Written Answers Nos. 160 - 181
160. Deputy Michael Collins asked the Minister for Finance if compensation has been sought by the Government from Malta arising from the unpaid claims of a company (details supplied); if compensation has been sought from Gibraltar arising from the unpaid claims of a company (details supplied); if a strategy is in place to prevent the same from happening again; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21928/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraSetanta Insurance was placed into liquidation by the Malta Financial Services Authority in April 2014 and this liquidation is being carried out under Maltese law. Progress in the liquidation has been delayed due to court proceedings in the case of Law Society of Ireland v the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI). The focus of the court action is to determine whether it is the Insurance Compensation Fund (ICF) or the MIBI which is responsible for the payment of third party claims. No date has been specified for the judgment in relation to the MIBI appeal to the Supreme Court, which was heard in October 2016. It should be noted that first party claims are not affected by the court action and are being processed by the Office of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice.
A liquidator was appointed in October 2016 to Enterprise Insurance, which is a Gibraltar incorporated company and, therefore, the Enterprise liquidation is being carried out under the laws of Gibraltar. I am advised that a letter has been received from the Government of Gibraltar outlining that there are currently 233 live claims from Irish policyholders with a reserve value of €7.4m. However, the reserve figure is under review. Wrightway Underwriting Ltd have been appointed to manage claims to enable the liquidator to adjudicate and admit them as insurance claims in the liquidation. Claims are therefore being actively managed.
In relation to the question of compensation being sought from the governments of Malta and Gibraltar, it should be noted that both countries are common law jurisdictions. The legal unit of the Department of Finance is of the view that an action against the Maltese or Gibraltar regulators would likely be difficult. However, in order to establish this definitively it would be necessary to seek legal advice from Maltese and Gibraltar lawyers as well as to seek to establish further information in respect of any failures in their legal duties on the part of the regulators which might give rise to such a compensation claim. The Department of Finance’s legal unit does not consider that there is sufficient likelihood of a successful action being brought to justify the costs which would be incurred in seeking such advice and information.
Regarding any proposal to take such legal action, it should also be noted that the two companies concerned availed of the ‘passporting’ provisions of the European Union “Freedom of Services” rules in order to sell insurance business in Ireland. This allows an insurance company prudentially regulated in any Member State to operate throughout the Union and is an important aspect of Ireland’s obligations as an EU Member State. While there have been cases, such as the liquidations of Enterprise and Setanta, which have caused difficulties, Ireland has also positively benefitted from these EU rules through, for example, the building up of our large life insurance sector.
In response to the liquidation of Setanta Insurance and the subsequent uncertainty in relation to compensation arrangements, a Review of the Framework for Motor Insurance Compensation was initiated with a report published in July 2016. Work is well underway on the implementation of the review’s recommendations; in particular the drafting of the Heads of Bill is being progressed and is on course to be submitted to Government for approval for publication by the end of Q2 2017. This once enacted will bring clarity on the respective roles of the ICF and the MIBI in the event of the future collapse of a motor insurer.
More generally, insurers operating throughout the EU are regulated according to the set of demanding standards required by the Solvency II Directive. This took effect in Ireland on 1 January 2016. The Government is supportive of the principle of the freedom to provide services across the European Union and is of the view that the legislative framework underpinning this principle is robust. Additionally the Central Bank has informed me that it works closely with relevant foreign National Competent Authorities and EIOPA (the insurance European Supervisory Authority), which has identified as one of its key strategic objectives 'to improve the quality, efficiency and consistency of the supervision of EU insurers and occupational pensions.' The Central Bank of Ireland fully supports EIOPA's work in this regard and has actively engaged with it in its revision of the General Protocol which will enhance the exchange of information between supervisory authorities.
161. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the way in which the proposed dividend of €250 million from the State’s holding in a bank (details supplied) announced in March will impact on fiscal space for 2018; the impact the proposed sale of the bank will have on this dividend; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21979/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) holds the AIB shares on behalf of the State. Dividend payments are therefore made to the ISIF. Payments from the ISIF to the Exchequer arising from the proceeds of the disposal of the State's shareholdings in the Banks are provided for under the NTMA (Amendment) Act 2014. This legislation allows the Minister to direct the Agency to make such payments after having consulted the Agency.
Regarding proceeds from dividends, these are typically recorded as property income in the European System of Accounts (ESA) framework. Therefore any dividend payments would be recorded as General Government Revenue and, as such, would improve the General Government Balance. However, the payment of any dividend is exclusively a matter for the board and management of AIB based on the bank’s financial performance and future prospects, and subject to regulatory approval. As such, it is not classed as a discretionary revenue measure and, as the Deputy is aware, has no impact on the fiscal space for 2018.
The proposed dividend will be payable on 9 May 2017 to holders of ordinary shares on the Company’s register of members at close of business on 24 March 2017. Therefore, any proposed sale of the State’s shares in AIB later this year will have no impact on the payment of 99.9% of this dividend to the State.
162. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Finance the number of audits and prosecutions taken by the Revenue Commissioners in connection with evasion or fraud in the non-payment of categories of tax (details supplied). [22040/17]
Amharc ar fhreagra163. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Finance if the figure of €555 million savings for 2017 (details supplied) is a figure that reflects all moneys recouped from audits and compliance interventions or a projected assumption similar to assumptions used in calculating moneys saved from welfare fraud; the number of Revenue Commissioner officials involved in conducting the revenue audits and compliance interventions; and the number of audits conducted over the past five years. [22077/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 162 and 163 together.
Revenue is a fully integrated tax and customs administration. Revenue has approximately 2,000 staff engaged on activities that focused on confronting non-compliance. These activities include anti-smuggling and anti-evasion, investigation and prosecution, audit, assurance checks, anti-avoidance, returns compliance and debt collection activities and interventions. This level of resources has been maintained by Revenue notwithstanding the challenges since 2009 in regard to the overall reduction in Civil Service numbers which included Revenue.
Revenue carries out a programme of compliance interventions that seek to achieve the optimum balance between minimising the burden on the compliant taxpayer and tackle, in an appropriate way the non-compliant taxpayer.
Not all interventions are in the form of audit – other less resource-intensive interventions are also used (Aspect Queries and Profile Interviews). The intervention selected is the one considered to be the most effective in targeting the specific risk or risks identified, and to influence the compliance behaviour of the taxpayer.
I am advised by Revenue that the recently published Annual Report for 2016 included a table at Page 99 (www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/annual-reports.html) which provides details of Audit and Compliance activity for the year 2016, with comparative figures for 2015. The amount of €555.6 million shown as yield for 2016 comprised of:-
- Payments received as a result of compliance activities
- Payments included in phased payment arrangements and
- Amounts of tax that were referred for collection activity including sheriff/solicitor enforcement.
Revenue do not include in the settlement figures any future savings element.
I am informed by Revenue that a detailed breakdown per the categories requested in Parliamentary Question No. 163, ref 22040/17 (trading and non-trading income) is not captured or maintained, as a matter of course, and is therefore not available.
The numbers of audits conducted over the last five years are included in the table together with the number of audits identified where Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax were examined. The table also shows the total number of non-audit interventions but it is not possible to provide a breakdown of those non-audit interventions into the categories requested in Parliamentary Question No. 162, ref 22040/17.
|
Year |
Total No. of Audits/Investigations |
Audits/Investigations which included an examination of Corporation Tax |
Audits/Investigations which included an examination of Capital Gains Tax |
Total Non-Audit Interventions (Aspect Queries and Profile Interviews) |
|
2012 |
9,066 |
713 |
805 |
37,294 |
|
2013 |
8,037 |
816 |
590 |
72,564 |
|
2014 |
7,636 |
1,131 |
456 |
91,348 |
|
2015 |
6,618 |
1,121 |
313 |
90,617 |
|
2016 |
6,211 |
840 |
274 |
90,990 |
I am advised by Revenue that figures, year-on-year, are not directly comparable due to classification changes of compliance interventions and the continuing evolution of their compliance programmes to reflect changes in the economy and the efficient use of resources.
Investigating cases with a view to the institution of prosecutions is a key element of Revenue’s strategy for confronting non-compliance and files are prepared for the consideration of the Director of Public Prosecutions in instances where it is considered that the facts and circumstances warrant such a course of action and evidence to sustain such a course of action is available.
In respect of matters relating to CT in the period from 2012 to 2016, there have been two such prosecutions. One of those cases concluded, in 2012, with the entering of a nolle prosequi. The other case is before the Courts at present. There have also been two convictions in respect of matters relating to CGT in the same period.
There were 18 convictions in 2016 for serious tax and duty offences, which related to matters concerning income tax, value added tax, relevant contracts tax and excise duty. At the end of 2016, there were 31 cases relating to alleged serious tax and duty offences in which prosecutions had been instituted and where the matter was before the Courts. In addition, there were 108 cases that were under investigation by Revenue’s Investigations and Prosecutions Division, with a view to prosecution, at that date.
164. Deputy Martin Heydon asked the Minister for Finance if a 1998 registered car can be insured here; the options open to a person who has been refused insurance for a car registered in 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22164/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs Minister for Finance, I am responsible for the development of the legal framework governing financial regulation. Neither I nor the Central Bank of Ireland can interfere in the provision or pricing of insurance products, as these matters are of a commercial nature, and are determined by insurance companies based on an assessment of the risks they are willing to accept. This position is reinforced by the EU framework for insurance which expressly prohibits Member States from adopting rules which require insurance companies to obtain prior approval of the pricing or terms and conditions of insurance products. Consequently, I am not in a position to review individual cases regarding cars registered in particular years nor to direct insurance companies as to the pricing level or terms or conditions that they should apply in particular cases.
I am advised that insurers use a combination of rating factors in making their individual decisions on whether to offer cover and what terms to apply. These rating factors can include the type and age of car, as well as the age, driving experience, claims record and penalty points of the driver, the number of drivers, how the car is used, etc. My understanding is that insurers do not all use the same combination of rating factors, and as a result prices and availability of cover varies across the market. In addition, insurance companies will price in accordance with their own past claims experience.
