that, should it be decided by the Oireachtas that this is the direction we want to go. It is prudent to do that preparation.

This is something the Oireachtas has to look at as a group, just like we are looking at health funding and pension funding in the long term. The Cassells report has set out issues that should be looked at, such as the extra earnings that someone who graduates gets, and whether it is fair to ask such a person to make a contribution back. We also have to look at access for students who do not come from backgrounds or families who can afford it. Would they be put off or could their needs be dealt with by other mechanisms? Might collection problems arise? All these are issues that we need to assess. That is why the Oireachtas is taking its time. We are available at any time to answer questions on any issues the committee wishes to raise.

I take it from the Minister's response that options one and two are being pursued but he failed to say whether he was pursuing option three, the income contingent loans. I take it from his response that the Department is pursuing the loans. That is regrettable and should not be done because it places a huge burden on students and does not contribute anything to accessibility or affordability for students. There is ample evidence from across the world that most student debt is made of interest charges that accrue at a later stage through the income contingency loans. The Union of Students in Ireland is implacably opposed to it. Many of the Members of the House are opposed to it. I am seriously worried that the Minister is pursuing option three in parallel with options one and two and is going to try to develop some sort of hybrid of all three as a way of lessening the burden. That is not acceptable.

The Minister has announced today that a technical study is being carried out. That has come as news to me, as a member of the Joint Committee on Education and Skills. We had decided to do a technical study because Peter Cassells recommended it. This is a new departure from the Minister. The best thing to do is that the Department fund an expert who joint committee would then hire through public tender who would then carry out a technical study. That would be the best and most independent way of doing it. We need resources to do that. I agree that it should be done fairly. It is shocking that the Minister would announce that this is going ahead given that all previous replies were that every issue relating to the Cassells report was being referred to the Oireachtas committee.

We are working on every issue that has been raised. We are looking at the employer mechanism, which obviously can be assessed by the committee, and the Exchequer mechanism. I am not sitting on my hands and waiting for the assessment work to be carried out. I am moving immediately because there is a crisis, and I am acting to deliver cash straight away, to put an employer's mechanism in place which hopefully will be agreed in the budget, and I am making contingency preparations with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform should it be decided that this is the route to go. I can assure the House that the budget is not exhaustive. We are looking at issues such as cashflow impact, which is the sort of thing that clearly is an issue if this is to be a workable operation. That is wise planning, but we are not making any assumptions about what the Oireachtas committee might recommend to us.

Teachers' Professional Development

Joan Burton

Ceist:

38. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number and total funding of education centres in each of the past five years; the current overall budget for such centres; his plans to utilise such centres as a resource to support teacher CPD in view of the fact the policy on such CPD is developed by the Teaching Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16508/17]

I would like to ask the Minister about the number of education centres and the funding of them in each of the past five years given that there is an enormous appetite among teachers to have continuous professional development. They need it and they are anxious to acquire it. What is the budget in this regard? How many centres are there? Can the Minister tell us a bit more about it? The Teaching Council also has a role in this regard.

The network of education centres consists of 21 full-time and nine part-time centres.  Their principal activity is to facilitate the local delivery of national programmes of teacher professional development on behalf of my Department. They also organise a varied local programme of activities for teachers, school management and parents in response to demand.

My Department is the main source of funding for centres through direct grants for core and local course funding. Centres also receive funds for administration costs and room hire from Department-funded support services. The following table provides details of funding issued by my Department for each of the past five years. A total of €17.9 million issued to centres in 2016. It is up, although not dramatically, over the past number of years. It is up from just over €17 million.

Centres also have other sources of income including, hire of rooms, local partnerships and partnerships with other State bodies.

I have committed under the Action Plan for Education to a programme of actions for the further development of our CPD programmes and their organisation. Under this commitment, I will consider options for the legal model and potential functions of a centre of excellence to have oversight of the supports for school improvement and professional development of teachers, including research and identifying international best practice. The action plan commits to considering the potential of education and training boards, ETBs, to support the delivery of national programmes of continuing professional development. The core remit of education centres as providers of local and innovative training opportunities for teachers will be considered. I am committed to progressing this action item in the second quarter of 2017.

The Teaching Council functions in relation to continuing professional development provide that the council will advise me in relation to teachers’ CPD, promote engagement in CPD, conduct research and raise awareness of the benefits of teachers’ learning, among the public and teaching profession alike.

