Vol. 403 No. 6
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £43,238,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1990, for the payment of sundry grants and grants-in-aid and in respect of Third-Level and Further Education.
The Minister is seeking the approval of the House for a supplementary estimate amounting to £43,238,000 million to meet the requirements of the Vote for third-level and further education.
The gross expenditure on the Vote will be £4,062 million more than anticipated when the Estimate was approved. The additional gross expenditure is mainly due to additional capital expenditure on the new engineering block at UCG and underestimation of the costs of grants to third level students.
The position with regard to Appropriations-in-Aid is that, due to factors beyond our control, only £31.092 million of the anticipated £70.268 million in ESF receipts has been received to date. It is anticipated that a further £35.87 million will be received before the end of the year, too late to cover payments which will have to be made before then.
I am bringing forward this Supplementary Estimate now so that payments now due can be made. For technical drafting reasons, the Supplementary Estimate assumed that no further European Social Fund aid will be received this year and, consequently, provision is made for a shortfall in Appropriations-in-Aid of £39.176 million. If the aid is received late in December, as expected, it will of course be returned as savings on the Vote.
The cost of the higher education grants scheme has been underestimated and an additional £1.29 million is provided to allow for full recoupment to local authorities in respect of the amounts spent by them under the scheme in 1989.
An additional £714,000 is provided under subhead A5 in respect of Vocational Education Committee scholarships. It is difficult to estimate accurately the number of students who will become eligible for these scholarships and the full picture will not be known until returns have been received from all Vocational Education Committees.
In view of the growth in European Social Fund aided courses in the regional training colleges and technical colleges, an extra £900,000 is needed for grants to students on those courses. Again, the full liability under this grant scheme will not be known until full returns have been received from the institutions concerned. Some of the institutions funded through the Higher Education Authority from subhead B2 have unfunded superannuation schemes and £109,000 is provided to meet unanticipated superannuation lump sums.
An additional £308,000 is provided under subhead D for grants to the training colleges for primary teachers arising from the continued payment of salaries to certain staff of the former Carysfort College.
A further £1 million is provided under subhead 12 for grants to the Higher Education Authority to update the equipment to the new engineering block at UCD which attracts funding from the EC Structural Funds.
A total of £259,000 is available in offsetting savings. Grants to students in Thomond College will cost £120,000 less than expected as fewer students qualified for grant-aid. The grant-in-aid in respect of the general expenses of the Higher Education Authority will be £139,000 less than expected for a variety of reasons, including lower than expected expenditure on a unit cost study, career breaks, and so on.
I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Supplementary Estimate. However, it is ridiculous to have this shortfall in ESF funding at this stage of the year. The finger of blame must be pointed in some direction and this should not recur.
The time allowed, 40 minutes, is far too short to discuss the allocation of such a large amount of money, over £43 million. Last summer we debated the main Estimates in the House and passed an Estimate for over £1 billion is just one hour. We should organise our time in the Dáil to ensure that such large sums of money are examined properly in the context of how we spend them.
Recently the Minister for Education has been trying to paint a bright picture of education at Question Time and in public statements. However, her junior Minister who is here will agree that we have major problems at all levels of education. In the primary sector we have the largest classes in Europe. I hope a reduction of the pupil/teacher ratio will figure prominently in the negotiations with the social partners for the new programme for economic and social development.
Last summer the Minister signed a resolution concerning the integration of children with disability into main stream primary education. However she did not provide any funds to enable schools to adapt their facilities for handicapped children, to provide ramps, special toilets, seating arrangements and so on. The Minister is trying to introduce unsupported integration with no planning and no financial provision.
At the moment the average pupil/teacher ratio in special schools is 1:12. If the Minister has her way these children will be placed in classes of 30 or more without extra financial provision to accommodate their needs. This will create considerable difficulties for primary schools.
A recent survey of facilities for second level education carried out by the ASTI showed that many of our secondary schools lack even basic facilities. The pupil/teacher ratio in our secondary schools is 20:1, one of the highest in Europe. In Italy the pupil teacher ratio is 10.1 and in the UK 13:1. On average we have 30 students in most second level classes. This overcrowding puts tremendous pressure on teachers and students. The teachers cannot give students individual attention which is needed in many cases.
