I welcome the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan.
Adjournment Matters
Technological Universities
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I refer to the proposed technological universities legislation and specifically the current timeframe for its enactment which is a cause of concern for some. I should declare a certain interest in that I hold a lecturing post in the Institute of Technology in Blanchardstown, albeit on a part-time basis these days.
When the Minister's predecessor published the general scheme of the technological universities Bill back in January, he announced that suitable legislation should be ready by December this year to allow for the legal merging of institutes of technology in order that they could then seek designation as technical universities. This forecast appears to be over-optimistic, however, because according to sources in the Department of Education and Skills, following an inquiry by ourselves, the technological universities Bill is now only at drafting stage and is set to be published early next year. According to the current schedule, the Bill will not be enacted until mid to late 2015 at the earliest, as sources in the Department have indicated. This vague estimate is worrying, especially given the nature of the Bill in question, which requires it to be enacted in time for the start of the new academic year in 2015. Failure to meet this deadline would have significant consequences for each of the three institutes of technology concerned: the Dublin Institute of Technology; the Institute of Technology, Tallaght; and the Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown. In addition, the institutes of technology in Cork, Tralee, Waterford and Carlow would be unable to merge in time for the start of term.
The aim of the TU4Dublin project, which incorporates the ITB, the ITT and the DIT, is that the institutes in question would legally merge on 1 September 2015. It is vital that this date be adhered to in order to avoid problems both for students and the institutes. The absence of such legislation would only serve to foster uncertainty over which college students are admitted to, which programmes they will be enlisted for and, critically, from which college they will receive awards.
Students who are expecting to receive a technological university award may not be in a position to do so, which means the Government will be letting them down. Such tardiness on the Government's part would make students' transition into third level education even more testing than it already is. The notion that this pressing legislation might arrive too late is therefore disconcerting. Such a regrettable situation would similarly be problematic for the colleges, especially from a financial perspective as their would be two sets of end-of-year accounts for each college. Similar issues would, of course, affect the other bidding parties.
The current state of affairs is that the application made by the DIT, the ITT and the ITB has been presented to an international review panel along with that of Cork IT and Tralee IT. A decision is due around November on the state of their bids. Meanwhile, a progress report on these applications for university status came before the Higher Education Authority last week. Unfortunately, these processes will be of little relevance if the affected institutes are unable to act on a positive appraisal of their bids owing to a lack of legislation which would prevent them from merging. Ultimately, any delay could set back the entire project by a year. This would be unfair on thousands of students who deserve better than to be unduly stressed about the future of their college education because of Government inefficiency, should that arise. These consequences are absolutely avoidable if the Government proves its commitment to meeting targets to reform higher education by ensuring this Bill is enacted without delay. A commencement order should be signed by the Minister allowing the legal merging of the Dublin institutes in time for the next academic year. I would be grateful if she could give the House the necessary assurance in this regard.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue which has a high priority for me. I am very much aware of the timeframes outlined by him.
As the House is aware, the higher education reform programme that was given initial impetus by the national strategy for higher education to 2030 is being rolled out. The implementation process relating to the evolutionary pathway laid out in the national strategy for institutes of technology is well under way. The document entitled, Completing the Landscape Process for Irish Higher Education, published by the Higher Education Authority, HEA, in February 2012 laid out a clear four stage process and criteria for institutes of technology that wished to apply for designation as a technological university. This is to ensure a high quality and performance bar is reached by groups of institutes that intend to apply for this new status. Three consortiums are engaged in the process. As the Senator outlined, two of them submitted detailed plans for a merger to the HEA in the summer that are being considered by an independent expert panel, while the third consortium is in the process of developing its plan. I do not propose to comment specifically on any of these proposals.
The general scheme of a technological universities Bill was published in January this year and went through pre-legislative scrutiny by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection. The Bill sets out the legislative framework for mergers and the establishment of technological universities. It also provides for modernised governance structures for institutes of technology. It is being drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and I intend to publish it early in 2015 and have it enacted during 2015 in sufficient time to facilitate the first envisaged mergers. That is the timeframe to which we intend to adhere.
I thank the Minister for her reply.
Suicide Prevention
I welcome the Minister and congratulate her on assuming her new portfolio. It is great to see her in this role. This is the first time I have addressed her since she took over at the Department of Education and Skills and I wish her the very best of luck.
