Supplementary Estimates, 1997. - Vote 29: Third Level and Further Education.
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £107,150,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment in the year ending 31 December, 1997 for the payment of sundry grants and grants-in-aid in respect of third level and further education.
These Supplementary Estimates arise because of a number of different factors. First, major technical adjustments are required to deal with two long-standing issues. These involve placing the higher education grants on a current year basis to ensure these grants are paid to students on time every term, and changing the pay date for secondary teachers from 5 January 1998 to 31 December 1997 as a precursor to placing their payments on a fortnightly basis in line with other teachers.
Second, the cost of various commitments, mainly capital, made by the previous Government, provision for which was not included in the 1997 Revised Estimates. Third, underestimation of the provision for a number of subheads principally in the pay, superannuation and student support areas. Fourth, costs arising from the Government's decision immediately after taking office to put in place a programme to tackle skill shortages. Fifth, shortfalls in ESF receipts due to Irish pound-ECU exchange rate variation and delays in ESF receipts due at end 1997 but now likely to arrive in January 1998.
For the information of the House, I intend to go through Votes and subheads giving details of the supplementary provision being sought.
Vote 26 comprises the Office of the Minister for Education and Science. A Supplementary Estimate totalling £4.650 million is required on this Vote which includes all of the basic operations of the Department and various general programmes. The Supplementary Estimate is comprised of the following elements.
Subhead A1 covers salaries, wages and allowances. The extra £600,000 sought is mainly due to overtime by Department staff in connection with the State examinations system and in working on the implementation of a major salary package for teachers negotiated under the PCW.
Subhead A.4 covers postal and telecommunications services. An additional £150,000 is sought for this subhead: £100,000 relates to increased postal charges and a further £50,000 is required for telecommunication equipment which is required in connection with the redevelopment of the Department's offices in Dublin.
Subhead A.5 deals with office machinery and other office supplies. The additional amount of £400,000 requested is due to an unprecedented and continuing demand for printing, including photocopying work and greater than anticipated computer and IT costs. Many reforms have taken place in recent years and new initiatives have resulted in increased demands for printed material to be made available to schools and various interest groups. Also, some computer and photocopying equipment is in urgent need of replacement.
Subhead A.6. covers office premises expenses. An additional amount of £700,000 is required. This mainly arises from a major redevelopment of the Department's Marlborough Street complex, involving the total refurbishment of all the listed buildings on site and the erection of new purpose built office blocks. The capital element of this work is, in the main, funded by the Office of Public Works but considerable elements of expenditure, principally furniture and fittings, fall to be met by my Department.
Subhead B.2 covers transport services. The main reason for requesting a supplementary increase in this subhead has been the demands made on my Department for improvements in transport services, in particular, for disabled pupils attending special schools and special classes. These improvements for special needs pupils will account for an additional £300,000 in 1997.
Improvements include increased provision of specially adapted bus services for wheelchair pupils, better transport services and more grant-aid for special needs pupils. There have been some other minor refinements in the school transport services in 1997 at primary and post-primary level, which will increase expenditure by £200,000. This brings the total sought under this subhead to £500,000.
Subhead B.6 covers in-career development. An additional £2 million is being sought for the in-career development of teachers at first, second and further education levels. This would bring the total provision for the year to £8.634 million. This is an exceptional figure which arises from underestimation of the carryover of increased activity in 1996 into 1997, and provision of new in-service programmes and the increased number of schools taking part in existing programmes Subhead B.16 covers the Royal Irish Academy of Music. The funds in this subhead are allocated to the Royal Irish Academy of Music to meet the costs of the estimated deficit between the academy's income and expenditure on current account. A sum of £50,000 is being sought by way of Supplementary Estimate to cover costs which have arisen during 1997 and which cannot be met from the original provision. These costs relate to unavoidable expenditure associated with the replacement and upgrading of defective and aged musical instruments and general maintenance of the facilities.
Subhead B.20 covers miscellaneous measures. I will very shortly launch the full details of the Schools IT 2000 initiative. As an initial step I have established the National Centre for Technology in Education, NCTE, which is based at Dublin City University. The NCTE will manage the overall implementation of Schools IT 2000. It is essential that the centre be in place as early as possible to plan for the start of the implementation of Schools IT 2000 as early in 1998 as possible. This supplementary sum of £250,000 is required to fund the national centre and the start-up of its activities in 1997.
