Vol. 577 No. 3
44 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason for the ?60 million underspend in capital projects within his Department for 2003; the reason these moneys were not expended in view of the number of outstanding school building and refurbishment works to be undertaken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31158/03]
Any underspend on the capital side of my Department's budget this year arises in the context of the necessary prudent and tight management of the overall envelope of funds available to me to ensure the delivery of all services across the education sector.
As the year progressed I had to prioritise spending and divert funds to ensure that higher than anticipated demands in areas such as special needs provision and school transport were met.
I want to make clear, however, that in managing the budget, capital funding intended for primary and post-primary schools was not switched. The re-allocation of funds across budget lines was made possible chiefly by savings in the capital budget in the third level sector.
The Deputy is probably aware that I had announced a pause on all capital development in the third level sector in November 2002 when I decided that it was prudent to re-evaluate and review the overall position of third level capital projects and establish clear priorities for future years. The Higher Education Authority, at my request, is carrying out that review in order to assess the entire set of demands in all publicly-funded third level institutions, establish prioritisation and agree re-phasing. Savings on the capital budget can be associated with this pause and these savings are being used to address other meritorious programmes and urgent needs within the education sector.
I am well aware of the Minister's decision on the pause in funding for capital projects in the third level sector in November 2002. I was critical of it at the time but that announcement concerned the 2003 Estimate. The €60 million I am talking about is money for 2003. Is the Minister telling us there was a €60 million underspend in addition to the pause in funding for the third level sector? That appears to be what he is saying. Will he also tell us where the €60 million was spent? Did that come to us by way of a Supplementary Estimate which perhaps is not necessary? If it was, I am sure the Minister would have brought it to our attention. In what sectors was the money spent? I welcome the Minister's confirmation that it did not affect the primary or post-primary sector but I would be concerned about the third level element of it, particularly in light of the fact that this sector has been further cut this year.
Despite what might be in the public domain there has been an increase in current spending in the third level sector this year.
On the question of the €60 million, that was provided for third level building in the Estimates for this year in anticipation that the review might have been completed, that we would have money to spend or that we would need the money for third level projects. As it happened, the review continues and we did not have to spend the €60 million. It is €60 million that was provided for in this year's Estimate and no Supplementary Estimate was necessary for it.
During the course of the year, there was extra pressure on the current side in terms of expenditure. The major areas where needs arose were the special needs provision, that is, special needs assistants, resource teachers at first and second level and all of the areas providing for children with special educational needs. School transport was another area where it was necessary. That largely arose because of the special needs demand which is currently running at approximately 35% of the school transport budget. Extra provision had to be made for teachers' salaries arising from the supervision and substitution arrangements and the payment for those. The final area where extra money was needed was partly because of the package of increased grants we made available to students in higher education. There was a higher level of take-up in that area than we anticipated. They were the four major areas.
We have the same problem with this year's Estimate. When will the review of the third level sector be done and will that affect spending this year? Will the Minister agree it is very bad planning to allocate money to something, then have a review into it and not be able to spend the money available when there are many urgent third level projects?
Perhaps I misheard the Minister on the money being provided for third level grants. My understanding was that the money for that area for 2003 came from the Tánaiste's Department.
A total of €12 million of the extra money needed for that came through the Tánaiste's Department. The extra cost, off the top of my head, was approximately €18 million and the contribution towards the cost of that was €12 million.
On the first question, I do not know when the Higher Education Authority will finish its review of the third level sector. It would have been very bad planning on my part last year if I had told the Minister for Finance during the Estimates campaign that I did not want the €58.5 million he was giving me for third level capital because there was a review ongoing and I did not know when it would finish. It was prudent to try to provide the €60 million. As it turned out it was extremely prudent because of the increased levels of expenditure I needed in other areas. I would have been in a worse position if I could not provide the extra money for special needs assistants and so on. Rather than being blamed for that I think I should be congratulated for having the foresight to make sure I had enough in my budget.
Or criticised for bad planning in the other areas.