The Minister will be aware that the level of youth suicide in Ireland is the fifth highest in the European Union, with the figure for 15 to 24 year olds standing at 15.7 per 100,000. Based on this figure, it is imperative that we devise a course on suicide awareness and prevention aimed at post-primary students. ASIST, Applied Suiscide Intervention Skills Training, offers a two day course aimed at adults to increase suicide awareness and teach the signs to look out for in persons who may be vulnerable. This is very beneficial, but a short course on suicide awareness and prevention should also be devised specifically for post-primary school students.
A combination of the ASIST and safeTALK courses is already being used in places such as Canada and is proving to be very successful. Providing students with an understanding of suicide means that those experiencing suicidal thoughts will know where to seek help. It will also empower their friends and class mates in recognising students who are in difficulty and need help. Suicide prevention courses should include coping skills in response to stress, substance abuse and aggressive behaviours. The focus should be on promoting positive mental health in post-primary school settings. Prevention programmes in schools will allow us to reach greater numbers of students and help those dealing with suicidal thoughts or who could potentially be affected. Primary prevention at a young age can lead to lower rates of suicide. The way forward is to educate children at a young age.
There is no quick fix solution to the problem of youth suicide, but the introduction of a sensitive course at post-primary level - perhaps in transition year - could make a difference. I, therefore, ask the Minister to consider introducing such a course.
I thank the Senator for her good wishes. I also thank her for raising this very important issue.
I am very aware of the serious problem of youth suicide and the important role schools can play in prevention. My Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health and the Health Service Executive, produced guidelines for post-primary schools in 2013 entitled, Well-Being in Post-Primary Schools: Guidelines for Mental Health Promotion and Suicide Prevention. The guidelines are informed by consultations with key education and health partners and the findings of current research. They provide practical guidance for post-primary schools on how they can promote mental health and well-being in an integrated school-wide way and also evidence-based advice on how to support young people who may be at risk of suicidal behaviour. They build on the significant work already taking place in schools, including through the Social, Personal and Health Education, SPHE, curriculum, the whole-school guidance plan, the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, continuum of support model and the HSE's health promoting schools process. Information is also provided on how to access support from the SPHE support service and other external agencies and support services.
The new framework for the junior cycle also places a clear emphasis on overall student health and well-being. It is underpinned by eight principles, one of which is well-being. It also has eight key skills which are to be embedded in every new junior cycle subject and short course as they are developed. They include the key skills of "managing myself" and "staying well". In addition, the 24 statements of learning students should experience during their junior cycle programme involve students communicating effectively, understanding the process of moral decision making and taking action to safeguard and promote their own well-being and that of others.
One of the innovative features of the junior cycle framework is the introduction of short courses that schools can choose to implement. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, has developed a new short course in SPHE which may be delivered for certification purposes and will involve an increase in the time allocation for SPHE in the junior cycle up to 100 hours over three years. The new short course is available to post-primary schools to implement, should they wish to do so, as part of their junior cycle programme. It includes strands such as "minding myself and others" and "my mental health" and deals with issues such as mental health and mental ill-health, dealing with tough times, loss and bereavement. Students will have opportunities to revisit different themes which focus on developing self-awareness and respect for others and the skills of self-management, communication, coping, decision making and relating to others.
It is open to any NGO, interested stakeholders, or even a local school, to develop a short course in order to fulfil the commitments of the junior cycle framework. It is possible, therefore, for a group interested in promoting student well-being to develop a short course in this area. Schools would then be able to implement it should they wish to do so.
The Senator should note that there are opportunities for schools to develop short courses. We all want to see schools engaged in dealing with this hugely troubling issue.
I thank the Minister for her response. I am delighted to learn about the actions being taken by the Department to promote positive mental health among post-primary students. It is welcome that the Minister has an open mind about the possibility of developing a new course to tackle the scourge of youth suicide. I might liaise with her Department in this regard.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Paudie Coffey, to deal with the next matter.
Drugs Payment Scheme Coverage
As the Minister of State will be well aware, people who suffer from multiple sclerosis find the disease very debilitating and compromising. My understanding is, however, that a new drug, Fampyra, gives incredible relief to sufferers, but it is not available as a prescribed medicine under the long-term illness scheme. My question is simple. Does the Minister have plans to provide this drug under the scheme for sufferers of multiple sclerosis to enhance the quality of their lives?
I thank the Senator for raising this issue with which I am dealing on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar. I am happy to clarify the matter for the Senator.
It is important to state decisions on which medicines should be licensed for use in Ireland and reimbursed by the taxpayer are not political or ministerial. Such decisions are made on objective, scientific and economic grounds by the HSE on the advice of the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, NCPE, at St. James's Hospital. The HSE has statutory responsibility for decisions on pricing and the reimbursement of medicinal products under the community drug schemes derived from the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013. It received an application for the inclusion of fampridine, otherwise known as Fampyra, in the GMS and community drug schemes.