In Vote 27, first level education, a Supplementary Estimate totalling £18.850 million is required. Under Subhead A, salaries, etc. for primary teachers, a supplementary amount of £4.750 million is sought. These additional moneys are required to meet the costs of retaining approximately 300 teacher posts most of which were due to be suppressed at the end of the 1996-7 school year because of declining enrolments, for which provision had not been made in the original Estimates, and to meet a shortfall due to underestimation in respect of substitution and employers' PRSI costs.
Under Subhead C, capitation grants towards the operating costs of national schools, a supplementary amount of £300,000 is being sought to fund the cost of improvements in the scheme of additional capitation grants for clerical and caretaking services in primary schools. The additional sum sought will enable a reduction in the qualifying enrolment from 250 to 195 pupils for ordinary national schools, and a reduction in the qualifying criteria for special schools to six or more teachers. An additional supplementary amount of £300,000 is required to fund the cost of capitation grants to primary schools, which was greater than anticipated.
Under Subhead F.1, other grants and services, I am seeking £100,000 for additional equipment for children with disabilities and an additional £400,000 for grants towards the rental of temporary school premises. A Supplementary Estimate of £100,000 is sought to assist in addressing the level of applications received in my Department for equipment, such as computers, braillers and radio aids for children with special needs. This significant move will result in the clearing of the current waiting list for all such appliances. This allocation is being made possible by a transfer of resources from the Vote of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and I thank the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for his co-operation in that matter. In certain circumstances, ordinary national schools and special schools may have to rent accommodation for short periods. The number of schools, mainly Gaelscoileanna, requiring temporary premises is £400,000 greater than originally estimated.
Under Subhead J, superannuation, etc. of teachers, an additional £6.5 million is required for the pension costs of primary teachers. The shortfall in the pensions provision arises because the numbers retiring are much greater than anticipated. A major factor seems to be that many teachers postponed their retirement until they were satisfied that the PCW was secure.
Under Subhead K.1, building equipment and furnishing of national schools, an additional £6.5 million is sought for the capital funding of primary schools. The extra provision is required because additional major primary schools and projects have been released to tender and contract compared to the original number of projects when the 1997 Estimates were decided.
In Vote 28, second level and further education, a Supplementary Estimate totalling £45.3 million is required. Under Subhead A.1, secondary teachers — incremental salary grant, an additional £26 million is being sought to enable secondary teachers to be paid their monthly salaries at the end of each month, beginning in December 1997, instead of on the fifth day of the following month at present. This will also facilitate the introduction of fortnightly pay in the latter part of 1998. This major technical adjustment will finally address the long standing grievance of most second level teachers that they are the only teachers who do not receive their pay on a fortnightly basis. I am pleased to be in a position to address this issue so quickly in my term of office.
Under Subhead D, superannuation of secondary, comprehensive and community school teachers, an additional £2 million is requested for pensions of secondary, comprehensive and community school teachers. The number of retirees in 1997 was much greater than anticipated.
Under Subhead E, running costs for comprehensive and community schools, a sum of £7.5 million is required for the same reason as I outlined for subhead A.1. It is to facilitate the change of date of the payment of the monthly salaries of community and comprehensive school teachers. The further £1.5 million sought arises from underestimation in the subhead in respect of the community schools sector as a result of rationalisation.
An additional £1.2 million is being sought under Subhead J, examination, because extra costs were incurred in the examinations branch of my Department due to the introduction of a range of enhancements to the security system, such as a track and trace system bar codes, new secure collection system.
An additional £4.6 million is sought under Subhead L, building grants and capital costs for second level schools, to meet building grants and capital costs in respect of secondary, vocational, comprehensive and community schools. An additional number of major projects were approved and added to the capital programme during the course of the year. Many have now proceeded to construction and are incurring expenditure.
A Supplementary Estimate of £2.5 million is being sought under Subhead M.5, receipts from the European Social Fund, due to reduced receipts in 1997 mainly arising from losses incurred as a result of unfavourable exchange rates between the ECU and the Irish pound.
In Vote 29, third level and further education, a Supplementary Estimate of £107.150 million is required. Under Subhead A.1 higher education grants, the additional requirement is £70 million. I am proposing to bring the recoupment of local authorities to a current year basis for which I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate of approximately £56 million. I am also proposing to put local authorities in funds to enable them issue maintenance grant payments to students before the end of this year in respect of the second term. This will cost an additional £11.6 million. A further £2.4 million is required under this subhead due to a shortfall in the 1997 provision for the local authorities expenditure in 1996. This shortfall arose because of a greater than expected increase in the number of grant holders than was forecast when the Estimate was agreed.
