Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for attending.

What are the Minister's current expectations as to whether he will be obliged to deliver further cuts to the education sector in the budget? Does he envisage budgetary pressures next year within the system which may lead him to cut some programmes? For example, as the Minister pointed out, this year 450 additional teachers were hired in September at both primary and secondary levels and this trend probably will continue next year. Will budgetary pressures in this respect lead the Minister to finding cuts somewhere else? In the past year, unexpected funds had to be found for retirements and can the Minister envisage anything similar on the horizon that would be an issue for the education budget next September?

While I fully comprehend and appreciate the difficult times we are in, my party and I believe the funding of education should be protected and while I acknowledge education has a very big budget, €90 million was taken out of it last year. Such cuts certainly hurt and members are aware of the impact it will have on the further education sector. Another issue I wish to take up with the Minister again today is that of career guidance. The impact of the cut made in budget 2011, when €32 million for careers guidance was removed, and how it is playing out at second level is becoming clearer. I acknowledge the Minister made the point repeatedly that school management has discretion to decide how guidance hours will be provided. However, it has led to difficult situations in many schools and I am aware of one school which recently experienced two suicides and in which the guidance counsellor hours were cut significantly on foot of the aforementioned cutback in the budget. As this cut has created real difficulties, consideration should be given to reinstating this funding in the next budget and I ask the Minister to respond to that suggestion.

I will turn to a couple of other recent current issues. First, what precisely are the Minister's plans regarding the capital assets test? Many confusing statements and signals have emanated from both Government parties in respect of what plans are in place. As far as working productive assets are concerned, my party will be totally opposed to them being taken into account. The Minister has stated several times he believes there is unfairness within the system with regard to how self-employed incomes are assessed. If he considers this to be the case, I have no problem in engaging in discussion with the Minister and his party to ascertain where they perceive such unfairness to lie because if such unfairness exists, consideration absolutely can be given to addressing it. However, the key point must be that one seeks a reflection of the accurate, real income of people and not notional income based on productive assets. That suggestion must be off the table and the Minister should clarify today that this will be off the table. There have been conflicting signals and this is a good opportunity for the Minister to so do. Second, in respect of fee-paying schools, I note the departmental report was published in recent days and I believe this issue has become quite a football between and within the two Government parties. It is being used as an appropriate opportunity for backbenchers with very few constituents who attend fee-paying schools to come out and decry this type of thing while others, who represent constituencies with significant numbers of fee-paying students, are stating they will have no more of that. While it has been very convenient, it is a poor way to treat the sector. The parents of students who attend fee-paying colleges also pay taxes and the contribution of the State towards those schools is significantly less than what it contributes to the non-fee-paying sector. A realistic debate and conversation on the issue is required, rather than the sensationalist approach that has been evident in too many instances recently.

On the issue of special needs assistants and learning support and resource teachers, the Minister has outlined the pressures arising from additional numbers of students entering the educational system in the years to come and how the number of regular classroom teachers will be increased to reflect that change. However, I have discerned no such intentions on the Minister's part to increase proportionately the number of special needs assistants, resource teachers or learning support teachers. The Minister is selling his retention of the cap at current levels as him protecting these hours. However, if these numbers are not increased in line with those of classroom teachers, effectively it is a cut because more students are entering the system and the same hours must be spread among more students. This leads to effective cuts to the most vulnerable of students who need such support most of all and if they do not get it, they can fall behind in their education in consequence. These are some of the key points the Minister should address in his response.