The application was considered in line with the procedures and timescales agreed by the Department and the HSE with the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association for the assessment of new medicines. In accordance with these procedures, the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics conducted an evaluation of fampridine. It concluded that, as the manufacturer was unable to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness and offer a fair price for fampridine in the Irish health care setting, it was unable to recommend the reimbursement of the product. The report is available on the NCPE's website. On foot of this, the HSE decided that it was not in a position to add the drug to the list of reimbursable items supplied under the GMS and other community drugs schemes. It is open to the manufacturer at any time to submit a new application to the HSE for the inclusion of the drug in the community drug schemes by incorporating new evidence which demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of the drug, by offering a reduced price, or both. A revised application was received by the HSE on 25 July 2014 and is being considered.
The Minister for Health wants to assure the Senator that he and the HSE fully understand the concerns of patients regarding the availability of this drug. While he appreciates that some may take the view that the taxpayer should reimburse every licensed medicine for whatever the price the drug company demands, he hopes the Senator will appreciate that the better interests of the health service require that we only reimburse the drugs that are the most effective medicines, and only at a fair price.
I am happy with the Minister's response. I am sure the new evidence and certainly the testimonials of patients who have used the drug successfully will be taken into consideration in a review.
Appointments to State Boards
I welcome the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue because it is has not been dealt with properly or appropriately in the past couple of weeks in terms of accountability to the people and accountability to the Oireachtas.
Let us quickly and briefly go over what happened in the so-called McNulty affair. On 12 September Mr. John McNulty was appointed to the board of the Irish Museum of Modern Art. On 17 September, five days later, Mr. McNulty was announced as the Fine Gael candidate in the Seanad by-election. The nomination form, which had his name and address and his description as a board member of IMMA, was signed by the Taoiseach.
On 21 September an Independent candidate, Mr. Gerard Craughwell, objected to Mr. McNulty's candidacy but apparently withdrew his objection when he saw that Mr. McNulty was a member of the board of the Irish Museum of Modern Art. Subsequently, there was political controversy which resulted in Mr. McNulty's withdrawal as a candidate. He withdrew to forestall a legal challenge by other candidates, because there was talk of legal advice being sought and legal challenges being made. I contend that the withdrawal of Mr. McNulty at that time was planned as a diversion to forestall a legal challenge, which seems, effectively, to have been what happened.
I remind the Senator - I know that he is using parliamentary privilege - that as Mr. McNulty is not here to defend himself, to please-----
Not yet.
I accept that.
Mr. Michael McDowell, in the Sunday Independent, wrote:
The cover-up and brazen peddling of lies to the public that we have witnessed even since the Taoiseach apologised and pretended to take personal responsibility for the affair shows that the interests of the Fine Gael party comes ... before ... political accountability and the maintenance of public confidence in the politics of this State.
My party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, suggested - correctly, I think - that, as the Taoiseach accepted responsibility and the Minister accepted responsibility, the story was unravelling as it got made up.
There are questions that the Minister present should answer before this House and should have answered before now. She is probably aware of them. Who in Fine Gael instructed the Minister to appoint Mr. McNulty to IMMA? What was the reason given by this anonymous official for advocating the appointment? What authority did the official cite in requesting the appointment from a Minister of the Government? Did he or she mention the Taoiseach or a Seanad campaign, or did the person simply state he or she was acting on his or her own initiative due to Mr. McNulty's interest in being appointed to, in the Minister's own words, "an arts board"? Were written records kept of this interaction with the Fine Gael official? Was the Minister aware, or was she notified by her officials, that the appointments breached current Government policy on board size? If so, why did she override them? Why was a particular decision apparently made to increase the number of board members of IMMA? Was the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform notified, as it should have been?
Did the Minister for the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht personally contact Mr. McNulty before the appointment? Was she acquainted with him before the appointment? Why did he accept the appointment knowing, first, that he would have to resign from the board in the event of his election to the Seanad and, second, that - as should have been known to the Department at least, and to the Minister's advisers - he would have had to resign even as a candidate? It should have been known that he was not validly appointed and really could not be a member of the board as a candidate.