This major provision of £70 million represents the largest element of the Supplementary Estimates being sought today. It arises because of consistent difficulties arising from the current system of reimbursing local authorities. The most significant of these is the habitual delay in distributing grants to students. With this adjustment to payment procedures, cashflow difficulties faced by local authorities would be overcome. Henceforth, I expect them to be better placed to pay the vast majority of students their grants at the start of each term. The steps I am taking to bring recoupment to local authorities onto a current basis will ensure that the Exchequer is not carrying a significant liability to local authorities at the end of each financial year.
An additional £4 million is sought under Subhead A.4, grants to vocational education committees in respect of scholarships to students, for grants paid by vocational education committees while an additional £1.8 million is required under Subhead A.5 in respect of grants in support of trainees on ESF aided programmes. An additional £4.4 million is required for the Vote for the higher education grant under Subhead B.2.
Under Subhead C, a Supplementary Estimate of £2 million is required in respect of the regional technical colleges and the institutes of technology while £1 million is required to meet the cost of providing additional student places to meet the skills shortages. Similarly, an additional £10 million is sought under Subhead L.1 to provide extra places to meet the continuing increase in the demand for third level education, to provide for the skills shortages. An additional £5 million is indicated to provide for the steps I took in July and the additional places in computer software and technician programmes we started this autumn.
Under subhead L.2, an additional £4.25 million is sought to deal with the underestimation of a number of matters and the replacement of a site sold by the University of Limerick for industrial development purposes. The sale of the site facilitated the creation of 400 jobs. It also covers the final element of a £5 million capital investment for skills which I announced last July.
The Minister did much work when he was in Opposition and produced many ideas. He promised to be a reforming Minister. In view of this, today's Supplementary Estimates and the Estimates for 1998 are a sad reflection on what appears to have happened to him. He has either been overwhelmed by managing the system or his commitment to deep seated reform was not as serious as we thought.
It is disappointing that in 1998 the primary education system must once again wait its turn. The allocation of public money to the system will be far below the commitment to the third level education system. When the capital sums provided through the various funds and the doctoring of the moneys in second and third level are accounted for it becomes apparent that third level will gain a considerable 22 per cent increase in spending, including capital and current, while primary level will have to survive on a mere 9 per cent, similar to second level. As a result in 1998 we will spend £1,800 per pupil at primary level and £6,800 per pupil at third level.
There are reasons third level education is more expensive. The basic issue is that the education system has failed 21 per cent of our children, the root cause being in the primary phase. In the Estimates, the discretionary funds available in 1998, leaving aside teachers pay which is committed, for the three sectors of education will be an additional £34 million. A sum of £6 million will go to primary education, which works out at £13 extra per primary pupil; £10 million to second level, £27 extra per pupil and £18 million to third level, or £152 extra per pupil. Clearly there will be no assault on the fundamental problems in the primary system on the basis of £13 extra per pupil in 1998.
The INTO and others have expressed their bitter disappointment at the capitation increases which will amount to only £5 at a time when the Minister had given an indication that the gap with secondary education would be closed. If there is to be an assault on disadvantage this year it will have to come from the demographic dividend. With 12,000 fewer primary pupils in the system we should have a dividend of about 500 teachers to be allocated for the academic year. It is crucial that this be channelled into Breaking the Cycle initiative and the Early Start initiative, those highly targeted as disadvantage. The Minister should immediately commence negotiation with the education partners to ensures he delivers on that commitment. He will have to renege on his commitment in his manifesto to keep the teachers in the schools. That commitment was nonsense if we are to confront disadvantage.
We must look seriously at problems in second level education. The fortnightly pay is welcome but it will not happen until 1 January 1999. There was no need to bring forward this money in 1997. Teachers will not see any benefit from this decision, which is purely cooking the books. The extra cost of fortnightly pay is £16 million which fell to be paid in 1998, not in 1997. This is cooking the books and has nothing to do with a commitment which secondary teachers will welcome.
There is no apparent provision to allow the development in in-school management structure in secondary schools. For the second year running there is no provision for capitation. The freezing of the capitation means that where voluntary schools previously raised 20 per cent of their moneys privately they will now have to raise 30 per cent privately. That will create hardship for many parents.
