I must apologise to the House because I would have to read figures as the Minister did in his speech. Figures are not like speeches — they have to be very precise. In Vote 32 — Primary Education — under subhead C.1 there is a saving of £2.218 million in teachers' salaries. I am not quite sure how that came about. Will the Minister explain the increase in the post-primary section? Was it because of the number of teachers retiring and, therefore, superannuation increasing? I am sure the figures balance out somewhere, but how is there a saving of £2.2 million in teachers' salaries when the revised Estimate provided for an increase of only 3 per cent over 1985? How does the number of £35 million allocated in the interim arrangement fit into that and where have savings been made at primary school teacher level? Is account taken of the initial payment of the arbitration settlement?
Under subhead C.5 in Vote 32 there is a saving of £100,000 in capitation grants. This might seem small money but we know the general outcry that arose throughout the country about capitation grants and how difficult boards of management or primary schools are finding it, particularly in inner city or urban areas. Those boards of management have become fund-raising committees for the upkeep of the schools, for basic requirements such as heating and maintenance of the schools, general decor, the provision of necessary equipment and various other matters. It is odd that there was a saving there.
The main item in this Supplementary Estimate is the additional sum of practically £5 million for buildings, extensions, equipment and so on. The Minister gave a grant scale on the first page of his speech in which he said that the additional funds were required to meet commitments which have to be met in the current year as many projects were ahead of schedule due to factors affecting the construction industry, for example, the exceptionally good weather in the autumn. That might sound nice and lyrical but the Minister cannot expect us to believe it. When I spoke on the Estimates last year I pointed out that the capital allowance for expenditure at primary level was not nearly enough. At that time I queried how the Minister could propose to reduce by £6 million the 1985 figure of £34 million. Obviously that shortfall has not been sustained because we now have an additional Estimate. I have no doubt that there was an artificial hold up of sanctions for new school buildings, extensions, improvements and equipment. Due to other commitments the Minister was not in the House recently when both I and Deputy Fitzgerald, questioned the Minister of State, Deputy Enda Kenny, with regard to delays in various primary school sanctions. The Minister of State said there were approximately 800 projects awaiting approval in the Department. It has probably never happened before that there have been so many delays in granting approvals.
I put it to the Minister that the Department have been using various tactics in order to delay decisions. We constantly read in the newspapers about intolerable difficulties being experienced by pupils and teachers who have to use unsuitable, old and unhygenic buildings. When we asked the Minister of State those questions he was extremely frank about the conditions of some schools and said that in some cases they dated back to the late nineteenth century and were not at all suitable but that there had been a hold up in granting approvals. It is quite amusing to consider some of the excuses made by the Department to delay an approval. In some instances the Department hold up the approval because the surveyor wishes to look again as he is not pleased with the first inspection and there is a delay of three months between the initial inspection and the next visit of the surveyor. The next time there will be a delay because of the planning permission. In Tubberclare in Athlone for instance the people concerned were ready to go ahead with the project when the Department wanted to know if the planning permission was all right. They were asked to go back to the planning authority to ask if the sanctioned approval of three years ago would stand up to scrutiny now. Of course the planning authority rushed out a fresh permission. These are just instances of the delaying tactics used by the Department. In many of these instances the parochial contribution is already collected and the boards of management have given proof of that collection but still the delays go on. I do not accept the Minister's grand talk about fine weather. The school buildings are way behind for sanctions for new buildings and improvements. That was anticipated by us last spring when we spoke on the Estimates. Not alone has that been proved right but the amount now allocated will fall far short of what will be needed.
There is nothing like an imminent general election for concentrating the mind. There is no doubt that the imminence of a general election has concentrated the Government's mind on the need for the allocation of funds particularly at primary school level. Daily we hear anguished cries from boards of managements and we hear of strikes by students and teachers and of parents who are up in arms because of these delays in sanctioning improvement works. That 800 projects are awaiting approval in the Department is an alarming statistic. Deputy Kenny spoke about the unsuitable buildings in which children were being housed. The sum being provided for capital works is smaller than that needed. It is a pity that the huge delays went on all year and that now the excuse is being given that the money is needed because the work in the Department of Education at primary school level is ahead of schedule. A four year old would not accept that excuse. It conflicts with the real situation in primary schools.
A sum of £29,000 is required for equipment for special education. I welcome that and wish it could be more because as the Minister has said we can never have enough money for this type of education. I hope this small amount will go some way towards redressing the balance in favour of the disadvantaged. A sum of £14,000 is being provided for library grants and £56,000 is being provided for aid towards the cost of school books. This is a small additional sum but it is indicative of the underlying social environment in which children are reared in that the moneys needed towards schools books is greater than ever.
