Averil Power (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his presentation and for appearing before the joint committee so far in advance of the budget. I appreciate that he has a difficult job to do. Responsibility for protecting education should not be solely the task of the Minister but should extend to everyone who sits around the Cabinet table because the impact of some cuts in the Department are felt across other areas. Moreover, the costs are often many times the savings achieved. We saw this last year with the cuts imposed on disadvantaged schools where the potential long-term costs to the social welfare and justice systems are far greater than the initial savings.

Deputy Harris referred to PayPal and problems it is experiencing in the area of information technology. Strong criticism has also been made of cuts in the modern languages programme. Companies such as PayPal argue that Irish people are losing jobs because industries cannot find people with language skills. As a result, firms based here as a result of valuable multinational investment are hiring recruits elsewhere while people here are being paid social welfare benefits. I fail to understand how cutting the modern languages initiative made economic sense from a multi-departmental point of view. Ahead of the budget, what procedures are in place in the Department and across government to ensure cuts of this nature are considered on a cross-departmental basis and a proper cost-benefit analysis is done on the overall costs to the State, including whether the cuts will result in costs several times higher than the savings to be achieved in the Department's budget?

There has been much discussion about the actions of Clare County Council here this morning. The reason it is a budgetary matter is that the Minister is the one who is legally exposed. Because the Minister has the delegated authority, which is then passed on to the administering bodies, for the grant scheme, if somebody takes a case it would be against the Department. If the Minister had provided cover for an illegal act of an administrative body, then he is exposed. For the information of Deputy Ó Ríordáin, that is why it is a budgetary matter and it is something that should be discussed here. If money is wasted on such legal cases, it is not available for special needs education, disadvantaged schools or other areas.

There was commentary by legal experts in the newspapers this morning on the fact that the Government is penalising one person for the actions of another. I would share the view that everybody should pay the household charge. It is grossly irresponsible for Members of the Dáil, although they may have made a case against the charge, to encourage non-payment. It was democratically voted through the Dáil. My party had issues with it, but it was voted through and it should be paid. I have no difficulty with that. If the person being penalised was the person who had not paid it, many would say it was fair enough. Many who have paid it wished they did not have to, were under massive pressure to do so and had to save over a few weeks to be able to afford it, and it is difficult for them to turn around and see others get away with not doing so. There is an equity issue in that regard in general but one cannot penalise one person for the actions of another. I do not see how there is any basis legally for penalising students over 18 for their parents, not having paid the charge. Will the Minister for Education and Science ensure that he gets legal advice as to any potential exposure he might have in this issue?

We discussed the issue of vetting in the Seanad before the summer recess and the Minister gave a commitment that he would discuss it with other Cabinet colleagues. In the context of flexibility, I appreciate there is the employment control framework, but the Teaching Council has the funding. The Teaching Council is a self-financing body and it is not sensible not to let it spend the funding available. I ask the Minister to give us an update on the position and whether that issue has been resolved over the summer.

The report on fee-paying schools will be published. I wonder whether that will involve a sensitivity analysis of what different options might be. Nobody would advocate that the Minister would withdraw funding overnight. Certainly, there would be an economic cost to that because if students move from one school to another, it will cost the State system more. Perhaps the Minister needs to be at least publishing and allowing a public debate on options such as a phased withdrawal over a number of years. Considering the social cost, perhaps there is a saving in a pure economic sense in terms of the reduced capitation fee and such matters. Education is not only about what is on the curriculum; it is about the social interaction in a school. Every child should go to school with children whose parents earn much more and with children whose parents earn much less. The effect of the present system is this does not happen. I would like to know the level of detail the Minister would expect to be put into the public domain so that we can have a proper debate on it.