The Minister should seriously consider the provision of a six year cycle in second level education for all classes. Irish students spend less time in second level education than most of their European counterparts. In West Germany they spend nine years in second level, in the UK the second level system lasts seven years and in the rest of Europe they spend six years in second level. If a six year cycle is not made available in all our schools our students will suffer a distinct disadvantage vis-à-vis their European counterparts.
This Estimate is really about third level education. In third level education I welcome the abolition of the four years honours rule for students seeking grants to enter third level institutions. More young people will have access to third level education now. However, there are major problems here because many of our third level institutions are being asked to increase student intake without adequate provision for capital expenditure on accommodation, staffing, research facilities, libraries, equipment and so on.
In the first instance, third level institutions have suffered serious cuts in staffing. The extra staff sanctioned this year on the basis of increased student numbers is not equal to the number of posts that have been lost in recent years. The staff/student ratios are in most cases double the ratio in United Kingdom universities. This results in very little contact or personal supervision of students in most subjects.
Students in most of our third level institutions are housed in cramped conditions. In Trinity College, UCD, UCG, Maynooth, UCC and in the regional colleges there is serious concern that overcrowding of lecture theatres, canteens, classrooms and laboratories constitutes a serious safety risk. In many cases students have to sit on the floor in the canteens to eat their lunches. This is totally unacceptable. Security staff, maintenance staff and laboratory personnel have been reduced to such an extent that buildings and equipment are frequently unattended with a consequent safety and fire risk. The overcrowding, if anything, will get worse as we seek to increase the participation in third level education of students from working class backgrounds. These people are considerably under represented in third level education at the moment.
I would refer the Minister briefly to the Clancy Report of 1988 which clearly stated that children from semi-skilled and unskilled labouring backgrounds constitute only 4 per cent of those in third level education whereas people from farming backgrounds constitute 21 per cent, from professional and managerial backgrounds constitute 39 per cent, those from salaried employees constitute 22 per cent and other non-manual and skilled manual workers constitute 13 per cent. This is something the Government will have to address if they are serious about providing equal opportunity to all our children.
The quality of academic research is also suffering. There is a major shortage of technicians and laboratory staff to back up academic research initiatives. Many routine academic classes have to be postponed, and in some cases abandoned, due to cutbacks. Basic research here is grossly under-funded. This will not only affect the quality of teaching but the future competitive nature of Irish industry. As a result we will fall further behind our main industrial competitors.
I understand that recently the medical research centre in Trinity College was closed down because of a lack of funding. The libraries in our third level institutions are grossly under-funded and under-staffed. They have been forced to reduce holdings for books due to lack of space and to reduce opening hours due to lack of personnel. This is a major disadvantage to many students who do not have alternative study facilities.
In most colleges the equipment for teaching and research is old and inadequate to meet the increase in student intake. In many cases the equipment is obsolete but cannot be replaced because of the lack of funding. It is into this environment that increased numbers of students have come in the RTCs and universities. The Minister has made a welcome commitment to provide further places but unless proper funding is provided, study places in the libraries will become even more crowded, lecture halls will overflow, there will be larger queues for books in the libraries and longer queues in the canteens, at computer terminals and at the photo copying machines. The result inevitably will be a significant decline in our standards and in the quality of third level education.
In relation to the higher education grants system, at the moment the children of a large number of middle and lower income families cannot attend university because their parents cannot afford it. It is time to base the quallification for higher education grants on residual income as they do in Northern Ireland and in England. This would make it easier for many families who are discriminated against by the present grants system to gain access to third level education. At the moment many of them are taking places in RTCs because there they are provided with ESF funding, they cannot afford to go to universities and they are taking places from other people because of this. It is time for the Government to seriously consider the funding of our education system.
We are facing very challenging times at all levels in education. We have a surfeit of review bodies when what we need is a positive commitment from the Government to provide the necessary financial resources to ensure that education keeps pace with our EC partners.