The Deputy should note that Insurance Ireland operates a free Insurance Information Service for those who have queries, complaints or difficulties in relation to obtaining insurance. Insurance Ireland can be contacted at feedback@insuranceireland.eu or 01-6761914.
165. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding the academic library tender, which is due for renewal in July 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21991/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department allocates recurrent funding to the Higher Education Authority (HEA) for direct disbursement to the HEA designated higher education institutions. The HEA allocates this funding to the institutions and the internal disbursement of funding is then a matter for the individual institution.
Higher education institutions are autonomous bodies and my Department has no role in their day to day operational affairs including the tendering of goods and services it requires. Higher education institutions are bound by public procurement procedures in relation to spending.
166. Deputy Michael Collins asked the Minister for Education and Skills if the British construction plant competence scheme is recognised here; if not, the reason therefor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22010/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraSOLAS and the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) have an agreement in place to facilitate people who hold a valid Construction Plant Competence Scheme (CPCS) Plant Operator's Card to acquire the equivalent SOLAS Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) Plant Operator Card.
To avail of this arrangement applicants must:
- hold a valid CPCS Plant Registration Card;
- have met all the CPCS entry requirements including NVQ/SVQ certification; and
- hold a valid SOLAS Safe Pass Registration Card.
167. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the amount of funding granted to the Mayo campus of the GMIT for each of the years 2012 to 2016, and to date in 2017; if he will consider proposals for future allocations to be ring-fenced for the Mayo campus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21398/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department allocates the recurrent funding to the Higher Education Authority (HEA) for direct disbursement to the HEA designated higher education institutions including Institutes of Technology (IoTs) such as Galway Mayo Institute of Technology (GMIT). The HEA allocates this funding to the institutions and the internal disbursement of funding is then a matter for the individual institution. Core funding is driven primarily by student numbers, either via the Recurrent Grant Allocation Model which is the mechanism used by the HEA to allocate funding or 'free fees' funding.
Higher Education Institutions are autonomous bodies and are responsible for their own day to day affairs, including the allocation of all of its income (both public and private).
My Department and the HEA recognise the particular challenges attached to multi-campus provision in both GMIT and other institutes of technology. The HEA has begun a major review of the funding allocation model for higher education and this review will include looking at how the future model can take account of the additional costs associated with such arrangements. The Department and the HEA are committed to such multi-campus provision, including Castlebar.
My Department and I along with the HEA and GMIT Governing Body are fully committed to and are in the process of establishing and implementing a viable development plan for the continuance of the GMI Castlebar campus. GMIT has appointed an Interim Head of the campus in Castlebar to lead this process.
In addition, Taoiseach Enda Kenny, TD, and I recently announced the establishment of a working group which will formulate a plan for a sustainable future of the GMIT Mayo Campus in Castlebar. The Working Group will be required to present a full report to the HEA’s Finance Committee in Q3 2017.
168. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the access initiatives currently operated by third level institutions; the number of participants on each; the annual expenditure on each; the number of staff employed in each institution for the purposes of promoting or implementing access initiatives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21399/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraTwo of the main initiatives that are available in HEIs to promote access by students from under-represented groups are the Student Assistance Fund and the Fund for Students with Disabilities.
The Student Assistance Fund provides financial assistance for full-time students who are experiencing financial difficulties whilst attending college. Students can apply for assistance to help them with either temporary or ongoing financial difficulties.
The Fund for Students with Disabilities allocates funding to further and higher education colleges for the provision of services and supports to full-time students with disabilities. The Fund aims to ensure that students can participate fully in their academic programmes and are not disadvantaged by reason of a disability.
Both Funds are managed by the HEA on behalf of my Department. Details of expenditure on both Funds and the number of beneficiaries are attached.
Each HEI also operates its own specific access initiatives that are most appropriate to its institutional and geographical context. This may include outreach programmes, scholarships, and mentoring programmes.
My Department does not collate data on the number of personnel specifically employed on access initiatives within individual HEIs. Individuals may be engaged on access initiatives as well as other activities within an individual institution. It is a matter for each HEI, as autonomous institutions, to manage its staffing resources within the overall context of overall public sector policy requirements.
Table 1.
The Fund for Students with Disabilities
|
Sector |
Total Allocated 2012-13 |
Total Allocated 2013-14 |
Total Allocated 2014-15 |
Total Allocated 2015-16 |
|
Higher Education |
7,744,590 |
7,595,393 |
7,689,645 |
7,593,906 |
|
Further Education |
2,496,769 |
2,394,736 |
2,372,927 |
2,400,272 |
|
Other EU |
349,059 |
315,521 |
345,826 |
374,801 |
|
Total |
10,590,418 |
10,305,650 |
10,408,398 |
10,368,979 |
Student Beneficiaries
|
Sector |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
|
Higher Education |
6755 |
7413 |
8524 |
8920 |
|
Further Education |
956 |
1224 |
1350 |
1362 |
|
Other EU |
186 |
172 |
176 |
204 |
|
Total |
7897 |
8809 |
10050 |
10486 |
Table 2.