FUNDING

Full Time Education Centres

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Core Funding

€3,024,899

€5,099,374

€4,744,723

€4,735,081

€4,738,815

Support Service - Allocation 

€14,846,935

€12,778,670

€12,850,471

€12,329,908

€12,640,164

Overall Allocation

€17,871,834

€17,878,044

€17,595,194

€17,064,989

€17,378,979

*The 2016 core funding allocation was adjusted as education centres were required to use accumulated funds held by the centre at the end of the 2015 financial year to meet their expenditure in 2016.

**The 2016 figure includes a minor works grant - 10% of core funding - which was introduced in 2016 to assist in the upkeep of the centres buildings.

The Minister probably knows that we have a large and very enthusiastic number of young teachers, particularly in growing areas of the country like the greater Dublin region. These people have spent four or five years in college, depending on whether they are primary or secondary teachers. They then go out, very enthusiastically, to teach in the classroom at primary level or secondary level, and unless there is a really good programme of continuing professional development, once they have gone into the classroom, they can be left very isolated. The Minister addressed an excellent conference last week on the forthcoming changes in the primary curriculum which take into account the fact that 95% of children who have gone to primary school have already been at pre-school. There is a disconnect - a shock, in fact, for many kids - when they move from the play and activity-orientated pre-school into a much more regimented primary system. Some excellent ideas were put forward by people like Fergus Finlay as to how it might become more child friendly. What is going to be the role of continuing professional education to make some of the proposed changes work?

Deputy Burton has raised a few issues. There is no doubt that this is a very important area. We need to look more deeply at its impact and at the quantity and quality, and that is why this review is being carried out. At the moment we have 206,000 CPD deliveries, which is up by 23% in the last four or five years. It includes substantial elements for new teachers, including induction under Droichead. It has special education, curricular support and the junior cycle. It also has school leadership as a significant element, with a new centre for school leadership. I share the Deputy's view that transitions are absolutely crucial, and we should look more closely at those transitions between pre-school and primary and between primary and secondary. Those are points where children can get lost in the system. The purpose of the review of the curriculum the NCCA is talking about is to see if we can better aligned those, both at the start and end of primary education, to ensure that children make those transitions more successfully. I agree with the upskilling of our teaching workforce in a time of very rapid change in education. The advent of technology and the power that can have to change the learning environment is an area we need to focus on and get good value from.

Could the Minister discuss the centre of excellence he spoke about? He also spoke about a potentially very significant new role for education and training boards, ETBs, particularly at primary level. ETBs only have a small number of primary schools in the country. Is the Minister suggesting that the ETBs might in some way become the vehicle for the education centres? Will the Minister ensure that the different levels of the teaching profession are consulted in full about any changes? The Minister spoke about remedial education and special education. Many people who go into careers in education and develop an interest in those areas would be unable to reach the level of skill and training they have without CPD.

The review is open-ended. It needs to look at best practice in the delivery of upskilling for teachers.

At the moment it is divided into a number of education centres and it does not have a central directorate which would identify the direction we should take in the longer term. We need to ask if we need more central policy direction in this area.

The education and training boards are a new creation and they are now developing a diversity of services and supporting clustering in different areas. It is worth examining whether they should have a new role in this area. Over time they will evolve additional support services for schools in their neighbourhoods and I am keen to consider that so that we have a local response to local needs on an even greater scale. This is open ended and there will be opportunities for all interest groups to contribute. It is of intimate interest to teachers and all stakeholders in education. We can deliver better in this area, over time, and I will continue to assess the situation accordingly.

Institutes of Technology

Mick Wallace

Ceist:

39. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to expand the Wexford branch of the Institute of Technology Carlow or to establish a new institute of technology in County Wexford to deliver greater educational and training opportunities to students in the county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16541/17]

Wexford has one of the highest rates of people with no primary education, at 18.5%, and there is a secondary school accommodation crisis even though we are building two schools at the moment. Some 21% of the population of Wexford have completed third level education, the joint second lowest rate in the country, lower than the average for the south east of 23% and far lower than the State average of 29%. Does the Minister not think it would be a good idea to put a third level institution in Wexford?

The Institute of Technology Carlow has a Wexford campus, based in Wexford Town, which offers an extensive range of award qualifications from level 6 through to postgraduate level 9 on the national framework of qualifications.