It is disappointing there is no evidence of any of the key reform initiatives the Minister advocated in Opposition. No resources have been provided for the psychological service, caretakers and secretarial assistants, in-service training — instead there is a 14 per cent cut — pre-schools — a pledge in the programme for Government — or intensive anti-drugs initiatives, another commitment the Minister made with great flurry. The provision for child care assistants and special services for children in care suggests they will not benefit from the extra money available to education.
Having come from the industrial sphere I shall deal with in-service training. We are providing £7.4 million, a drop of 14 per cent, and another £3 million for IT which I welcome. The total, £10.5 million, represents 0.7 per cent of the payroll in the primary, secondary and further education. The Minister is on record as having advocated to industry that they should be spending at least 5 per cent of their payroll on training initiatives. He is lecturing industry and business generally about the need to commit to lifelong learning. In his own area of teacher-training, for the resourcing of teachers to adjust to the needs of the future, he is providing a derisory 0.5 per cent. That is ridiculous and the Minister will have to look seriously at it, given the new primary curriculum in the offing and a major reinvention of systems and procedures to be undertaken by teachers at primary level.
The IT area is crucial and the Minister has rightly highlighted this. However, he does not realise the yawning gap that exists. The average in Ireland is one computer for every 73 pupils, 100 in primary level and 33 in second level. The UK has a ratio of 9:1, Sweden 10:1 and Finland 16:1. Those countries are investing heavily. For example, the five year commitment of most of those countries is to achieve the Council of Europe ratio of ten pupils for every computer. The Minister's commitments will mean that at the end of a period we will probably have a ratio of 30:1 and be still at the bottom of the third division in terms of IT in schools.
The Minister is hoping to train about 40 per cent of teachers over the next five years. Contrast that with Japan which plans by the end of 1999 to have 100 per cent of its teachers trained in the use of IT in the classroom. We will fall behind and the Minister's correct instinct to make us one of the leading countries in this area will be bitterly disappointed given that his Department has not seriously addressed the analysis in the steering committee on the information society which showed the extent of our problems and the need to address them.
I wish to refer to the third level sector. The whole area of regional technical college upgrades is a shambles. Ministers on the Front Benches are trying to seek political kudos for announcing, ahead of the posse, that a particular institution will be an institute of technology and will have no truck with any national institute. We have heard all of this from the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, and the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke. The Minister joined in the unseemly scramble to buy political credit in his own backyard of Cork. It makes a nonsense of setting up an independent system of evaluation in these colleges if Ministers treat the system with such derision. We are trying to persuade the partners in education to take seriously the issue of excellence in education, to change the way they do things, to look at their performance and upgrade. How can they take that seriously when Ministers are playing political football with standards in the education system at third level and in the regional technical college sector, in particular. Many people are scandalised by what is going on but may be too polite to say so. There is a serious need for the Minister to wake up to the problem.
The higher education grants is the cover up of the century. The Minister made his most innovative commitments in this area. We were to have third level grants for PLC students, increased maintenance levels, increases in the income thresholds, a better deal for large families, better postgraduate provision, a concession for dependent children and mature students and access to grants for part time students but not a penny has been provided to honour these commitments. Clearly, those most affected are the PLC students who are drawn predominately from middle of the road to low income backgrounds. In stark contrast to their brethern who go to regional technical colleges or higher education they receive no maintenance support. This commitment should have been honoured in the Estimates. Equally there should have been progress on the other commitments. This is a bitter disappointment and many will rue the day the Minister was so enthusiastic about this. On his first opportunity to do something about it he did nothing.
I wish to address briefly the £250 million fund. The extra investment in this area is welcome. However, a number of matters make me uneasy about it. It is a three year programme only. The Minister sees no prospect of this fund being extended beyond three years and there is no provision for further development. The Bill provides that the money to go into this fund from the Exchequer will not accumulate in the fund, rather the Minister for Finance will grab back the investment yield from the fund. It is not a fund in any sense. The Bill provides no procedure for consulting with industry on the use of this fund, which is a grave oversight.
We need a more coherent framework to identify, analyse and prioritise future investment needs. The reports produced for the Department indicate investment needs of £750 million, including £185 million for information technology almost £400 million for third level, £50 million for equipment and £60 million for research and development.
In his first term test the Minister has scored E minus. I look forward to the day when he pushes himself up the grades.