The Student Assistance Fund
|
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
|
€10,999,995 |
€7,937,817 |
€6,599,999 |
€7,840,159 |
€7,9M |
Student Beneficiaries
|
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
|
17,840 |
15,166 |
14,959 |
15,772 |
Not Available |
169. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the amount drawn down by his Department each year since 2014 and to date in 2017 under the youth employment initiative; the programmes and initiatives funded in whole or in part by these moneys; the number of participants on each; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21400/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) is one of the main EU financial resources to support the implementation of the EU youth guarantee. It is integrated into European Social Fund (ESF) programming as a dedicated priority axis within the ESF Programme for Employability, Inclusion and Learning 2014-2020 (PEIL) that was adopted by Commission Decision in February 2015. The specific YEI allocation for Ireland of €68m is matched by equal amounts from our ESF allocation and from the Exchequer, giving an overall allocation of €204m.
The ESF Regulations provide for initial pre-financing/advances of EU support at 1% (or 1.5% for Member States under financial assistance in 2014 and 2015) of the full programme support, payable for each year from 2014 to 2016, together with annual pre-financing of between 2% and 3% payable from 2016 to 2023. In May 2015 an amendment to the relevant EU Regulations resulted in an unprecedented increase in the YEI advances to be paid to Member States. The Commission subsequently released pre-financing payments from the dedicated YEI budget line, worth 30% of the YEI budget, to provide additional financial liquidity to support YEI implementation. However, the relevant Regulations specified that where a Member State did not submit an interim payment application by 23 May 2016 for at least 50% of the additional pre-financing amount, that the Member State must reimburse the Commission the total YEI pre-financing contribution. The ESF regulations also provide that annual pre-financing for any year in which an interim payment application is not made in that year must also be reimbursed.
As Ireland did not submit an interim YEI payment application, the €19.8m additional pre-financing received was reimbursed to the Commission. Furthermore, as there was no ESF application made in 2016, the €11.6m annual pre-financing for 2016, including €1.36m for the YEI, will be offset against the 2017 pre-financing due. The reimbursement of these amounts has not resulted in any loss of EU monies to the Exchequer. Furthermore, as the YEI activities are fully funded up-front by the Exchequer there is no resulting reduction or delay in the funding available to them. The YEI funding is available for drawdown before the end of 2018 and it is expected that the funding will be fully drawn down.
The Department of Social Protection has advised that it obtained EU funding under the European Commission’s call for proposals for preparatory actions under the Youth Guarantee Pilot, to pilot a Youth Guarantee Scheme in Ballymun which operated in 2014. The total cost of the pilot was €302,279 which included EU funding of €250,000.
Youth Employment Initiative activities are programmed within Priority Axis 4 of the ESF Programme for Employability, Inclusion and Learning 2014-2020 (PEIL). Those activities are the Back to Work Enterprise Allowance (BTWEA) Scheme, the JobsPlus Incentive Scheme, Tús, JobBridge, Youthreach, the Social inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) and Momentum. The participant figures requested by the Deputy are currently being compiled and will be provided to the Deputy separately.
The following deferred reply was received under Standing Order 42A
I refer to Parliamentary Question No. 21400 of 9 May 2017 in which you requested the number of participants on each of the activities funded under the Youth Employment Initiative, YEI.
In my reply, I had stated that YEI participant data was being collated and would be forwarded to you separately. I am now in a position to provide the relevant data.
|
Activity |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
|
Back to Work Enterprise Allowance (BTWEA) Scheme |
- |
107 |
138 |
|
JobsPlus Incentive Scheme |
- |
474 |
521 |
|
Tús |
- |
998 |
1,261 |
|
JobBridge |
- |
1,898 |
457 |
|
Youthreach* |
2,364 |
2,320 |
3,266 |
|
Momentum |
733 |
1,057 |
122 |
|
Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) |
- |
3,958 |
4,189 |
*Southern & Eastern Region only for 2014 and 2015. BMW expenditure for 2014-2015 claimed under the previous 2007-2013 round of ESF funding.
170. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason eligibility for a student grant is based on gross income rather than net income; and his plans to change this criteria. [21401/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe means test arrangements of the Student Grant Scheme are applied nationally on the same basis to both employed and self-employed applicants. Gross income before the deduction of income tax or the universal social charge, is assessed with certain specified social welfare and health service executive payments excluded.
The assessment of income from the same starting point is deemed to be fair and reasonable because this approach eliminates any distortion which might arise from different spending decisions in different households.
The current system of student supports is underpinned by the Student Support Act, 2011. My officials have recently commenced a review of this legislation to identify areas where the Act needs to be updated to reflect the changes that have taken place in Irish society and to ensure that supports are targeted effectively at those most in need. All relevant issues will be considered as part of this review.
171. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to address the high levels of non-progression in some courses in institutes of technology; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21402/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn line with the overall mission of higher education in Ireland there has been a steady increase in student enrolments over recent years. The most recent report by the HEA on retention and progression, entitled 'A Study of Progression in Higher Education focuses on the progression of students from their first year of study in 2013/14 to their second year of study in 2014/15. This is the fifth in a series of progression analysis released by the HEA. The report gives an in-depth analysis of the non-progression rates by NFQ level, sector, discipline, gender, age, nationality and socio-economic group. There are many factors identified as influencing the likelihood of progression such as Gender, Age at commencement, Prior Educational attainment, nationality and socio-economic grouping.
