Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I welcome this debate and appreciate that I have an opportunity to clarify to the House the nature of this decision and how it may or will impact. At the outset it is important to recognise the overall financial and budgetary context in which Ireland is operating. We are relying on funding being provided through the EU-IMF programme of support for Ireland for the provision of our day to day public services, including the funding of our education system. For the information of Deputies opposite, there is nobody else in the world who will lend us money on terms we can afford. It is also worth reminding the House that this difficult situation has arisen from the catastrophic mistake by the last Fianna Fáil Government in inextricably linking Irish sovereign debt with the debts of bankers and speculators when it introduced the ill-fated bank guarantee in September 2008.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely essential that we close the funding gap between what we take in from taxation and what we spend on our day to day services. This year that gap between what we take in and what we wish to spend will amount to €18 billion, almost double the entire budget for the Department of Education and Skills. It is hoped last December's budget will close that gap by a further €3.8 billion, reducing our deficit to 8.6% of GDP by year end. However, the target we must reach is 3% and therefore the matter is not over this year.

We cannot be under any illusion about the serious situation in which we find ourselves. As I have stated on many occasions, this country has lost its economic sovereignty. Our finances must be put on a sustainable footing so that we can re-enter the financial markets in order to continue to fund our public services and restore our country's economic and social well-being. We must step back from the edge of national insolvency. Listening to the Deputies opposite, one would think this is not the world in which we live.

The education allocation for current expenditure in 2012, including the national training fund, will be €8.6 billion. This represents approximately 17% of all State current expenditure this year. Savings measures announced in my Department's budget will provide net savings of some €76 million in 2012, increasing to some €241 million in 2014. Achieving savings in my Department's budget has required making very difficult decisions, particularly at a time when the school population continues to increase. A key part of our overall budgetary strategy is a requirement to reduce the public sector payroll. Reductions in the public service pay bill and staffing numbers will continue to play a part in expenditure consolidation. One third of all public sector employees work in the education sector so it is simply not possible to completely exempt staffing levels in education from the Government's need - its obligation - to reduce expenditure.

However, unlike in other countries, our school-going population is rising rapidly. Places have to be provided for the extra 70,000 pupils arriving in our schools in the next six years and teachers must be appointed to teach them. As Minister for Education and Skills, I will ensure every child has a physical place in which to go to school. That is why, despite the need to reduce teacher numbers and the other spending reductions that have been made, the overall number of teachers employed in our schools is about 200 below the numbers for 2008. This represents a net overall reduction of about 0.3% in the overall number of teachers in spite of several changes to the pupil-teacher ratio at both primary and second level. This point is too easily forgotten by commentators when discussing the resources available for education. I am glad the counter-motion before the House notes this fact.

Although providing for increased enrolments is a key priority, making some adjustment to teacher numbers is unavoidable given the budgetary constraints. The net impact on overall teacher numbers in our schools has been minimised to the greatest extent possible. In the recent budget announcement for education I made clear that the net impact of the measures relating to second level schools for the school year commencing next September would, after taking account of demographics, amounts to approximately 450 posts.

In spite of these pressures on spending, the Government has shielded, to the greatest extent possible, front line services in schools. There has been no increase of the mainstream staffing schedule general average of 28:1 for the allocation of classroom teachers at primary level. The overall number of special needs assistants, SNAs, will be maintained at 10,575. The overall number of resource teachers will also be maintained at current levels.

I have also prioritised resources for the key reforms I have worked on since becoming Minister for Education and Skills. These include, among other points, an allocation of nearly €10 million in 2012 to commence the implementation of actions in the literacy and numeracy strategy, funding for junior cycle reform and the phased roll-out of high-speed broadband to every second level school over the next three years. I note that the current leader of the Fianna Fáil Party is clearly ill informed as to the drop in levels of literacy in recent years as registered in the PISA report.

I would prefer not to have to reduce teacher numbers at all. However, it is clear that we have shielded front line services in schools at a time when the Government is seeking to make significant reductions in public sector numbers in other areas.

If we are to have a constructive debate it is important there is a full understanding of the detail of the changes we are making to guidance provision and that we explain precisely what this means at school level. Until now, a specific resource was provided to all second level schools for guidance, in addition to the standard teacher allocation. Broadly speaking, this equated to an additional allocation of about one teacher for every 500 students. As things stand, and before any changes are made, 42% of second level schools, approximately 730, do not have a full-time guidance counsellor.

I will reiterate the precise detail of the budget measure and explain how it will operate. Guidance posts at post-primary level will no longer be allocated to any post-primary school on anex-quota basis, namely, on top of the quota allocation the school would normally receive based on its pupil-teacher ratio. That means there will be no specific and separate allocation for guidance provision over and above the number of teachers a school is entitled to under the general teacher allocation of 19:1. In future guidance provision will be managed by school management from within the staffing schedule allocation. In this way principals will have discretion to balance guidance needs with the pressures to provide subject choice.

By bringing about the budget reduction in the number of second level teachers in this way, as I had to do, we can maintain the main staffing allocation at 19:1 for schools generally and allow schools discretion in balancing what they allocate for guidance against all other competing demands. This is very different from the approach taken by the previous Fianna Fáil Government in the October 2008 budget which made a one point increase in the staffing schedule for all second level schools. That approach reduced the teaching allocation to all schools, including DEIS post-primary schools. It also failed to give schools any discretion to allocate their resources as they saw fit.