My Department is also supportive of the proposed acquisition of a site in Wexford for development of the IT Carlow campus.  Funding has been allocated to enable IT Carlow to acquire this site in that context, with a view to developing a new purpose-built campus there.  The Higher Education Authority has approved this site acquisition on that basis.

There are also plans in place for the development of a technological university for the whole south east region consisting of a consortium involving IT Carlow and Waterford Institute of Technology. The Kelly report on the development of a technological university for the south east presented a compelling rationale for a new type of higher education institution to support a step change in the economic and social development of the entire south east region.  This is clearly the overwhelming wish of stakeholders in the region.

By creating institutions of greater scale and strength, high-quality multi-campus technological universities will be able to bring greater social and economic benefits to their respective regions through the delivery of a broad range of high-quality education and training in each of their campuses. The core elements of a new technological university in the south east have been already set out.

With regard to the legislation to underpin the development of technological universities, the legislative programme was published on 17 January 2017 and the Technological Universities Bill is listed on the Dáil Order Paper and awaiting Committee Stage.

Following the finalisation of the ongoing consultation process I will then advance the legislation, having determined a position in relation to any matters raised.

There is confusion as between the south east and Wexford because they are two different areas. The south east is probably one of the more deprived regions in the country but Wexford is the most deprived county in the south east. According to the Department's projection, there will be an increase of some 57,000 students seeking full-time education soon, which does not take into account part-time demand or attracting more international students. This is equivalent to four DCUs. Waterford and Carlow have been fighting over which of them should become a university but there is a good argument for starting anew in Wexford. It is an incredibly deprived county with 18.5% on the live register, which is shocking when compared to the national figure. Education is a way out of this and putting a new third level institution in Wexford would make a lot of sense in this context.

Nothing comes cheap but the costs of construction are not the biggest costs. The biggest costs are running it on a day-to-day basis so there is a good argument for putting it in Wexford. I know the national strategy does not think along those lines but that does not mean the Minister should not take a broader view.

We have to look at what is the most effective way to develop regional strength. I regard human resource and talent development as core to the development of any region, including the south east. Any fair assessment would advise against creating myriad new institutions that do not have a solid foundation and cannot make a solid offering. This is from where the technological universities approach came. It is about merging a number of institutions under one body that can give the strength, width and depth that modern regional development needs. We need to move more into applied research and need more level 9 and 10 qualifications, as well as a deeper engagement with the enterprise and public service sectors to develop genuine regional competitive advantage. This approach does not involve "one for everyone in the audience" but tries to create a model that can bring a region to a higher level. This is important from the point of view of regional development because we cannot plan to have a university in every one of our 26 counties. We have to build on resources that will be strong and resilient and will deliver the quality service we need in the regions. Technological universities require mergers and multi-campus locations.

I am aware of the thinking of the day. The national strategy for higher education report of 2011 stated that any such move would reduce the diversity in the overall system and have a negative impact on its ability to respond to the country's innovation needs and development opportunities. I wonder if this thinking is driven by university league tables. The thinking the Minister is offering delivers an outcome in which the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Wexford needs to play catch-up but it is falling further behind all the time. As long as the philosophy of the Minister is applied we will fall further behind. We will be in a worse situation in ten years' time unless there is a change of thinking. There is a really good, rational argument for thinking outside the box and looking at areas that need more help. The primary obligation of a State should be to take best care of those who most need its help, whether they be deprived communities or regions. Wexford is among the three most deprived counties in Ireland, with the county of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Donegal, also in the top three. Unless there is joined-up thinking on the part of the Government we will continue to lag behind and will not close the gap. The inequality gap will actually widen.

We are offering joined-up thinking, while the Deputy is offering traditional pork barrel politics by asking for a university in every county. If we have small institutions that cannot deliver the service their regional base needs it will produce a second-class offering to the people, including in Wexford. I am trying to create a quality regional institution, a technological university, that can have the necessary research, progression and innovation capability to be a genuine support to regional diversity and development.

All the work is in Dublin. There is no work in rural areas.

School Accommodation

Carol Nolan

Ceist:

40. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to reduce the number of prefabs being used by schools. [16500/17]

The programme for Government contains a commitment to eliminating the use of prefabs in our schools. What actions has the Department taken on this to date? How are we going to move towards the elimination of prefabs? Can we have a timeframe and a date for it?