A sum of £175,950,000 is required in these Supplementary Estimates. That is a substantial sum in anybody's language. While a large proportion arises out of the PCW, there are a number of elements on which I seek clarification. Under the heading of first level education an additional sum of £500,000 is required under subhead F1 — other grants and services — although the Minister mentioned a figure of £400,000. That substantial sum is required for the rent of temporary school premises. The original Estimate was £9.6 million. The Minister indicated that Gaelscoileanna would have a large impact but against a background of declining enrolments in national schools is the taxpayer getting best value for money? It appears that substantial amounts are being used to rent temporary accommodation at a time when there is considerable vacant classroom space available.
An additional sum of £6.5 million is required under subhead K1 — building, equipment and furnishing of national schools. Which schools will benefit from this allocation? In the era of transparency and accountability we should be given more detail of where money is spent, rather than round figures.
Under the heading of second level and further education an additional sum of £4.6 million is required on the capital side which is broken down as follows: secondary schools, £1.7 million; vocational schools, £1.7 million, and comprehensive and community schools, £1.2 million. Which projects will benefit from this allocation? Again, we need more detail before we can agree to the Supplementary Estimate.
Under the heading of third level and further education an additional sum of £70 million is required under subhead A1 — higher education grants — for recoupment to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in l996 and l997. While I accept that the purpose is to make payments on a current year basis, how is it that moneys are still outstanding in respect of l996? Are the local authorities not claiming moneys due?
An additional sum of £2 million is required under subhead C — grants in respect of the running costs of regional technical colleges, the institutes of technology and certain vocational education committee colleges. Which colleges will benefit from this allocation which is substantial and why?
An additional sum of £4.25 million is required under subhead A2 — An tÚdarás um Ard Oideachas — for building grants and capital costs for universities and colleges and designated institutions of higher education — grant-in-aid. The additional sums required for the various institutions are listed. A larger sum, £10.7 million, is required under subhead L1 — building grants and capital costs of regional technical colleges, the institutes of technology and certain vocational education committee colleges — but the additional sums required for the various institutions are not listed. For what purpose is this allocation required and which colleges will benefit?
The Minister's predecessor abolished third level fees. When in Opposition the Minister made many grandiose commitments which appear to have been forgotten and abandoned. What is the position on maintenance grants? Will improvements be made? The income limits should be based on net rather than gross income. Unless I am missing something no provision is made for improvements in the Estimates. Children in university cities have an advantage when it comes to attending college. There is a barrier in terms of equality of access. The Minister indicated that he would address this issue and he should show us what he can do.
On the primary school capitation grant, £5 is available per pupil. This runs contrary to the commitments made by the Minister's party in the run-up to the general election. I received correspondence today indicating the disappointment felt in my area at management, teacher and parent level.
I tabled parliamentary questions inquiring about ESF-funded CERT courses run by regional technical colleges and I was dumb-struck when I was told that the information was not available. Having been informed that there is a high failure rate in relation to these courses, which disturbed me considerably, I decided to seek information on the position. However, the information was not available. How does the Department order and conduct its business since very substantial funds are being committed to these courses, yet the Department, through the Minister, admits it does not know what is happening. I ask the Minister to address that issue when replying.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Pat Carey.
I take a slightly different view of the Minister's grading from that of Deputy Richard Bruton. I would classify him as being A1 which, coming from Cork, I suppose is only to be expected. I should like to avail of this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment. He is a reforming Minister who, over the past five months, has brought great ideas into his Department and demonstrated great confidence in the performance of his task.
One aspect of the Estimates for his Department on which I should like to comment is that of higher education grants. Three members of my family attended college and, having listened to their stories, I am fully aware of what it is like to be attending college while awaiting payment of these grants. Therefore, I am particularly delighted that their payment will be speeded up.
There is also an allocation for school transport services within these Estimates. Members will be familiar with the problems pertaining to these transport services, particularly in the provision of transport for those with mental or physical disabilities. This allocation is especially welcome since these students are the most vulnerable within our society.
I also welcome the additional £26 million to enable secondary teachers have their monthly salaries paid at the end of each month and to facilitate the introduction of fortnightly pay in their case in the latter part of 1998.
Education is one of the most important Government Departments. Its teachers are charged with laying the foundations of young people's expectations and experiences. Most young people are introduced to computer technology at a very young age, almost from infancy.