In his speech to the House the Minister spoke about factors beyond the control of the Department in terms of the shortfall in funding from the European Social Fund. The Minister did not tell us what those factors were or what has given rise to this dreadful situation. Last year a Supplementary Estimate of about £6 million was brought into the House, the vast bulk of which related to school transport. When the Book of Estimates was published there was quite a difference between the figure given then and the revised Estimate figure announced on budget day in relation to European Social Fund funding. There was an additional £7.6 million, which related to 1989 activities, included in the revised Book of Estimates. As the Minister saw it, there was no need last year to bring in a revised Estimate even though this money was due. I am alarmed that this is one Supplementary Estimate for Education relating to a shortfall in European Social Fund funding. My information is that a substantial Supplementary Estimate will be introduced next week for second level. Indeed further moneys are to be sought in relation to first level and in relation to the Zoo project. What has gone wrong? Why is the money not forthcoming? In his contribution the Minister of State said he expected the balance of the £70.6 million to arrive before the end of December. Can he be sure that will happen? Where will the £4.3 million extra, which is the subject of this Supplementary Estimate, come from? From where will it be borrowed? If it is to be borrowed what are the implications for the Exchequer? If the money arrives — or does not arrive — by the end of December what are the implications for the Exchequer? Is the State now in the position that it will have to use money which is very badly needed for all the areas right across the spectrum to which Deputy Deenihan addressed himself? Are we now penalising students, in particular, because for some reason the money is not forthcoming from the EC? Have the Department claimed the returns from the EC on time? In this regard we are talking about substantial sums of money. If my information is correct in relation to further Supplementary Estimates coming in next year we will be talking about further substantial sums of money.
Have the Department done their part? Have they been doing their homework properly, making proper returns and claiming money on time? I believe the Minister skirted around these issues. The essence of the Supplementary Estimate was never dealt with, as neither were the problems that have given rise to the present situation. Is this ongoing? Will we be faced with this same type of problem or, perhaps, a worsening one year in year out? What is the difference this year and what has given rise to this Supplementary Estimate suddenly being thrown at us to be dealt with in the House?
In relation to the funding of third level education, but more particularly in the area of grants, a substantial number of students are availing of European Social Fund grants which are not means tested. The problem arises where parents' incomes are slightly above the limits set for third level education grants. They are either being nailed to the wall financially and undertaking commitments by means of borrowing etc. which will affect their lives for many years or have to take the soul destroying decision that they cannot make proper provision for their children and cannot give them the opportunity of going to university or, in certain instances, to regional technical colleges or to colleges run by the DIT. It cannot be over-emphasised, and this was alluded to by Deputy Deenihan that in a country that is as highly taxed as we are, where the vast bulk of all revenues comes from the PAYE sector, it is this very PAYE sector who are being graded and adjudicated on in terms of eligibility for grants for their children but on gross income which, in all instances, is substantially higher than their net income. This group also can be just over the income limit for hospital services cards. This puts them in the position either of having to take grave risks in terms of being able to provide proper health care for their families or having to avail of voluntary health insurance. This group in a real sense have been and continue to be the real poor.
It is an absolute basic tenet of Labour Party policy in education that there is equality of access. A gross injustice is being delivered to this group. In the context of some revision of European Social Fund grants and how they can possibly be extended to apply to other courses or whether it is done directly from Exchequer funding this group must be catered for as an absolute priority.
In relation to access to third level education a point which must be considered is that of geographic location as well as socio-economic factors. Those children who live either in or adjacent to university towns have a marked advantage in terms of whether they can avail of third level education places for degree courses as opposed to those who live in the more remote areas of the country. This problem can be approached on a number of levels. There is the initial step of basing the qualifying limits for third level education grants on net rather than on gross income. Because of modern technology and the fact that there is a structure of vocational education committees throughout the country many of the degree courses in the general chalk and talk area, for example, of arts, commerce degrees and so on, can be given out on an agency basis to such bodies as vocational education committees, the lecturers being sent from central points.
Not alone are many children being discriminated against here but many areas are being discriminated against because a great deal of the income is going out of those areas into the university towns to the detriment of the towns involved. This is a matter the Minister must examine. There is also the whole area of the open university provision which Dublin City University and the Distance Education Centre have addressed themselves to this year. These courses are very suitable for, for example, the unemployed or married women who, for part of their career are home bound. Such people could avail of further education under the open university provision if it were available to them. In the UK subsidies are involved for similar type courses. I raised this matter of subsidies with the Minister at Question Time prior to the summer recess. I hope this is being looked at in terms of the Book of Estimates and the budget so that proper provision is made to help this group avail of further education.
