Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 10: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills the reason she is seeking a 5% reduction in the pay terms upon which school secretaries and caretakers are employed; her views that the existing pay and conditions for these workers is well below the average standard in the wider public service; to note the unique and inequitable situation where the funds for payment of these workers is made from a capitation grant to schools which is expected to cover general running costs; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [47405/10]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No 2) Act 2009 determined the criteria for reducing the pay of public servants with effect from January 2010. However, when the Act was introduced there was a question as to how a public servant should be determined for the purposes of the Act. Subsequently, following receipt of legal advice, it was determined that all staff employed by a recognised school or VEC come within the definition of "public servant" solely for the purposes of the Act. In view of the time lapse involved in reaching a determination on this issue, the Minister for Finance has allowed for a temporary exemption from the application of the Act for these categories of staff up until 31 December 2010. Accordingly, my Department outlined that adjustments in salary should be applied with effect from 1 January 2011 to all relevant staff in the employment of recognised schools or VECs who were not already affected by the pay reductions introduced under the Act. Some of the categories of staff affected by this circular included school secretaries and caretakers.

Regarding the existing pay and conditions of school secretaries and caretakers, it is a matter for each school to determine the level of secretarial and caretaking needs required. Funding to cater for these needs is made available from my Department by way of capitation grants to schools to cover their running costs, including the costs of paying these non-teaching members of staff. Accordingly, boards of management are responsible for the employment of secretaries, caretakers and cleaners. A total of €22 million in savings will be secured in 2011 though an average 5% reduction in funding grants to schools and VECs. This reduction to capitation and ancillary grants for schools will reduce capitation rates in most cases to those that applied to schools between 2007 and 2008, with the exception of primary capitation where the new rate will be between the 2008 and the current rate. The reduced rates to ancillary and support services grants will reflect the reduction in pay that will apply, with effect from January 2011, to personnel who are paid from these grants.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A net point exists which must be teased out legally. School caretakers and secretaries are not public servants or public sector workers. In effect, they are temporary workers. They are not paid for the entire year; on average, they work approximately 40 weeks. They are not paid from the pay side of the public purse. Their pay comes from the capitation grant, as the Minister is well aware, and they are low-paid.

Why has the Minister insisted that 4% must be reduced under the capitation grant which, in many cases, goes to pay for these people?. The Minister does not reduce the capitation grant. On the one hand, the Minister maintains the schools are the employers and she provides a capitation grant to enable them to run their affairs. However, the Minister then interferes with the employment contract between the school and the caretaker or the secretary by declaring unilaterally that there must be a 4% cut in the pay of the caretakers, without any saving on the capitation grant. This is simply a lazy, bureaucratic across-the-board slash and burn exercise. There is no rationale to it. Let us think of it logically. The capitation grant remains untouched. Through a circular, an instruction goes to the schools to the effect that payment to a caretaker must be reduced. No saving accrues to the Department. This relates to a low-paid person. Since someone in the Department has been too lazy to think through the logic of the Minister's relationship with the school, the board of management and the capitation grant, someone has simply applied the cut to all categories. These are not public sector workers. Does the Minister not agree that the belt and braces approach in the emergency financial measures legislation which we have just enacted has given her some degree of cover? Whatever the legal cover, it has no logical cover. The Minister will not save any money as a result of this measure but she will impose hardship.

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A previous Minister was of the view that these people were not public servants. Legal advice was sought to get a determination of "public service" on the basis that if one is determined as a public servant in this country other entitlements arise. As a result of this legal advice it was determined that all persons employed by a recognised school or VEC come within the term "public servant" solely for the purposes of the Act. It follows, therefore, that all persons employed by a recognised school or VEC, are deemed as such regardless of the source of money used to fund his or her salary. The role of the Minister or Department in determining the pay rates remains, irrespective of whether a person is eligible for or a member of a public service pension scheme. They are public servants within the meaning of the pay reduction legislation. I was tied when it came to trying to remove this category of people from the Act when the legal advice indicated that I was obliged to implement it.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Forget the legal advice. Understandably, the Department of Finance is only concerned with money. There is no saving in the overall scheme of things because the capitation grant remains the same. The only victims are poorly paid temporarily employed secretaries and caretakers. One could argue the beneficiaries are the boards of management because they would have a little more money in the capitation grant but that is a separate issue. This is vindictiveness brought about by bureaucratic laziness. There is no saving to the Minister's Vote or to the Exchequer. Where is the logic in all of this?

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A reduction in the capitation and ancillary grants has taken place on the basis of the legal advice available to the Department. Its view was that these people were exempt from the legislation. However, legal advice indicated that they were no longer exempt. Therefore, a circular on adjustments of salary had to be brought forward for January 2011 to all relevant staff, similar to the changes affecting all other public servants in the country. In the interim I fought for an exemption while the discussions took place. That exemption now expires at the end of December and I am not in a position to get a further one. The legal advice indicates that under the Act this is the determination that will be made.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister agree that, as their pay comes out of the capitation grant which will be cut, it will be the students that will suffer?

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If Deputy O'Dowd were sitting here, he too would have difficulties coming up with savings in the Department of Education and Skills. We are all curtailed in the ways we can obtain savings in a Department in which the majority of its Vote is expended on pay and pensions. That leaves one with little room for manoeuvre. There is an increase in the number of young people coming into the education system. The capitation grant is only being reduced to 2007 levels for post-primary schools and 2008 for primary schools. It is not a drastic reduction. There has also been a large increase over the past several years in the grants which means, proportionally, this is not a drastic reduction. Schools in the current economic climate should find their purchasing power more competitive and with supports from the private sector should be able to get greater value for money.