As the Deputy is aware, it is my intention to replace all purchased temporary accommodation with permanent accommodation, where the need is established, over the lifetime of my Department's capital programme, 2016 to 2021. To enable this development, my Department will carry out an assessment of the number of prefabs being used in schools to deliver the curriculum. This will also determine whether individual prefabs need to be replaced in the context of the long-term accommodation needs of each individual school. When completed, this assessment will quantify the number of prefabs to be replaced.

It is intended that this assessment when finalised will enable the replacement of such prefabs to commence in 2019. A funding provision of €180 million is being made available from 2019 for this initiative in the programme.

As the Deputy will be also aware, it can be necessary to make use of temporary rented accommodation in order to meet the accommodation needs of schools, when an immediate or short-term need arises. For example, a school may require a temporary building in circumstances where a major school construction project is planned. Such temporary accommodation is removed when the major project concerned is completed.

I thank the Minister for his response, but I am disappointed at the lack of urgency. Based on responses I received to parliamentary questions, I am aware that an assessment was due to be carried out. I understand this assessment process has not commenced. I ask the Minister to confirm if that is the case. I ask him to give an indicative timeframe for the assessment process because we cannot eliminate them until this process is complete.

It is a serious issue. As the Minister is aware, money is needed in all sectors of our education system. However, €128 million has been wasted on prefabs over the past five years. That figure came from data recently reported in the media following a freedom of information request. The issue needs to be tackled. Approximately 950 prefab units are being rented in primary and post-primary schools. I have been informed that the process of replacing the prefabs will not commence until 2018. Along with many parents and teachers, I feel this is not good enough. Will the Minister commit to giving the matter urgent consideration and put in place a clear timeframe for the issue to be addressed? I also ask for clarity on the assessment issue.

On the positive side, compared with a decade ago we have half the number of rented prefabs. However, we recognise this is an area we need to address. Obviously, there is pressure on the education capital budget to ensure there is provision for every child. We are going through a period where 20,000 additional places need to be delivered every year, which has absorbed the majority of the budget. Notwithstanding that, we are making provision for this and it will commence. The target is that this will start in 2019. The review will be undertaken in a timely manner to deal with that.

The figure I have for the cost of renting the 950 prefabs is €25 million. As I said in the original reply, in any system there will be a requirement for temporary accommodation because populations wax and wane. We are clearly committed to bringing it down to a lower figure than the current level over time.

I again thank the Minister for his response. I welcome the reduction. The €128 million figure relates to the past five years and came from the media, based on freedom of information data. I remain unconvinced that the issue is being given the priority it deserves. We are wasting millions of euro that could be channelled into special education, for example, as we mentioned earlier and many other different areas. Building schools will save money in the long term because we will not be wasting millions on prefabs that provide substandard conditions.

I have spoken to principals who have informed me that they could have had their extension built three times over for the same amount they have poured down the drain for their prefabs. Further money is being wasted on maintenance of these prefabs. As the Minister knows, many of the prefabs deteriorate over time. I have seen many of them in a dilapidated state - I am sure the Minister also has - and they are simply not fit to accommodate children and teachers. It is also a huge waste of money. The Minister continually refers to money and budgets, and this needs to be considered over the long term.

We also need to look at it the other way round. That €25 million being spent on 950 prefabs would probably build one secondary school and one primary school. Switching that sort of a budget to building would not replace 950 prefabs. We are trying to strike a balance. We want to minimise the number, but in the short term a big population bulge requires flexible responses. In an ideal world we would keep these down to just transitional arrangements. My predecessors and I inherited a situation where 2,000 temporary prefabs were in use. It is now down to half of that and we have a programme to reduce it to much lower levels over time. However, a balance needs to be struck in allocating the capital budget.

Third Level Funding

Thomas P. Broughan

Ceist:

41. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the measures that he is taking to begin to address the €600 million needed for third level education funding to 2021; the measures he is preparing for budget 2018 in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16495/17]

About an hour ago I chaired a briefing by the Union of Students in Ireland concerning its position paper on the funding of higher education. The student representatives have grave concern that the Minister is strongly considering the third option in the Cassells report of income-contingent loans as a system of funding higher education. They outlined to us forcefully how such a system would badly impact on the lives of students well into the future.