The HEA through the System Performance and Strategic Dialogue process also monitor progression rates within the institutions on an annual basis. Institutes report on retention measures in place within their institutes to combat high non-progression rates. The HEA funds retention initiatives in Computer Science disciplines in higher education institutions through the Information Technology Investment Fund. In 2015 these initiatives included additional classes, attendance mentoring, teaching and learning initiatives, student support sessions, buddy practicals and maths enabling courses.
In 2016 the National Forum for Teaching and Learning established an ICT Retention Scoping Group to examine ways in which students could be enabled to complete ICT courses. The group working with practitioners and industry recently made a number of recommendations including capacity building within the school system, improved career guidance, sharing of good practice on pedagogy and retention across the sector and strengthen links with the FET and post primary sectors.
One of the key objectives of the National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education 2015-2019 (National Access Plan) is to address the issue of non-completion within higher education institutions, for those in under-represented target groups. The Plan also commits to the further development of mechanisms to track the progression, retention and student experience of target groups. The target student groups include entrants from socio-economic groups that have low participation in higher education; first time mature student entrants and students with disabilities.
To support the implementation of these objectives, a Working Group has been established to consider the issues contributing to the non-completion of target groups in the National Access Plan and to produce recommendations for policy and practice. The group is chaired by the Higher Education Authority (HEA) and includes representatives of relevant stakeholders. The HEA, with assistance from the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, is currently undertaking a scoping exercise to inform the work of the group.
172. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the final numbers of schools that have appealed their allocation under the new resource allocation model; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21403/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraI wish to advise the Deputy that DES Circular 0013/2017 for primary schools and 0014/2017 for post primary schools were published on 7th March 2017.
These Circulars set out the details of the new model for allocating special education teachers to schools.
The revised allocation model replaces the generalised allocation process at primary and post primary school level for learning support and high incidence special educational needs, and the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) allocation process which provided additional resource teaching supports to schools, to support pupils assessed as having Low Incidence disabilities.
The new model provides one single allocation to schools based on the profile. Schools will be frontloaded with resources to provide additional teaching support to all pupils who need such support.
The NCSE has published details of the appeals process on the NCSE website: www.ncse.ie.
Schools who wished to submit an appeal were asked to do so by March 31st 2017.
The total number of appeals which have been received by the NCSE is 558.
This represents approximately 15% of schools which have appealed their special education teaching allocation for 2017. This is an appeal level ratio which is broadly similar to the number of primary schools who submitted appeals to the primary staffing appeals board for the 2016/17 school year, which also represented about 15% of schools.
The appeals will be processed in the coming weeks and it is intended that schools will be notified of the outcome by 31st May.
Schools could appeal whether the data used to calculate their school profile was correct and complete and whether it was correctly applied in the calculation of their 2017/18 allocation.
DES Circulars 0013/2017 and 0014/2017 outline the basis on which the Education Research Centre determined the allocations for all schools.
In advance of any submission of an appeal, schools were asked to read carefully the DES Circulars and in particular the relevant sections, which relate to the breakdown of the allocation, which may be under consideration for appeal.
The model will also allow for some additional provision for exceptional circumstances or where a school’s enrolment levels increase very substantially prior to the next review of the model. The National Council for Special Education will support schools in managing their special education teaching allocations in the first instance. Only in very exceptional circumstances, where it can be demonstrated that the school's profile has changed very significantly since the allocation was made to the school, may an additional allocation of hours be made to the school.
Guidelines for schools on the organisation, deployment and use of their special education teachers to address the need of pupils with special educational needs have also now been published and are available on my Department's website.
The Guidelines will support schools to reflect on how they can review and manage their timetabling practices to ensure the timetable is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of all pupils in their school who have special needs. The Guidelines encourage schools to ensure they deploy their resources appropriately to meet the needs of all of the children in their school who require additional teaching support, including pupils with emerging needs, or new entrants.
173. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the timeframe for the implementation of pay equality for teachers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21404/17]
Amharc ar fhreagra186. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to address the issue of pay inequality among post-2011 entrants to teaching and ensure that workers in the education system receive equal pay for equal work; and the timeframe for addressing this issue. [21454/17]
Amharc ar fhreagra203. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Education and Skills the timeframe to end the pay inequality that teachers endure (details supplied); the timeframe which will be given to act on the issue of pay inequality; if there is no plan to resolve the issue of pay inequality, the way in which a position can be justified that is contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21647/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to answer Parliamentary Questions Nos. 173, 186 and 203 together.
As a consequence of the financial crisis, there was a need to enact a number of measures to reduce public expenditure so as to stabilise the country's public finances. A previous Government reduced the salaries and allowances payable to all new entrants to public service recruitment grades by 10% with effect from 1 January 2011. This decision also required that such new entrants would start on the first point of the applicable salary scale, which in the case of teachers had the effect of reducing their starting pay by a further 4-5%. Later in 2011, the Government placed a cap on the overall level of qualification allowances that could be earned by teachers.
