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

It is important that any appeals system is workable, an issue which merits lengthy discussion. When we took Committee Stage of the Education and Training Boards Bill 2012, we discussed 89 amendments, almost half of which were submitted by the Minister for Education and Skills. I would be willing to sit down and tease out the issue with the Minister of State should he wish to accept that offer today. I also thank Deputy McGrath who has a broad background at the coalface in the education sector for his support.

The broad thrust of the Bill is to ensure impact assessments will be carried out. The Bill refers to an appeals system. The Government should carry out an impact assessment of the measures and cuts it plans to introduce. However, this is absent from the measures the Minister of State has introduced during his time in government. It was absent in the past, too, and I join the Minister of State in saying that was a failing. I was disappointed to hear him refer to the Bill as parish pump politics because it is not. It aims to protect education at all levels. As such, it would affect every school and family in the country.

The Minister of State referred to the definite failures of the last Government which he described as a Fianna Fáil Government because it did not see what would happen as a result of the economic crash.

He neglected to mention the role played by other parties which participated in that Administration. In that context, I find it amusing that he is so willing to wipe from history the contribution of the Progressive Democrats to the Government in question.

There is no doubt that there was a massive failure on the part of the previous Government to carry out impact assessments in respect of policy decisions it made. Even though there were budget surpluses from 2000 to 2007, when the crash occurred, there was a failure to assess the impact of increases in expenditure in the context of what might happen in the future and also with regard to the overheating in the economy to which they were giving rise. I have no difficulty highlighting that failure on the part of the previous Government. However, there was also a failure on the part of the entire Oireachtas at that time. The failure to which I refer resulted from an unfortunate consensus among all parties as to what was the actual position and this led to everyone failing to foresee the advent of the tragic economic circumstances in which we have found ourselves in recent years.

I acknowledge that some very difficult cuts, which had an impact on the education sector, were introduced prior to the current Government entering office. We must, however, assess where matters stand at present and identify what should be prioritised as we move forward. My party is committed to placing education at the centre of the country's recovery and its future development. I urge the Government, the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister of State to adopt this approach. As stated earlier, and in the context of the approach taken by the Government to date - whether it be in respect of guidance counsellors, pupil-teacher ratios, DEIS schools or student maintenance grants - there have been too many instances where impact assessments were obviously not carried out. I will not even mention the fact that, in the instances in question, no appeals mechanisms were provided.

The Government only reversed one of its decisions in respect of the matters to which I refer, namely, that which related to the DEIS schools. That reversal only occurred in the aftermath of the application of extensive pressure by school authorities and parents throughout the country and Members of the House, including those on the Government backbenches. It was only following this pressure that the Minister, Deputy Quinn, admitted that he was wrong, that he did not fully understand the impact of what he had done and that an assessment had not been carried out in advance. I have no doubt that the latter is the case in the context of so many of the other decisions made by the Department of Education and Skills. In those instances, however, the same level of political pressure was not exerted and, consequently, the Department did not admit that certain of the cuts it has made to educational services were wrong.

The Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, has particular responsibility for school transport. I wish to point out to him the impact of last year's cut in respect of such transport and the failure to recognise the nature of that impact. Students are now required to travel to their nearest school. This is an unfair objective in itself but in many instances what has been implemented in this regard is both wrong and counterproductive. Many schools which have the capacity to take on students are actually losing them to schools which lack such capacity. The latter will require capital investment in order to allow them to take on additional students. I am aware of a number of examples in this regard in my county and I have not seen any evidence of the Government trying to grasp the nettle and ensure that a sensible approach will be taken in respect of this issue. The Government must consider cases where what has been imposed is having a particular impact and amend the approach that is taken in such cases. I encourage the Minister of State to take action on this matter, to meet representatives from schools which have been affected, to carry out an assessment in respect of what is happening and to change that approach that is being taken.

Despite putting forward an image of being very reforming, the record of the Government - which has been in office for almost two years - tells a somewhat different story. All of the resources and services that are available have been cut and there has been a real failure to live up to the rhetoric of reform used by those in government both when they were in opposition and early in their term of office. Let us consider some of the assertions that were made by those opposite about what they would do if they got into government.

In the context of the third level sector, a promise was made to students to the effect that there would be no further increases in registration fees and that there would be a rowing back in respect of the increases imposed prior to the Government entering office. The opposite has been the reality in this regard. Registration fees increased by €250 in the current year and the Minister indicated that they will be increased by this amount each year until 2015. That is what he has delivered, despite promising to do the opposite and relieve the pain felt by students. Cuts have also been made in respect of maintenance grants. Last year these grants were reduced by 3%, while this year the qualifying thresholds are being lowered. Some grand plans were produced in respect of reforming the junior certificate but there has been an absence of detail with regard to how what is proposed will work. An announcement was made but there was no consultation with teachers, particularly in the context of how it is proposed to proceed or in respect of the resources that will be made available to ensure that this reform will be successful. Reform of the junior certificate will not be completed until 2020 and developments in respect of the first subject will only begin in 2014. Again, there are big plans in this regard but there is no detail on how what is envisaged will work.

The one project which the Government has taken from initiation to delivery is the student grants system administered by Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI. When the Minister announced the latter, he indicated that it was a prime example of public service reform. However, as it began to become obvious that the system which has been established - and to which the Minister agreed - is simply not fit for purpose, there was a reluctance on the part of the Government to get involved in order to try to resolve matters. The Minister was eventually obliged to apologise in respect of what occurred and to promise that 90% of students would be paid by Christmas. At the beginning of this month, however, fewer than half of the students who are ultimately expected to be paid grants actually received them. As of today, a large proportion of the students who applied are still waiting - many of them in desperation - for their grants.

Before they came to office, those in government promised that there would not be any cuts in respect of small schools. However, the pupil-teacher ratio relating to such schools has increased since February 2011 and there have been cuts to their capitation allocations.

When he entered office, the Minister made a number of bold statements in respect of how he expected to see changes in the patronage of up to 50% of primary schools nationally. At present, a total of 43 areas throughout the country are being surveyed to see what might be the position in this regard. If the Minister were to change the patronage of one school in each of those areas, it would mean that the patronage of a little over 1% of the total of more than 3,000 primary schools throughout the country would change.

Currently, 96% of schools are subject to denominational patronage. Therefore, despite the Minister's very bold assertions about his plans, the reality is somewhat different.

Despite the Minister's unwillingness to address the Bill, I ask him to reconsider. More important, I ask him to protect education and carry out an impact assessment in advance of further actions he proposes to take. I ask him to consider very carefully any possible effect on education services. I ask him to revisit the decision to increase the pupil-teacher ratio which will mean a decrease in the number of front-line teachers from next September in the further education and training sector. I ask him to listen to what was said during the week on this issue. He is committed to carrying out an impact assessment and I ask him to do so now before it is too late. He should talk to those involved in the sector, consider the impact of his proposals and reverse his decision. He needs to consider an alternative way to make savings of €12 million. I suggest any impact assessment should assess the effect on the system, rather than, as has been the case heretofore, how the proposals will play politically and what he can get away with.

I commend the Bill to the House. I thank Deputies and the Minister of State for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the Acting Chairman and the staff of the Houses for giving of their time today. I ask that the Bill be permitted to proceed to Committee Stage.

See this speech in context