Finally, and I refer specifically to the Estimate, what has happened? Why was it that after the publication of last year's Estimates an extra £7 million was found to be required? Why is such a huge amount outstanding this year in the area of third level education? If my information is correct — and I would ask the Minister to confirm this — a figure of £29.5 million will be sought next week by way of Supplementary Estimate for second level education, while almost £1 million will be sought for first level education, and a sum of £100,000 will be sought in relation to the Zoo.
The time available to the Deputy is now exhausted.
Based on the Minister's reply, the Labour Party will decide whether to oppose this Estimate.
This Supplementary Estimate is being introduced because of an under-estimation of grants, lack of European Social Fund funding and so on. I intend to refer mainly to grants and funding for students. The other Opposition speakers have dealt with the Clancy Report and the obvious lack of equality of access to third level colleges.
On 15 February 1989 the Minister said that everybody agreed in theory, but not in practice, with equality of access to third level colleges. She also admitted in reply to a parliamentary question from me that the level of grant applicable was another factor in the lack of equality of access and that there was growing concern at the preponderance of children of self-employed people receiving third level grants to the alleged detriment of the children of PAYE workers. That inequality has been referred to here this morning by both Deputy O'Shea and Deputy Deenihan, I have referred to it on numerous occasions and the Minister has admitted that that is the case, yet it continues.
There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it, if the people whose tax is deducted under the PAYE system are £1 above the limit the Revenue Commissioners, the Government, and everybody knows about it. Everybody knows their income, the amount of tax they pay and every detail about them. For these people there is a cut off figure. On the other hand, farmers and self-employed are asked to declare their income and there is no way of knowing whether they are right or wrong as there can be all sorts of estimates of income. The Clancy Report referred to the enormous difference in the level of access to third level education between different counties. Funnily enough, the lowest level of access is in Dublin where there is the highest number of third level colleges and the greatest possible access. However, because of the lack of grants and so on, access to third level education is not as widely available to students in the Dublin area as it is to students in other counties.
I want to refer to the huge drop out rate from colleges. No analysis has been done of this but a headline in the Irish Independent last year stated that 4,500 students quit college each year — obviously, the small grant they receive is one of the major reasons for this. Because it takes so long for students to receive their grants they have to borrow for the first few months they are at college, and when they receive it, it is not as high as they expect.
I want to refer to this extraordinary 15 mile rule. This rule should not exist because, first, it prevents students from going to the college of their choice and, second, apparently it is a purely arbitrary decision taken by the principal of a college. He has to decide whether a person lives within 15 miles of a college and he usually does this by measuring a map, as the crow flies. He can decide whether a student should get the lower rate grant of £15 or the higher rate of £38 per week. That decision is made for the student. Even if a student lives more than 15 miles from a college, if he lives on a main route — either a main train route or main bus route — he will get the grant and will be told he can commute.
Students have no idea of the amount they will get by way of grant. In fact, 38 per cent of students receive no grant whatsoever while those who receive grants are unable to live on them. Even the maximum grant of £38 per week is not enough to survive on. The minimum rate for a single person on social welfare is £52 per week, yet a student is expected to survive on £38 per week. The grant system does not encourage equality of access to our third level colleges.
The fees for these colleges increase at an enormous rate. During the past decade, student fees have increased by over 400 per cent while at the same time grants for students have only increased by 50 per cent. This means that today students are worse off now than they were in 1980. Instead of increasing the equality of access to third level, this reduces it. The combined enrolment figures for, VECs, RTCs and the Dublin Institutes of Technology increased from 10,900 in 1980 to 22,000 in 1989, an increase of 105 per cent, whereas there was only an increase of 52 per cent, from 26,000 to 35,000, in the enrolment figures for the university sector. There is a huge drop out rate in this area but no analysis has been carreid out to establish why 4,500 students out of a total of 22,000 drop out of college each year. Although some of these students have carried out some analysis on this high drop out rate, no explanation has been given for it by the Department.