Subsequently in 2012, following the public service-wide review of allowances, the Government withdrew qualification allowances for new teachers altogether. However, the Government partially compensated for this by deciding that new entrant teachers would henceforth commence on a new salary scale which had a starting point higher than the starting point of the old scale.
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 TUI and INTO in September 2016 will see pay rises of between 15-22% (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 also available to ASTI members under the proposals which members recently balloted on.
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 needs such as enhanced service for children with special educational needs, for disadvantaged schools, for growing schools, for Higher Education and for apprenticeships.
It must be borne in mind that the pay reduction for post-2011 entrants to the public service applied to all public servants and not just teachers, and that any restoration of these measures in respect of teachers would be expected to be applied elsewhere across the public service. While I am not in a position to provide an estimate of the total cost of restoring all post-1 January 2011 entrants in all areas of the public service to the pre-2011 pay scale arrangements, I can say that in the case of education and training sector employees, including teachers, the estimated full year cost in 2017 would be in the order of €85 million. Clearly, the cost across the entire public service would be substantially higher.
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.
The Government established the Commission to examine pay levels across the public service, including entry levels of pay. The Government also supports the gradual, negotiated repeal of the FEMPI legislation, having due regard to the priority to improve public services and in recognition of the essential role played by public servants.
I accept that the teacher unions have outstanding pay demands and that the new entrant deal does not travel the full distance that 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. Indeed, negotiations on a successor agreement to Lansdowne Road will shortly get under way.
174. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of early child care and education scheme, ECCE, programmes that are implementing the Aistear and Síolta curriculum; the mechanisms in place to evaluate the educational outcomes for children under the ECCE scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21405/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraAll pre-school services, participating in the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme introduced in 2010, are required to implement the early childhood quality and curriculum frameworks: Síolta and Aistear. The commitment to implement these frameworks is a condition of the contract agreed between pre-school service providers and the Department of Children and Youth affairs (DCYA). Currently 4,222 services are in active contract with the DCYA providing the ECCE programme to 117,000 children. The DCYA contract also includes provision for verification and audits which require pre-school service providers to permit representatives to attend at the premises for the purposes of inspection and audits. These include regulatory inspections by the Tusla Early Years (Pre-school) Inspectorate, Pobal, and education-focused inspections conducted by the Inspectorate of the Department of Education and Skills (DES). The DES, effective from 11 April 2016, has responsibility for evaluating key aspects of education provision in the educational setting inspected and to promote improvement in that setting. Reports arising from education-focused inspections are published on www.education.ie
The National Síolta Aistear Initiative, which is being led by the DES, in partnership with DCYA and the NCCA, was established in 2016, to centrally coordinate the implementation of the Síolta and Aistear frameworks. The initiative includes the provision of mentoring to support early years settings to implement Síolta and Aistear and an Aistear CPD pilot being led by the NCCA. Early-years education-focused inspections evaluate the nature, range and appropriateness of the early educational experiences for children participating in the ECCE Programme. The EYEI model of inspection is based on a quality framework informed by the principles of both Aistear and Síolta as well as national and international research relating to early childhood education and inspection.
175. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of places in autism units that will be available in the 2017 - 2018 school year; the number of new autism units that will be established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21406/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis Government is committed to ensuring that all children with Special Educational Needs, including those with autism, can have access to an education appropriate to their needs, preferably in school settings through the primary and post primary school network.
Such placements facilitate access to individualised education programmes which may draw from a range of appropriate educational interventions, delivered by fully qualified professional teachers, with the support of Special Needs Assistants and the appropriate school curriculum.
This policy has been informed by published research, including the Report of the Task Force on Autism (2001), the Evaluation of Educational Provision for Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) (2006) and the NCSE’s policy advice on Supporting Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (2016).
Almost 18,000 students in schools have been diagnosed with autism. The Department of Education and Skills invests over €300m annually in providing additional resources specifically to support students with autism in schools enabling:
- 63% of students to attend mainstream schools
- 26% to attend special classes in mainstream primary and post-primary schools, and
- 11% to attend special schools.
My Department considers it essential that in assessing the need for special class placements the individual needs of children should be properly assessed to determine the appropriateness of special class provision for them.
Some students, although academically able to access the curriculum in mainstream, may find it too difficult to manage full-time placement there. This can be due to significant difficulties in areas such as behaviour or sensory needs which have not been ameliorated, even with appropriate intervention, in mainstream.
Enrolment in an ASD special class should only be considered where it has been demonstrated that a student requires the support of a special class because he/she is unable to learn effectively in a mainstream class for most or all of the school day even with appropriate supports.
Students enrolling in ASD Special Classes must have a report from a relevant professional or team of professionals (for example, psychologist, speech and language therapist, psychiatrist) stating that:
- S/he has ASD
- S/he has significant learning needs that require the support of a special class setting and the reasons why this is the case.
The National Council for Special Education (NCSE), through its network of local Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENOs), in consultation with the relevant education partners, is responsible for the establishment of special classes in various geographical areas where there is an identified need.
The NCSE, in looking to open special classes, must take into account the present and future potential need for such classes, taking particular account of the educational needs of the children concerned. The NCSE will also take account of location and sustainability in looking to establish special classes in certain areas.