Did the Taoiseach, to the Minister's knowledge, instruct Fine Gael headquarters to appoint Mr. McNulty? The Taoiseach claims he did not know Mr. McNulty was on the board of IMMA; therefore, why did he state Mr. McNulty was on the board of IMMA on the nomination papers for the Seanad by-election? Did the Taoiseach ask the Minister to say nothing in the past couple of weeks? There seems to have been a deliberate policy not to answer questions on this subject. Will the Minister state whether she voted for Mr. McNulty in the Seanad by-election?
I am happy to appear before the House again to address matters concerning the appointment of Mr. John McNulty to the board of the Irish Museum of Modern Art.
As I have previously outlined, I appointed Mr. McNulty and Ms Sheila O'Regan to the board of IMMA on Friday, 12 September 2014. I made the appointments while being particularly conscious of the balance of talent, experience and skills among board members, as well as regional balance. Both Mr. McNulty and Ms O'Regan were appointed based on merit.
The Senator has asked me to outline the circumstances behind the appointment of Mr. McNulty, in particular. As I stated last week, Fine Gael Party officials made me aware of Mr. McNulty's interest in serving on a board within my remit. I looked at his experience in business, culture and promoting the Irish language and I made the decision that he could make a positive contribution to the board of IMMA. I stand over that decision.
There has been considerable focus - the Senator has mentioned it - on the Fine Gael official involved. I do not see any benefit in making a scapegoat out of a party official by putting his or her name into the public domain. The Taoiseach has taken full responsibility for this matter.
What is most important is that the system of public appointments is being reformed. The Taoiseach has outlined the system of public appointments that is being reformed and has accepted that this entire matter could have been handled better. I accept that it would have been preferable to use the public appointments process. While I stand over the appointments I have made to date, I am fully committed to using the public appointments process in the future in line with the new Government guidelines.
There have been some suggestions from members of the Senator's party that I breached the size limit for the IMMA board by making the two appointments.
According to the memorandum and articles of association of IMMA, the current limit in respect of the board is 15 members. I moved to make two appointments as I believed the two candidates could make a valuable contribution and improve regional representation. As I was advised by my Department that there were six vacancies on the IMMA board, there was no impediment to me making the appointments. As part of the Government's plans for reform, it is intended to reduce the size of a number of boards under my remit on a permanent basis. Legislation is needed to give statutory effect to this change and it is expected that this legislation will be published in late 2015. Heads of Bills are with the relevant committee for consideration.
Since making the appointments, I have met the chairman of the board of IMMA and committed to working more closely with him to identify the skills needed on the board. I look forward to doing this with the chairs of all our cultural institutions as part of the Government's new appointments procedures. I will write formally to all chairpersons to ask them to outline the skills sets that best suits their relevant boards.
As usual, I ask the Minister to answer the questions I asked. She has failed to answer the questions yet again. That is a travesty of democracy. I want it to be clear that we are not trying to make a scapegoat of any Fine Gael official. It is the Taoiseach and the Minister who are making a scapegoat of an unnamed Fine Gael official. They are responsible for this mess, not anyone else. We are trying to get to the bottom of what went on, which is why we need to know who it was before we consider anything else. The Minister has muddied the waters further by referring to officials in the printed text of her speech. Was it one official or more from Fine Gael headquarters asking the Minister to put this person on the board?
The Minister stated that the memorandum and articles of IMMA require 15 members. The Government announced previously that there would be only nine in the future and it was open to her to stick to that. She deliberately overrode her Government's policy to have only nine members on such boards, regardless of what IMMA says. I put it to the Minister that these questions have not been sufficiently answered. She has a chance to answer them now.
Will the matter be taken up in the committee dealing with the arts or in the Dáil? The Minister is running out of time. These are serious questions and very serious allegations and accusations were made about the Minister in the Sunday Independent last Sunday, some of which I have read. I wanted to ask the Minister a number of questions before my party made assessments along these lines, but the Minister is not helping the situation. We will not scapegoat anyone, but we want answers. Did the Minister vote in the Seanad by-election and, if so, did she vote for Mr. McNulty?
The great thing about this country is that it is a democracy and when one votes, one does so in secret. That is the way it will stay.
I am responsible for appointments to the board, which function I carried out based on merit. That is what I am responsible for. I have listened closely and taken the criticisms on board in the past two weeks in relation to board appointments. I acknowledge that it should have been done differently. I have already moved to put a new system in place in my Department and I will follow these procedures. It was out of respect for the House that I came here two weeks ago at very short notice. I was perhaps lacking on that occasion, for which I apologise.
We have many more questions for the Minister if the Acting Chairman will allow them.
In the Adjournment debate a Senator has four minutes.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 October 2014.