Another factor which has to be referred to is the lack of facilities in these colleges. It is not that the facilities are bad but that they are non-existent. The Union of Students of Ireland carried out a study of six or seven colleges — Waterford, Carlow, Cork, Tralee and Athlone Regional Technical Colleges, Bolton Street, Kevin Street, the College of Marketing and Design and the Dublin Institutes of Technology. As the President of the Union of Students of Ireland, Tadhg Daly, said, the simplist way to describe a Vocational Educational college is the bare walls and teaching facilities; virtually all other facets of a college are missing — library and canteen facilities are totally inadequate, recreational facilities are non-existent or inadequate, apart from a few colleges, there are no medical facilities, safety standards are non-existent and there is no access for the disabled. These colleges are barely education factories which are not at all suitable for the development of the student. This is probably another factor leading to the huge drop out rate.
Those involved in the colleges sector were assured during the summer that the long awaited colleges Bill would be brought before the House in October and be completed by Christmas. That has become more and more doubtful and no solid decisions have been given in reply to questions raised in this House. It has been suggested that the Bill may be introduced next session, but we do not know. This has created great confusion and doubt and I appeal to the Minister to speed up the colleges Bill for the next session.
I thank Deputies for their contributions to this short debate. This Supplementary Estimate deals only with one area of education and consequently I do not propose to go into some of the other areas mentioned.
I would, however, clear up a misunderstanding regarding availability of money. There is no shortage of money and this Supplementary Estimate is required because of the timing of an ESF payment. As I explained earlier, ESF funding is paid at a slower rate than we would wish and consequently we are awaiting an ESF payment which we expect to receive in late December. If this remaining funding comes through in 1990, there will not be an extra charge on the Exchequer; if it does not come through until early 1991, there will be a charge on the Exchequer in 1990 but a reduction in the charge in 1991. It is not a question of a shortage of money or money being taken from any other area of the Education Vote, rather it is a question of moving forward expenditure which we now need because of our commitments and restoring that expenditure when we receive the promised funding from the ESF. We cannot control the timing of ESF payments and consequently it has been necessary to move this Supplementary Estimate.
Various comments have been made on shortcomings in third level education. Deputy Mac Giolla referred to what he considered to be an unfair distribution of higher education grants. I accept that there may have been anomalies in the past but these have been cleared up. Any applicant to a local authority for a third level grant must produce audited accounts for examination and authentication for the Revenue Commissioners. This applies in the case of self-employed people, farmers and anybody else. Anomalies of the type described by the Deputy which may have existed in the past have been eliminated. I am satisfied that the judgment made by local authorities on the eligibility of students for third level grants is being made in the most effective way possible. I agree that a person who has tax stopped at source under the PAYE system has no chance of producing incorrect figures, whereas it is a possibility in the case of people who submit their own accounts on a self-assessment basis. That applies across the board and is not confined to qualification for education grants. This Department have done everything to ensure that people who do not qualify for a higher education grant because they are not under the income level do not get it.
Deputy Deenihan referred to shortfalls and difficulties experienced in third level education. One would have to preface any remarks about expenditure on education by saying that no matter how much money one has to spend, it is not enough. Great credit is due to the Minister for Education in that during the past few years when there were significant cutbacks in Exchequer expenditure she protected the education system as far as possible.
The biggest cutbacks of all, next to Health.
In the 1990 Estimate, £116 million was provided in grants to universities, colleges and designated institutions for higher education. That figure represents an increase of 10 per cent on the 1989 figure. It is an indication of the Minister's commitment to deal with the problems which I accept are present, such as overcrowding in libraries, canteens and so on. Nobody denies that these problems exist. In the context of the need for cutbacks in expenditure and the demand by the colleges for extra expenditure, the Minister has made every effort and has succeeded to a certain degree in tackling the difficulties. I assure Deputy Deenihan and the House that the Minister for Education has been making every possible effort to get the extra money required under the current and capital programme, and she will continue in that effort. The increase in last year's Estimate was a significant 10 per cent and I hope to see continuing increases in this very important sector in the Education Vote.
Is the Minister assuring the House that this Supplementary Estimate has no adverse financial implication for the Exchequer? In other words, if we are waiting for this money to come from the European Social Fund before the end of December or shortly after that, is it not logical that the money used will be borrowed and that there will be a cost implication in terms of servicing the debt?
It is a draw-down from the Exchequer, part of the overall cash flow. There are no significant implications, other than having to wait a little longer for our money. There is no requirement for the drawing of extra moneys from the Exchequer as a result of this Supplementary Estimate. It is purely a question of timing and cash flow.
