Reducing funding for fee-charging schools

In today's opinion piece for The Irish Times ('Cutting State support from fee-paying schools makes no financial sense'), Eoin Murphy T.D. (FG) defends state funding for fee charging schools as a money saving exercise.

Murphy contends that this occurs when the state contributes towards these schools' teacher salaries (which the state would pay for if the schools were in the public system), while parents and alumni contribute the residual funding themselves, thereby saving the state from the latter commitment.

The logical blunder here is an inference that without state funding, fee charging schools would cease to exist, or would revert to the public system in such numbers as to bring about a net liability to the state.
This notion was previously demolished in the McCarthy report.

Colm McCarthy calculated that a disposal of state funding for fee charging schools would require an average increase of 21% in the level of fees charged by schools, phased in over time:

"While this may prove to be an issue for some of the smaller, less viable private schools, which may seek to dispense with fees and transfer to the free education scheme, it is not considered that the level of increase in fees required would result in a significant change in the sector overall." 

Using McCarthy's figures, reform would amount to an increase in fees ranging from about €500 per annum for the cheapest fee charging schools, to an increase of about €2000 per annum for the most expensive school if they chose to maintain the same level of school funding, which they might not. Hefty increases, indeed, but hardly enough to obliterate private education in the state.

In fact, Government proposals thus far only seek to reduce the student:teacher ratio of the fee charging schools. Nevertheless, lets employ impossibly pessimistic estimates.

If the number of schools currently taking in half of the fee allocation to fee charging schools (and likewise saving the state half of the total grant and teacher allocation payments) entered the public system, the state would still be saving about €46 million per annum.

Even if those schools represented 100% of discounts, unpaid fees, and capital loan repayments in the fee charging system, there would be a huge net saving to the state.

Yet it is beyond question that the only schools who are likely to end up in the public system are the smaller, vulnerable institutions who earn the least from private donations, often due to small numbers. The overall savings to the state would be considerably higher than the above €46 million per annum.

Murphy writes that "it is an undeniable fact that sending children to fee paying schools saves the state money".

In doing so, Murphy engages in the same cynical exercise of which the Michael Healy Raes and the Michael Lowrys of this world are most often accused: pandering to a line that is perceived as popular at his parish pump.

There is important. There is a valuable role for fee charging schools in Irish society. But with privilege, there comes responsibility. The responsibility to pay for private education rests with those who directly benefit. As the evidence has shown, that benefit does not accrue to, for example, indigent or near-destitute taxpayers.

It is grossly unfair to add private education to the tax burden of the least wealthy in this society.

The Mobility Transport Grant Part II

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight convened again yesterday for a return to the discussion on the abolition of the Mobility Allowance and Motorised Transport Scheme (see earlier post on this topic).

The little information we gleaned from this session was the exact methodology employed by the Department in assessing the numbers likely to avail of the Transport Grant, were it to be brought into line with equality legislation.

Working on Census 2011 information, the Department of Health found there were approximately 595,000 individuals living with a disability in the state.

Of these, the Department found, 20%, approximately 119,000, were in employment.

The Department then divided the total number of disabled people in employment by 50%, apparently to take account of the average industrial wage.
The average industrial wage is general estimate of a cut off point for eligibility, said the Department. That's a pretty arbitrary line to draw, but lets continue.

This provided the Department with a figure of about 59,000 individuals, which, give or take, supplies you with a grand total of about 19,000 claimants per annum, per rolling three year period.

____________________

By now you may have noticed that this figure deals with all disabilities across the spectrum, not just those that impact upon walking ability.

That's correct.

Because the Department of Health have somehow managed to obtain legal advice which has indicated that the Mobility & Transport Schemes must apply across the disability spectrum.

They contend that any attempt to limit payment to those who are physically unable to walk would impugn the Equal Status Act 2000.

So instead of using census data which indicates that only 10,000 (1.6%) of disabled people have difficulty working or attending educational facilities, the Department have been 'forced' to include all 600,000 individuals. Including, apparently, those who would never be in a physical or intellectual position to control a motor vehicle.

Peddling such nonsense is an insult to the disabled community.

By now the Department should no better than to expect them to swallow it.

Department of Health: Inflated and Exaggerated Figures for Disability Payments

There now appears to be some confusion over the Department of Health's own figures in relation to the projected cost of widening the Mobility Allowance Scheme and the Motorised Grant Scheme for disabled people.

The Motorised Transport Grant is a payment which is made to claimants once in a 3 year period, to a maximum amount of about €5,000. It is typically only granted in situations where motor transport is needed for a disabled person to access his or her place of employment. About 300 individuals avail of the scheme each year, at a cost of €1.3 million. That's an average of €4,330 per person per year.

The Mobility Allowance is paid at two different rates, with the maximum rate about €208 per month. The allowance is paid to those with severe disabilities, who cannot walk without jeopardizing their health, but who would benefit from increased mobility. About 4,700 people avail of this scheme each year, at a cost of €9.3 million. That is, an average of €1,980 per person per year.

Importantly, both schemes are fully means tested.

Speaking at a Joint Oireachtas Committee on Public Service Oversight earlier this month, the Minister for Health, Dr. James Reilly, stated that widening the Motorised Transport Grant scheme to bring it in line with equality legislation would cost €200 million over 3 years. Similarly widening the Mobillity Allowance Scheme, he added, would cost €100 million per annum.

According to Kathleen Lynch, Minister of State at the Department of Health, widening the Motorised Transport Grant to bring it in line with the legislation would increase the total number of successful claims from 300 to to 19,250 per year.
Minister Lynch predicts that widening the Mobility Allowance Scheme would increase the total number of succesful claims from 4,700 to 63,500 per year.