The NCSE continues to establish additional special classes to support children with Special Educational Needs including Autism as required. Since 2011 the NCSE has increased the number of such classes by over 50% from 548 in 2011 to 1153 across the country now, of which 889 are Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) special classes.
The NCSE has informed my Department that it intends to establish an additional 162 ASD Special Classes for the 2017/18 school year increasing the number of ASD Special Classes by 18% from 889 to 1,015.
The NCSE are currently finalising the list of Special Classes for the 2017/18 school year which will be published on the NCSE website www.ncse.ie.
176. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to reduce school costs specifically in relation to the proposal of a premium capitation payment to schools; the amount of the premium to be paid to schools; his plans to monitor the implementation of this proposal; when his Department circular will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21407/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy ambition is to make the Irish education and training service the best in Europe within a decade.
To deliver on my ambition to be the best we have to improve information and complaint procedures for parents and students, particularly in relation to costs.
I want to give parents a strong voice in ensuring costs are always kept to a minimum.
Schools have to do everything possible to keep costs down for parents, including the use of generic items, sew on or iron on crests, and making sure that various elements of the uniform can be purchased in multiple stores.
In the Action Plan for Education I have committed to the restoration of capitation payments. In restoring capitation payments, where schools have introduced these cost effective principles, they will receive a premium capitation payment.
I believe that full transparency in relation to the use of any voluntary contributions is important information for parents to have. The Parent and Student Charter will require every school to set out a financial statement, which will include information on how any voluntary contributions are used.
This is part of a suite of measures I am introducing, including the School Admissions Bill which will reform information and procedures around the process of school enrolment, and the commencement of Fitness to Teach, which allows a complaint to be made about a registered teacher to the Teaching to Council for the first time.
Circular letter 32/2017 ‘Measures to be adopted by schools to reduce the cost of school uniforms and other costs’ was published at the end of April and is available on my Department's website.
Following the implementation of the circular, school authorities will be required to adopt the following principles of cost-effective practice which will put a greater emphasis on reducing the cost of school uniforms and other costs:
- All elements of a school uniform should be purchasable from various stores;
- Only iron on or sew on crests should be used;
- Wherever possible, generic rather than branded items should be specified (e.g. uniform, clothing, IT tablets, sports equipment etc.);
- Provide parents with a list of all required items and indicate the likely costs of these required items at best value stores;
- Provide a book rental scheme;
- Phase out, between now and September 2018, the use of workbooks which cannot be reused;
- Where an exclusive supply arrangement applies, it should be tendered for regularly and
- The Board of Management in each school will have to review the cost of items which they require parents to purchase and to make this information available to the school community.
Schools will consult with parents on their views and ask for suggestions on cost reduction initiatives. Parents will be asked for their views about school uniform costs, and other costs, through a questionnaire.
As resources permit, it is my intention to reward schools that can provide evidence of having adopted the principles of cost-effective practice. It is intended that this could be done through some premium in capitation grants for schools.
The Action Plan for Education 2016-2019 outlines hundreds of actions to be implemented over the 3 year period 2016 to 2019. One of these actions aims to restore capitation funding over a three-year period as resources permit. It was not possible to provide additional funding in Budget 2017 in relation to capitation funding due to the many competing demands for the available funding. However, this commitment remains a priority for me to address as soon as possible during the lifetime of the Action Plan.
Circular 32/2017 recognises that schools may already have arrangements made for school uniforms and other school costs for September 2017. Therefore it is envisaged that it will be the 2018/2019 school year before schools can provide evidence of having adopted the principles of cost-effective practice.
When budgetary resources are available to provide an increase in capitation for schools, my Department will then consider the most appropriate mechanism to gather evidence on whether or not schools have adopted the principles of cost-effective practice.
177. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills further to Parliamentary Question No. 130 of 2 February 2017, when a response will issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21410/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraI would inform the Deputy that officials in my Department are currently compiling the data requested in her question and I will arrange to have it forwarded to her without further delay.
178. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the value of additional funding received by universities or other third level institutions for the purposes of improving access, including premium level of funding for target students; the institutions in receipt of such funding; the amount received by each institution over the past five years and to date in 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21412/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraThere are currently 3 streams of funding for the Higher Education Institutions (HEI) to support the delivery of access – a block grant through the Recurrent Grant Allocation Model (RGAM), the Fund for Students with Disabilities (FSD) and the Student Assistance Fund (SAF). The RGAM grant goes to the higher education institutions and the FSD and SAF directly support students.
HEIs receive a block grant to support teaching, research and access. The amount that each institution receives is informed by the number students from target groups that are enrolled in that institution. The funding is not additional, it is part of the core allocation.
The target groups for the purposes of funding are students from under represented socio-economic groups, students from the Traveller Community, students with disabilities and mature students (new entrants).
The data collected by the Equal Access survey is drawn upon for the block grant. Each access student from the target groups receives an additional weighting of 0.33 for the purposes of funding. The standard resource varies from year to year and depends on the overall budget for higher education.
In addition to the core RGAM funding, each HEI also receives an allocation under the Student Assistance Fund and the Fund for Students with Disabilities. The amount of funding allocated to each institution under these Funds is also attached.