I strongly recommend that the subject of civics be included ever more frequently in the schools curricula at primary and second level. It is vital that all young people have a grasp of how their country is governed, economy managed and so on. In the secondary school at Bothar Bruí in County Cork, in the course of the presidential election, the principal and vice-principal decided to run a mock election campaign——
I presume they did very well.
They did, but it took almost two weeks of talking to those pupils to explain the workings of proportional representation. Many people were called on to explain the system as some pupils of 17 and 18 years did not understand its workings. The subject of civics should be included in the schools curricula to ensure young people understand the workings of all arms of Government.
Like other Members, I am one of those who spent the past 30 years at the chalk face, 12 of which were spent in the policy area. Consequently I have some interest in this debate.
The Minister has been a breath of fresh air — one who listens and acts — since moving into his Department. It is indeed gratifying that we teachers feel that the Department is headed by a Minister who understands our needs and yet does not lecture us on what our roles ought to be.
I welcome the significant increases being allocated in these Votes across a range of subheads. I particularly welcome the Minister's decision this week to abolish fees for the junior and leaving certificates, a very significant step. Many Members will be aware that we teachers attended many an IVEA conference at which this was called for. Indeed Members opposite who talk about what has not been done should remember that they were in office for the past four and a half years and did precious little in that regard despite the many calls for it.
The Deputy's sums have evaded him.
On the provision for post-leaving certificate courses, may I remind those who criticise the perceived inaction of Government that the last occasion on which fees were removed from PLC courses was when Deputy Mary O'Rourke was Minister for Education and that an investment of approximately £20 million is being made in PLC courses this year. I have no doubt that, over the lifetime of this Government, they will be given further support. I should like to see further education placed on a more secure financial footing. Many of the skills shortages the Minister has identified are being addressed by some excellent PLC courses.
I particularly welcome the increased capitation grants provided for in the Supplementary Estimates. In my 30 years teaching in the primary sector — Deputy Brian O'Shea was one year ahead of me in college — it always struck me as odd that a sixth class student who merited a capitation grant of £45 while attending primary school on progressing to post-primary, qualified for a grant of £177. Some mechanism must be devised to ensure greater equity between the two.
I welcome the increased provision for caretakers and secretarial assistants. I arrived at school at 8.15 a.m. over many years to open the gates, ensure a sufficiency of items like chalk, toilet rolls and so on. While not menial tasks, they should not be the responsibility of fairly well paid professionals whose time should be devoted more properly to other core issues.
I am delighted at the Minister's innovative, creative action in making information technology available in all schools. I know of many a school with one computer it may have acquired through Superclub points which may be out of date. I commend the many parents who have worked long and hard to raise funds for the purchase of computers for schools. It is vital that, at first and second levels, there be adequate investment in information technology.
On the matter of school buildings we must endeavour to veer away from temporary classrooms or renting accommodation. That is counterproductive. In Coláiste Ide in Finglas in my constituency there are prefabricated buildings now 30 years old long past the stage at which they should have been replaced. I hope that issue will be addressed in the lifetime of this Government. I also welcome the provision for child care assistants to aid the integration of children with special needs into the mainstream education system. I am not certain about the level of need throughout the country but almost every constituency makes a request on a weekly basis for a child care assistant to be provided for a child with special needs.
I welcome the provision for the setting up of a planning group for the regional technical college in Blanchardstown which will significantly improve technology education in that area. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward an expansive Estimate.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Perry and Burke.
Acting Chairman
As everyone else has declared an interest in this matter I suppose I should declare mine. I left the education system only two months ago, although I continue to dabble in it. I am disappointed with the Minister's Estimates which provide a mere 2 per cent increase in the provision for school transport. As the Minister is aware, the report on school transport will be published before the end of the year and I am disappointed that he has provided for an increase that is only in line with inflation.
The standard of school transport is very poor. Young people, particularly second level students, are being transported to and from school in deplorable conditions. I cannot understand how some of these buses have passed the Department of the Environment's road worthiness test. I do not understand how the Minister can expect young people to spend three hours or more per day waiting on school transport. Many of these students carry school bags weighing 17 lbs. or more, over 20 per cent of their body weight. I am aware the Minister is examining this issue but the long waiting times for school transport, the weight of school bags and the worry of examinations is putting extreme pressure on young people.