I thank Deputy Broughan. Deputy Pringle earlier raised a rather similar question and I do not want to repeat myself. Peter Cassells chaired that expert group and looked at the pressure on higher education over the recent period where funding was effectively frozen and numbers increased. That has put the system under considerable strain. We are now considering how to establish a sustainable funding model for the future. Peter Cassells indicated a number of options, as the Deputy knows. I have not been sitting on my hands. I immediately worked on an Exchequer option with €36.5 million this year, a three-year programme with demographics built in increasing to €160 million over the three years.

With the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, I have set up an Exchequer-employer mechanism which will generate an additional €200 million by 2020, if approved in the budget.

The option of income-contingent loans involving the contribution of students is being considered by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills. Clearly we need to have political and social consensus on how we proceed. Peter Cassells has set out the merits of it in that people get a very substantially increased livelihood. If they get a third-level qualification, it dramatically improves their lifetime earnings and he is asking if people should contribute back.

People have raised other concerns, such as the cashflow impact and whether it would create a barrier for people from disadvantaged areas or whether there are other ways to ensure people from disadvantaged areas get access. Those issues are being thrashed out by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills. We are doing a technical evaluation of how it would work if it were selected. As Peter Cassells said, doing nothing is not an option. Therefore I have not done nothing. I am moving immediately on the areas where I have potential to act and have, I think, the support of the House. The view on the remaining element remains to be seen.

The student representatives outlined to us the impact on students. It is a huge struggle to get through college in the first place with the rents and other living costs, given the existing registration fee the previous Fine Gael-Labour Government dramatically increased. All of that adds to making it very difficult, particularly for people from disadvantaged areas. The Minister and I both represent a number of areas where the uptake of third level education is still below 15% or 20%, which needs to be the Minister's first task even as an ordinary Deputy.

We have had analysis on the economic front and the Minister mentioned his liaison with the Minister, Deputy Donohoe. A recent report by Dr. Charles Larkin shows that income-contingent loans could cost the Exchequer up to €10 billion, thereby adding significantly to our national debt. Given that so many young Irish people traditionally emigrate, there could be a very negative impact on our national debt over which there are grave concerns, particularly in 2019 and 2020.

Overall it is clear that it would be disastrous, particularly for children, second chance education, maturer students, students with disabilities and so on. I urge the Minister not to go down that route.

I do not think there was a question in the Deputy's contribution. I appreciate people will have different views and suppose Peter Cassells put this out so that it would be seriously considered. It is important people consider the case as it is made. I have an open mind on it, as do others. Deputy Broughan criticised the increase in fees but part of Peter Cassells's vision is that there would be no fees at the point of entry and that there would be substantial income support for those from low income families to get into college. No one has a monopoly and advocates are not hard-headed capitalists who view education as being for the privileged. Peter Cassells has envisaged zero fees and is examining this.

We need to have an honest debate. This is like the issues of health and pensions. We need to examine how we will fund these areas, which will place increasing demands on all our families. Will it be through the public purse or otherwise? We need to examine viable and sustainable funding models and I am trying to take the actions within my area that I can.

The Minister mentioned employer contributions of €200 million. The increase in Exchequer funding is dismal compared to the level of funding before austerity began. What are the Minister's plans for the 2018 budget? Is the Minister considering any specific additional thing? The Minister's party seems to be the one party that does not have a clear view on the issue. One has not been articulated. Before the general election, it was shy about stating where it stood. Will the Minister promote a full-scale Dáil debate on this subject before the end of this term or the next one?

We need to do a bit of an evaluation, as do all parties. One should not decide that one's mind is made up before evaluating the issue, which is the danger with the Deputy's line of questioning. We need to consider any proposal on its merits. As the Deputy is aware, I have specific proposals for 2018. I have indicated already that I have received a commitment for a demographic increase. In other words, additional money will follow the additional students in the coming year. This has not happened for the past nine years. Therefore, there is an additional commitment. On top of this, we will have an employer contribution. It is out to consultation but it is hoped that it will start next year and rise over time to 2020, when it will be €200 million. Those are two substantial commitments - €160 million from the Exchequer and €200 million from employers. What else the Oireachtas wants to do remains in issue. We are a minority Government. We have to work with others to see what is the consensus approach to the issue. Much like the health area, we must do it on the basis of how we will fund needs in a decade's time and not just say that we do not like the cut of a particular proposal.

Apologies to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan. The time has expired and we must move on.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Barr
Roinn