I hope the Minister will enlighten me as to the savings of £2.218 million under subhead C.1 — salaries of teachers and operating costs of national schools and £0.493 million on superannuation of teachers. The saving on salaries is puzzling and we would like an answer on it.
In relation to Vote 33 on post primary education on additional £500,000 is required under subhead F. The Minister mentioned in relation to that, that the number of teachers retiring voluntarily has been greater than expected. The Minister also said that receipts from examination fees of students would fall short of the amount provided because of a different arrangement. There is a one moiety payment instead of two. This matter is raised in the Minister's Estimate.
I know the Minister is aware of the intolerable burden placed on some parents by the level of examination fees. There is a greater call on the school authorities at post primary level to help the parents of pupils who cannot pay the fees for the intermediate and leaving certificates. These fees have gone up much more than the cost of living index and, because of the greater number of people out of work and on social welfare, they are unable to meet payments. There is nothing that parents will not do to help their children's education and they will provide money for it ahead of everything else because they regard schooling as so important. I do not take every story told to me at its face value but some parents have told me how much they are getting a week and they have asked how can they provide for a hefty fee for State examinations. I know there is a waiver scheme but it is very narrow in its application. School principals in post primary schools have a small amount of leeway but, in schools run by the religious orders, the nuns or brothers pay examination fees out of their own resources for pupils who cannot afford to pay. As well as being a burden on parents, additional anguish is caused to pupils who have to tell the teacher collecting the fees that he or she simply cannot afford to pay. A hard look should be taken at the level of these fees and a broader waiver scheme invoked so that no child is barred from sitting an examination. Perhaps the Minister will say that no child is barred from sitting an examination because of lack of fees but, nevertheless, the scheme should be examined. A discretionary fund should be set up for this purpose.
The sums we have been talking about are relatively small although interesting in their application but the main sum of money is devoted to post primary level. The Minister said that receipts from the European Social Fund will be less than expected, £15.795 million less. Part of this shortfall results from a lesser than anticipated take up of places on ESF aided courses. Is this lesser take up because of a lack of places within our third level VEC colleges to which all the ESF funds apply or was there not enough call on the funds for those places? If there are not enough places in third level institutions, there should be an acceleration of the building programme in relation to RTCs, a matter that has been discussed many times.
The Minister also said that the major part of the shortfall, amounting to some £13.489 million, is due to a delay on the part of the ESF in the making of payments as a result of which moneys expected in 1986 will not be received until 1987. This is a very serious situation which camouflages a major bureaucratic bungle. The Department of Education failed to collect over £13 million due to them in 1986 from the European Social Fund. The Minister will probably say that the EC has been tardy in making payments but we have also been tardy in seeking them. This was caused by the lack of back-up staff in VEC committees and third level institutes who handle ESF moneys. Their present staff cannot deal with the huge increase of moneys and paperwork necessary to apply the funds. We have always been recognised as good Europeans, sometimes to our disadvantage, but the lack of collection of these moneys is certainly a cause for great concern. It is even more startling to realise how this shortfall has been met because, if moneys are not paid, the amount must be made up elsewhere. The Minister said this happened in various ways but I intended to deal with one, the £10.125 million in annual grants to vocational education committees. I greatly regret that VECs have been singled out for this treatment. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why we have not got the money from Europe and tell us also if other countries have also been left short of funding. From my knowledge of the operation of the system of ESF funding, the staff operating the schemes in third level committees and colleges have been at their wits' end to cope with the flood of paperwork relating to this fund. If the Department see that this is so the embargo on appointing clerical workers should be lifted. We have not pressed our case for this money and the Department of Education have been left short. That raises a major question.
We are only now hearing the reason behind the long delay in informing VECs of their 1986 budgets and of the severe strictures placed on them after they had incurred their annual costs. The Department of Education sent harsh letters to VECs informing them that their allocations for spending would have to be revised. These letters arrived in June when half the working year had elapsed. It was very hard at that stage to produce revised budgets and, after a lot of haggling and many meetings, they received permission to raise the necessary money by way of an overdraft, which is very unsatisfactory. There are various shortfall savings to which the Minister referred including secondary teachers' incremental salary grants amounting to £1.655 million. The VEC colleges were further singled out with a saving of £2 million under subhead G.
Therefore, the two questions which have arisen on the Estimate, and on which I am sure my colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, will elaborate on further, are first of all the shortfall which was left in the original Estimate for capital works at primary level. I do not accept the pretext which is being put forward that this is due to capital works in primary schools being ahead of schedule. There is a huge need for capital works in this area and the need which has been articulated very strongly all over the country. The second question is the non-receipt of over £13 million which is due to us from the European Social Fund for VEC colleges throughout the country. This has had to be offset by a reduction of £10 million in the amount of grants available to VECs committees and by a shortfall in the second level system. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
