Vol. 443 No. 4
14 Mr. Lowry asked the Minister for Education the level of fees payable by students taking the leaving certificate and junior certificate examinations; the cost of sitting pre-examinations; and the facilities, if any, for low income families to obtain reductions in these fees.
51 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Education the level of fees payable by students taking the leaving certificate and junior certificate examinations; the cost of sitting the pre-examinations; and the facilities, if any, for low income families to obtain reductions in these fees.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 51 together. The ordinary fees payable by school candidates for entry to the 1994 certificate examinations are as follows: leaving Certificate, £44; junior Certificate, £41. In relation to pre-examinations I presume the Deputy is referring to examinations organised in schools prior to the leaving and junior certificate. The position in relation to these examinations is that my Department neither arranges nor charges a fee for them.
My Department implements a scheme to provide alleviation of fees in the case of any pupil attending school who is experiencing particular hardship. For this purpose a total of more than £374,000 has been allocated to recognised schools and vocational education committees in respect of the 1994 examinations. The amount of the reduction in the case of any individual pupil concerned under this scheme is determined at the discretion of the school authorities subject to the total amount of such deductions not exceeding the specified amount already notified to each school.
The fees of £44 for the leaving certificate and £41 for the junior certificate may not appear huge sums of money in terms of individual pupils. However, they present major difficulties for many low income families who have to pay mortgages, water charges and medical expenses, but who do not want handouts. I was told recently of a boy who had been paying his fees by instalment who was sent home from school because the final instalment had not been paid. He lives approximately five miles from the school, was discharged at approximately 10 a.m. and the first his mother knew was at 2.30 p.m. when a teacher from the school telephoned to know if her son had arrived home. I would like to hear the Minister's views because that type of conduct is totally out of line. How does the Minister propose to assist families who do not qualify for a medical card but who are on a low income?
That is why, under this scheme, the amount of the reduction in the case of individuals is determined at the discretion of the school authorities subject to the total amount. The criterion in respect of medical cards is not the only one which applies. The amount allocated to schools to cater for cases of particular hardship is related to the amount allocated to the school or committee for the purpose of the scheme. School authorities are advised that, for the purposes of the scheme, a necessitous pupil may be defined as a child from a home where general hardship exists because of unemployment, prolonged illness of a parent, a large family with inadequate means, single parent status, where more than one child is sitting an examination and other circumstances which would denote a similar degree of domestic and financial hardship. The terms are flexible, it is up to us to ensure that school authorities are aware of the scheme and the criteria involved and that cases such as that outlined by the Deputy do not arise.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will the Minister accept that it is penal for some parents to come up with this money? The so-called free book scheme has been in operation for many years and schools are allocated a certain amount of money, but they cannot possibly cater for those on low incomes who do not qualify for medical cards. Those administering the scheme will not have enough money to deal with genuine hardship cases where children are frequently embarrassed because they do not have the money to pay these fees. It is not their fault they do not have the money to pay for examinations. Perhaps we should consider reducing examination fees. Why should we generate an income from those sitting examinations?
It is not a profit-making business. In 1993 the total amount collected in examination entry fees was £5,450,000. The amount spent by the Department, in the main on the remuneration of examiners and superintendents, was in excess of £10 million and this was exclusive of the salaries and expenses of the Department's examination staff. Taking everything into account, the total cost of holding examinations was in excess of £13 million in 1993. Let me reiterate that it is not a profit-making exercise.
I remind the Deputy of the criteria, mentioned in my previous reply, that allow schools to respond in a flexible way to the needs of the most necessitous pupils.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will the Minister accept that there will never be enough money? Parents are convinced that they can go to the school principal for assistance to buy books but as the amount allocated to the schools is minimal it does not meet a fraction of the identified need at local level.
I have outlined the headings under which pupils are defined as necessitous. It is left to the discretion of the school authorities to reduce the fees for individuals. However, I agree with Deputy Browne that there is never enough money.