The Fund for Students with Disabilities
Allocations since 2012-13
|
Sector |
Total Allocated 2012-13 |
Total Allocated 2013-14 |
Total Allocated 2014-15 |
Total Allocated 2015-16 |
|
Higher Education |
7,744,590 |
7,595,393 |
7,689,645 |
7,593,906 |
|
Further Education |
2,496,769 |
2,394,736 |
2,372,927 |
2,400,272 |
|
Other EU |
349,059 |
315,521 |
345,826 |
374,801 |
|
Total |
10,590,418 |
10,305,650 |
10,408,398 |
10,368,979 |
Student Beneficiaries
|
Sector |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
|
Higher Education |
6755 |
7413 |
8524 |
8920 |
|
Further Education |
956 |
1224 |
1350 |
1362 |
|
Other EU |
186 |
172 |
176 |
204 |
|
Total |
7897 |
8809 |
10050 |
10486 |
The Student Assistance Fund
|
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
|
€10,999,995 |
€7,937,817 |
€6,599,999 |
€7,840,159 |
€7,9M |
Student Beneficiaries
|
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
|
17,840 |
15,166 |
14,959 |
15,772 |
Not Available |
In 2016/17 the total allocated for SAF was €7.9M and financial returns with the total number of beneficiaries supported are not submitted until last quarter of this year. However, there were approximately 15,772 students funded in 2015/16 academic year and we would expect more or less the same figure for 2016/17.
179. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Skills further to Parliamentary Question No. 183 of 5 April 2017, if a binding Labour Court decision recommending that the outcome of the job evaluation exercise will be implemented in full with effect from 12 September 2016 and will be given full effect without further delay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21413/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy is aware, on the 27th March 2017 the Labour Court issued its recommendation regarding the effective date for the implementation of the Job Evaluation Exercise carried out in the Tyndall National Institute. The Court recommended that the effective date for the re-grading of staff in accordance with the job evaluation exercise be the 12th September 2016 and my officials are currently working with officials in University College Cork on the modalities around implementation. It is hoped that this process will be brought to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion.
180. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of access initiatives at third level; if guidelines in relation to best practice have been circulated among institutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21414/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Higher Education System Performance Framework, and the individual compacts that are agreed by each Higher Education Institution with the HEA, provide the strategic framework for evaluating the effectiveness of the higher education system in meeting its key objectives. One of these seven key objectives relates to Equity of Access.
The last System Performance report was published by the HEA in late 2016. This illustrates the progress that is being made by institutions in this important policy area, as well as the challenges that are currently being addressed. A new System Performance Framework is currently being developed by my Department. This will provide a key accountability mechanism for the future.
The National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education, 2015-19, contains a specific goal relating to evaluation of current initiatives to support equity of access in higher education institutions. Considerable progress has been made under this Goal since the National Access Plan was published in 2015.
The review of the Student Assistance Fund was completed in 2016 and implementation of the report’s recommendations has commenced. A Review of the Fund for Students with Disabilities is nearing completion. A key element of the evaluations of both Funds is on the identification and dissemination of best practice guidelines across institutions.
The HEA are currently evaluating the Recurrent Grant Allocation Model (RGAM), the mechanism to allocate funding to HEIs. A key element of this review is an assessment of how the RGAM currently supports the access infrastructure in each HEI.
There will also be a mid-term review of the National Access Plan towards the end of 2017. This will provide an opportunity to evaluate the overall direction of access policy with a view to informing future policy and practice.
As part of the implementation of the National Access Plan, the Department of Education and Skills is committed to hosting an annual forum for the dissemination of best practice. The first of these took place in January 2017.
Dissemination of best practice is also facilitated by the HEA who work with a network of access officers drawn from each Higher Education Institution. This provides an opportunity to share knowledge and experience of best practice for the benefit of the system as a whole.
One of the main access initiatives funded by my Department is the Student Grant Scheme. In 2017 the scheme is expected to benefit some 80,000 students with investment of approximately €380m. The Student Support Act, 2011, which provides the legislative basis for the Student Grant Scheme, is currently under review. This will ensure that the main provisions underpinning the Student Grant Scheme are appropriate and support broader access policy. There is also a commitment to review SUSI, the awarding authority for student grants, in 2018.
181. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of current DEIS schools that would not have met his Department's new criteria for inclusion in the programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21415/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraIt is important to note that an initial assessment of all schools has been used to extend DEIS supports to those schools with the highest concentrations of disadvantage as detailed in the list of schools published on 13th February. This represents a first step in the application of the new DEIS identification process and we are moving to support pupils in those schools with effect from September 2017.
A further application of the identification process will take account of updated DES online pupil data from 2016/17 2016 National Census data when it becomes available later this year.
It is my Department's intention to make available to all schools information relating to this process and their own individual school data. Arrangements for this are in hand and schools will be advised in due course. However it is not proposed to publish this information generally as there is a significant risk that this would allow crude comparisons to be drawn in terms of relative levels of disadvantage in schools. This would be highly divisive; unfair to parents, students and communities; place schools in an invidious position; and be contrary to the public interest.