While the removal of the separate allocation for guidance reduces the overall number of posts available to most schools, all 195 DEIS second level schools will be sheltered. This is because I am introducing a new and more favourable staffing schedule of 18.25:1 for DEIS schools. This is a 0.75 point improvement compared to the existing pupil-teacher ratio 19:1 that applies in non fee-paying second level schools. This means that the DEIS schools will be better positioned to manage the changes in guidance provision within their increased standard staffing allocation.

The budget measures, including those relating to guidance, come into effect from September 2012. Schools will be notified in the normal manner on these changes. My Department will issue a circular shortly that will outline the staffing arrangements in schools for the 2012-13 school year. The circular will also make clear that while the change provides schools with greater autonomy over the use of resources, they cannot ignore their statutory obligations under the Education Act.

Section 9 of that Act sets out a wide range of functions for schools of which subsection (c), relating to guidance, is but one. This has been referred to in much of the media comment on this issue. I have not changed nor do I have any plans to change the Act. Schools will continue to provide for guidance as they have always done.

In the run-up to the budget, I received many representations from parents, schools and teacher unions warning me about what needed to be protected from the changes that they recognised had to be made. The overwhelming majority of representations at second level focussed on the need to protect subject choice. Many commentators have said that removing teachers at second level does not necessarily mean larger classes but may mean a reduction in subject choice, in particular in smaller secondary schools. I listened carefully to those concerns and reflected upon them.

When the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government increased the pupil-teacher ratio at second level in 2008, it made reductions in subject choice inevitable. By bringing guidance within the quota, we have avoided an unnecessary level of compulsion and allowed schools the freedom and autonomy to decide how best to use their resources. Some of the extreme comments made about this measure are based on a false assumption about how schools, and school principals in particular, will operate the change.

Our schools are caring institutions. I am confident they continue to support vulnerable pupils in their care. All teachers have a duty of care to their students, not just guidance counsellors. By moving from stand-alone allocations into more general allocations of teachers, Ireland is following the practice many other countries use to provide staffing resources to their schools. Some countries even provide funding envelopes, leaving it to schools to decide how many teachers they will employ. While I am not a professional educationalist, I have done much research over the past several years. Two factors always stand out in the provision of a good education system - the autonomy, flexibility and the ability of a school's principal and the quality of teaching. This is what shines through in countries such as Finland and elsewhere.

Those who have claimed that this change spells the end of career guidance may think that they are point-scoring against me. They are not; 42% of second level schools do not have a full-time guidance counsellor. Those on the Opposition benches are being highly critical of schools, making a completely false and erroneous assumption that principals will use this increased autonomy over resources in a reckless manner and abandon guidance provision altogether. They know that is not true.

On the contrary, the changes that have been announced give schools greater autonomy in how they allocate staff resources to best meet the needs of their students, including how they provide for guidance and counselling. It is a change to how resources are allocated to schools not a policy decision to terminate guidance provision as some choose to present it.

The recent budget provided for the filling of 300 assistant principal posts in second level schools over the level originally planned. This will ensure schools have sufficient management positions to ensure appropriate supports are available for all students including the key role of year heads. Teachers with year head responsibilities play an important supportive role for the pupils in their year groups.

Following the Budget Statement, I have met with representatives from the Institute of Guidance Counsellors who were understandably concerned about the change. I assured them that while schools are provided with greater autonomy over the use of resources, the Department would clarify that schools must continue to fulfil their statutory obligations under the Education Act in the provision of guidance. This will be done through the annual circular on teacher allocations issued by the Department. I do not agree with the suggestion that principals and boards of management will abandon or significantly reduce guidance provision. Schools can be trusted to exercise any autonomy granted to them. It is better decisions on teacher allocation are increasingly taken at school level rather than by the Department through directed and restrictive allocation schemes.

Rather than have any pre-formed view of how principals would go about operating the revised allocation arrangements, I urged the representatives from the Institute of Guidance Counsellors to talk directly with the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals, NAPD. I understand discussions recently took place and proved most useful. It is important such close links are maintained to ensure the changes in guidance provision can be implemented at school level as smoothly as possible. I am confident school management and teachers will continue to work together to meet the needs of the students in their care.

As stated in the Government's amendment to the motion, the Government is trying, as best as possible, to protect front-line services in the education sector at a time of rapidly rising enrolments in our schools. It is also trying to advance other reforms including giving increased control to schools over how they use resources in line with best international practice. Schools will, of course, continue to make provision for guidance and counselling. Decisions on how this will be done will be taken by principals in the best interests of students and the best use of resources available.

While I regret any changes to teacher numbers are required, I fully acknowledge schools will face increased pressure to maintain subjects and subject options. Despite this I have given them more discretion over how they can manage resources in these difficult times. I reject some of the sensationalist claims made on this matter. Some contributions in the national media appear to have presumed that in some instances principals will simply abandon provision for guidance. They would be in breach of their statutory duties if they so did. I have trust and confidence in our second level principals and the boards of management of schools. They will balance the needs of the pupils in terms of guidance with their curricular and other needs in their utilisation of the resources available to them.

I urge guidance counsellors and other teachers to work collaboratively through their school's guidance plan to ensure the educational, pastoral and care needs of pupils are met. I urge this House to have similar trust in our second level school leaders and to support the Government's amendment to this Private Members' motion.

See this speech in context