The regulations covering this area date back to the 1960s. Why has the Minister of State not published the report on school transport which has been lying on his desk for some months? It is ridiculous to expect three second level students to share a seat suitable for two people. One seat per pupil is the least that can be expected from the school transport system. Some students are forced to sit in the aisles, carrying their heavy bags, and if an accident occurs they are in danger of being thrown through the windscreen. Students sitting in the aisles are a distraction for the bus driver who must control the young people as well as concentrate on driving the vehicle.
There is severe overcrowding on school buses and we should consider providing seat belts on buses used to carry primary level students. The accident in Chapelizod earlier this month could have had serious consequences were it not for the exceptional skill of the driver. There is an urgent need for a safety system on these buses.
I understand the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is examining safety standards on school buses. Has the Minister of State made any suggestions to his colleague regarding these measures? Has he made any provision regarding school transport? His senior colleague has not made any provision in the Estimates.
Some school buses have been in operation for more than 30 years and are in a bad condition. Fumes leak into the bus, roofs leak, windows are broken and some buses have unsafe headlights. There are serious problems also in regard to students with special needs. They should be collected from home and should not be expected to travel ten or 15 miles to meet a school bus. I know of a 16 year old girl who is driven 16 miles to and from school every day by her parents. That should not happen. The Minister is not making provision for these students. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, on the decisions he has made involving a number of cases but it will be difficult for him to continue this process if he is not given adequate resources. School vehicles must be made wheelchair accessible.
I hope the Minister will revise the catchment areas because serious questions arise in that regard. I am aware of a case where because part of the catchment area was the wrong side of the Shannon students had to get a boat to meet the school bus. That is ridiculous in this day and age. Some catchment areas must be redrawn because this issue is becoming a joke. The catchment areas were redrawn in the early 1960s and they must be revised. It is unfortunate that the Minister has not made provision in the Estimates for the report which the Taoiseach told us will be published before Christmas.
The regulations on school transport are supposed to ensure that our school transport system is safe and efficient but it is currently legal to expose students to high accident risk by not providing them with sufficient seating and proper buses on which to travel.
On adult education, the Minister spoke of computer programmes which are to be welcomed, but if some people cannot read or write how can we train them to use computers? Approximately 25 per cent of the adult population cannot read and that must be taken into account.
I welcome the announcement by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Education and Science on 7 November on the setting up of the education technology fund which may be regarded as an historic decision to reach out for a leadership role in the international educational scene, thus making Ireland the obvious place for inward investment in new technologies and positioning local companies for a leap forward. This is only the beginning. Research and development will be crucial in the years ahead. The fund covers many worthwhile areas and should assist many sectors. Additional funds will be needed, particularly from small companies with access to colleges.
The regional technical colleges, particularly Sligo, need to be examined in a geographical and regional setting and in the context of the development of the west. The first initiative should be to change the name to that of institute of technology. The House must realise that north of a line from Dublin to Galway there is no third level institute of technology and this is clearly an impediment to industrial expansion such as we have seen in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. The IDA, Forbairt and other agencies agree that the existence of a third level institute enhances the likelihood of a major development and new start-up projects. It is imperative, therefore, that the decision to change the name is taken now.
The skills shortages that have been identified are in the areas of third level computer software, engineering and technology graduates. People are needed at both technician and graduate levels. The regional technical college in Sligo currently has plans for an engineering block on the drawing board awaiting funding. A total of £1 million has been allocated to this project from INTERREG funding and we hope the Minister will sanction the balance required. This project will strengthen the college's ability to provide additional graduates and technicians in mechanical, electrical and computing disciplines. If technology status is given to the regional technical college in Sligo it will greatly enhance employment prospects in the west which is urgently needed. I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to this.
I thank my colleagues for sharing time with me. The Minister has been marked at both extremes of grades today, from an A to an E minus, but I will give him a D minus with the comment that he must do better.
It is important to recognise that primary education is the foundation on which our education system is balanced. We must have sound education at primary level for all pupils. I welcome the aspects of the Estimates which recognise that principle but I ask the Minister to make available remedial facilities as a priority to every national school, either on a shared or group basis. Where assessments have been carried out, it is important that we provide this facility. Yesterday's report revealed the level of absenteeism in certain national schools in this urban area. Students who miss out on education because they are forced to leave school at an early age tend to become involved in crime and cause problems in other areas in later years, which require more money to address. If the Minister secured necessary resources from his Cabinet colleagues and invested them in education at the basic level, many of our problems would be resolved. I implore the Minister to provide a resource and remedial service to all national schools. We would make progress if such a service were provided.