In that scenario, using the averages that we have to hand from the current situation, we should project the new total cost at €83.2 million for the Transport Grant, and €125.7 million for the Mobility Allowance payment. This brings the total to €209 million.

Indeed, the Minister for health himself, speaking at the Joint Oireachtas Committee, put the cost at closer to €167 million per year.

These are stark figures indeed, but both are a far cry from the currently cited figure of €300 million per annum.

But further possibilities for reducing these figures exist.

It has been said that the purpose of the Motorised Transport Scheme exists in order to facilitate disabled people in travelling to and from their places of employment.

Why then, should the scheme we widened to the over 66 age group, would one expect an increase in successful claimants from 300 per annum to 19,250 per annum? The Minister seems to be suggesting that there are 19,000 elderly people with severe walking disabilities who would immediately take up employment in the economy.

It is not credible.

There is no way that the Department of Health, or the taxpayer, can afford to pay €300 million per annum for these schemes. Nor should they.

However, it is increasingly looking like they would never have had to, and the Department of Health have ruthlessly inflated their own figures, ignoring means tests and flinging eligibility requirements to the wind.

Calling Time on Universal Child Benefit

A new Eurostat report on child poverty has shown that Irish children under the age of 18 suffer some of the highest risk of poverty in the European Union.

The report ranks Ireland at number 5 out of the 27 EU countries in terms of risk to child poverty poverty.

Those at risk of experiencing poverty live in a household where the income is less than 60% of the net median equivalised income threshold.

Speaking on Tonight With Vincent Browne last night, the omnipresent economist Dan O'Brien commented that the child poverty figures in Ireland persisted in spite of a significant budgetary allocation towards the social protection of children. This is true. 

If we look at the most recent Eurostat figures on social spending aimed at children and families, which include cash transfers and benefits in kind, we see that the Irish allocation is far higher than all other Western European states bar Luxembourg. It is also well above the wider EU average. 

The fact that Ireland spends more on children than the vast majority of European governments, yet its children are the fifth most at risk of poverty in the EU, clearly demonstrates that our child protection system is seriously deficient.

Interestingly, Ireland spends only half of the EU average on protecting its elderly population, and yet these are some of the least at risk of poverty, within their age cohort, in the EU. Only the Czech, French, Dutch and Lux over 65s fare better than their Irish counterparts.

Of course, this apparent contradiction may partially be explained by the fact that Ireland has the youngest population in the European Union, with a small old age dependency ratio, and a rapidly growing younger population with a higher young age dependency ratio. So of course we are going to spend more of our domestic income on our youth, right?

Well, that's still not enough to explain away the problem. While Ireland's Young Age Dependency Ratio is 20% larger than the EU average (table 2.8), we are spending about 40% more than the EU average, and still getting some of the worst results.

In 2011 the state spent just over €2 billion on universal Child Benefit payments.

The universality of such an enormous payment can no longer be accepted, given the dire Eurostat findings in relation to risks of child poverty in Ireland.

Once again, the state is seriously neglecting its most vulnerable children. 

No Public Minded Superman Can Save Us Now

Nor Busy Body, Crank, or Mischief Maker for that matter...

Many were surprised to hear this morning's judgement in the case of Hall v Ireland, whereby a case taken by David Hall, a Dublin businessman, was rejected by the High Court on grounds of locus standi; i.e. that Mr Hall does not enjoy sufficient standing to bring or maintain such a case.

Mr Hall was applying to challenge the legality of Ireland's series of promissory note payments to the European Central Bank on grounds that the Minister for Finance was appropriating public monies without first resorting to a vote of the Oireachtas.

In his ruling, Kearns J, whilst refraining from commenting on the merits or demerits of the challenge in itself, set out that Mr Hall was in no way more affected by the behaviour of the Minister for Finance than was any other citizen. Therefore, the Judge reasoned, Mr Hall did not enjoy sufficient legal standing to bring the challenge before the Court, a challenge which he claimed might preferably be taken up by a member of the Oireachtas.

This is an alarming interpretation of the law of locus standi in Ireland.

It suggests that so long as the suffering pertaining to a potentially unjust act of the Oireachtas or action of a Minister is equally shared among the public, then its very pervasiveness is enough to disbar any one individual from  challenging a perceived invasion of a public freedom. The individual's ability to protect the public interest in the courts is depleted.

This would seem to break new ground in our understanding of the law of locus standi in Ireland, and has gone under-reported and largely ignored in the Irish media.

If the reader will indulge a reductio ad absurdum, I would present the following scenario.

Would the univsersality of suffering were, for example, voting rights to be suspended and the democratic process put out of the reach of the private citizen, be ubiquitous enough to prevent any one private individual or group of individuals from resorting to the courts on grounds of inadequate standing?

We shall have to await the written judgement of Kearns J in this case, or the outcome of any appeal to the Supreme Court,  before answering that question with confidence.
It may be that Kearns J took some other mysterious factor into consideration which he chose not to illuminate on the bench today.

There is one further point to make on the matter of locus standi, and that is its logical solidity.

This legal principle restrains the Court from pronouncing on the validity of a legal argument, based solely on the motivation of those who choose to make that argument. In logic, this is called an Appeal to Motive; that is to say, that the motivations of an individual in bringing a certain argument are entirely irrelevant to whether there is merit or not in the substance of that argument. It is a logical fallacy.

Having said that, it may be understandable that the Judiciary would seek to protect themselves from frivolous, repetitive challenges by "Busy Bodies, Cranks and Mischief Makers" (Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of the Self Employed 1982).

But a more logically appealing solution would be for the Court to seek to protect itself only from those claims which are plainly frivolous in themselves, as opposed to pursuing an illogical focus on the motivations of those who apply to the courts for a legal remedy.

It is of vital importance to the democratic vigour of the state that legal questions in the public interest be open to judicial scrutiny