There is no recognition of the role of the inspectorate in education. Have we abandoned inspectors or are we waiting for them to die off? There were plans to provide for a vibrant inspectorate in a previous plan in the context of the education boards, but although they appear to have been abolished I note £50,000 has been allocated for them in the Estimates. The Minister might clarify the position. There is a place for a vibrant inspectorate in the Department of Education. That area is not catered for. It does not have sufficient personnel. Subjects such as PE should be given greater recognition in the education system. There is only one inspector in that area at national level.
I would like the Minister to comment on the eligibility of private colleges for free fees. Why should Aer Rianta have to run an institution like the hotel and management college in Shannon? It is a fine operation and its courses are recognised worldwide. Students at that institution as well as other private colleges should be recognised as eligible for free fees.
I thank all the Deputies who participated in this debate. Deputy Richard Bruton gave me an E minus for my contribution, but the best advice one could give to a student before he or she sits an exam is to answer the question asked.
I gave the Minister scope for improvement.
The question the Minister asked related to the 1997 Supplementary Estimates, but he proceeded to discuss the 1998 Estimates rather than the 1997 Supplementary Estimates under discussion today. The abridged volume is the first step in the Estimates process, the following step is the budget and the next is the Revised Estimates. Deputy Bruton was somewhat premature in his comments on the 1998 Estimates and what we intend to do. He has some political neck to lecture me on a number of initiatives we have undertaken. We are either for or against paying secondary school teachers on a fortnightly basis. I took the initiative to do something about that now.
That change will not be made at the end of this year.
Somebody must make a decision on that.
That change will not be made this year.
The Deputy was in Government for three years and he did not do anything about it. He said he welcomed that decision and that the change should have been made this year.
The Minister is cooking the books.
This involves a major logistical operation. The ASTI campaigned for this for five or six years.
It did not campaign for the Minister to cook the books.
The ASTI approached successive Ministers for Education. It approached the Government of which Deputy Howlin's party was a member, but it did not get a response. I made a decision on it and I took action. Teachers will be paid on a fortnightly basis next year and the position will be greatly improved.
It is important that local authorities should not be in arrears on the payment of third level grants as was the case in the past and that students should receive their grants on time. That has been achieved under this Supplementary Estimate.
Deputy Bruton attacked our position on primary education. He has some nerve to do that because this Supplementary Estimate provides funding for the retention of 300 teachers as part of the demographic dividend, for which the former Government did not provide a penny in the 1997 Estimate. Before I could deal with the Estimate I had to deal with the mess left by the former Government.
That is not nonsense. This Supplementary Estimate provides for the retention of 300 teachers as part of the demographic dividend.
What will the Minister do about Breaking the Cycle next year?
How could the Deputy have done anything last year given that this did not come under a Supplementary Estimate? I will deal with disadvantage and the allocation of teachers following consultations with the INTO and other partners on various strands and initiatives which we will undertake in that area. It is rich for Deputy Bruton to lambaste us for the 1998 Estimates when his party did not provide any funding for the retention of teachers in the 1997 Estimates.
Who established Breaking the Cycle and the Early Start programme?
The Minister's time is up.
The 1997 Estimate for capital funding of primary school buildings was £27 million. I provided £40 million for that in the 1998 Estimate, which represents a major increase on the 1997 allocation. The former Government did not provide a penny for IT School 2000. When I became Minister there was not a full-time official dealing with that agenda. There was no co-ordination on policy and very little was happening. We changed that. We set up the National Centre for Technology in Education, created the investment in technology fund which includes £25 million in capital alone and for the first time ever in the 1998 Estimates we provided a subhead for current costs relating to that programme of £3 million. By any stretch of the imagination actions speak louder than words. We have heard a good deal of rhetoric in the past two years about IT in schools, regional technical colleges and the technological sector, but that was not followed up by any action. Since I became Minister in July the Government decided to act on these outstanding issues and it has acted very effectively.
Deputy O'Shea raised a number of queries. A sum of £400,000 has been allocated for temporary accommodation. We endeavour to rationalise surplus accommodation in a given area for gaelscoileanna. However, that has given rise to difficulties in certain areas where people are resisting our attempts, but taxpayers require value for money.
On a point of order, I asked a number of questions and I would like the Minister to provide me with the information that I requested.
If time permitted I could give the Deputy the information, but I will forward it to him.
Votes put and agreed to.
