I welcome the Minister for Education and Science and his officials. I remind members of the long standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on the Minister to introduce his officials and make his presentation.
Department of Education and Science Building Programme: Ministerial Presentation.
I apologise to you, Chairman, and to the members for being late. A combination of a problem with my diary and then traffic conspired to delay me. I am accompanied by principal officers, Mr. Dave Gordon of the PPP unit, Ms Ann Killian of the post-primary building unit and Ms Teresa Griffin of the primary planning and building unit, and the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Martin Hanevy.
I thank the committee for inviting me to attend. All members are aware of my commitment and that of the Government to addressing the enormous infrastructural deficit which exists within the education sector. When I took office I stated that problems in the area of building projects must be addressed and action is being taken in that regard. These problems tend to overshadow the progress and commitment of the Government and its predecessor in tackling the issue of substandard school accommodation.
In 1997, only 30 school building projects were under-way at primary level and at second level, there were 12 projects under-way. In contrast, this year's building programme provides details on the 92 large-scale primary building projects and 36 post-primary projects that have recently been completed; the 85 large-scale primary and 38 post-primary projects which are currently under construction or which have been authorised to go to construction and the further 26 projects that are planned to go to construction this year.
The problem of inadequate educational infrastructure has to be addressed in the context of the overall financial situation which the country faces. I have been in discussions with the Minister for Finance to put in place a capital programme during the next four to five years which will tackle the problems we are experiencing in a planned and coherent manner. It is widely recognised that major capital programmes are difficult to manage when funding is provided annually. The provision of a multi-annual capital funding envelope for the schools building programme will provide additional clarity for all educational partners that are working with my Department to progress much needed projects.
The publication of the 2003 primary and post-primary school building programme was designed to give the maximum amount of information to managers, boards of management, principals, parents, students and Members of the Oireachtas and to provide an assurance that the capital programme is being operated in an open and transparent manner. It clearly sets out the objective criteria used in prioritising projects and shows the commitment of the Government to dispelling any fears that projects can somehow jump the queue.
I wish to take this opportunity to outline the factual position in respect of the recent controversy concerning the 2002 school building programme, a matter the Chairman asked me to address. In April 2002, my predecessor published, on the Department's website, a list of school building projects which were to be progressed as part of the 2002 school building programme. This list of intended projects was based on a revised budget allocation of €172.64 million for primary school buildings. One of the crucial aspects of managing a multi-million euro annual capital programme is the timing of allowing projects to proceed to tender and construction. Some projects were scheduled to proceed to tender and construction in early 2002 and others were scheduled for later in that year. A substantial number of projects proceeded through the design phase and are currently under construction. However, it became clear in autumn 2002 that the funding allocation for 2003 might be less than anticipated. On this basis, it was prudent not to proceed in late 2002 with the projects intended to go to tender and construction and to defer consideration of these until funding for 2003 was certain.
The publication of the Estimates in November 2002 detailed the 2003 funding allocation of €147.7 million for primary capital projects, which was smaller than the figure for 2002. I subsequently reallocated €20 million from within my overall departmental budget to increase the funding available to €167.7 million. The 2003 school building programme was based on this increased allocation. I understand the frustration on the part of schools which believed that their projects would proceed to tender and construction in late 2002 and early 2003, but which subsequently did not do so. However, I hope people will understand that I can only allow projects to advance in line with the funding available for capital projects at primary level.
I intend to continue the process of publishing changes to the school building programme on the Department's website. I firmly believe that the publication of the programme is the best way to provide the maximum amount of information to all interested parties. It also shows that the programme is being operated in a fair way.
An analysis of the current position in respect of school accommodation demonstrates that a number of factors continue to contribute to the existing situation. I referred earlier to the legacy of under-investment over many decades. A further major factor propelling demand and change in the educational infrastructural landscape is changing demographics. As population shifts occur within regions, and particularly in the larger cities, the result is often contraction among existing providers and new demands in rapidly developing areas. Meeting these demands is not easy, particularly, as is invariably the case, when sites have to be purchased.
I understand that there are approximately 10,000 vacant primary school places in the greater Dublin area at present, despite the pressures that exist in certain areas. This is a particularly good example of the difficulties that we face. Unfortunately, the places to which I refer are not available in areas where the population need them. That is a matter we are trying to address.
The very real growth in teacher numbers since 1997, in support of a Government driven improvement in the overall quality of education provision and in addressing special needs in particular, has had significant knock-on effects for school accommodation. In the primary sector, the number of teachers has increased by 3,690 since 1997. This increase has partly been to meet the emerging special needs provision, partly to lower pupil-teacher ratios and to reduce maximum class sizes. The pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools in the current year is projected to be 18.4, the lowest it has ever been in the history of the State and down from 21.7 in the 1997-98 school year. I am aware that some people do not like me to quote such figures and they attempt to change the method by which we calculate the PTR because it does not suit their purposes. However, the information I have provided is factual. The expansion in teacher numbers has also occurred in the post-primary sector, where the numbers have increased by 1,868 since 1996-97.
A further influencing factor on the demand side has been the development of curricular diversity in post-primary schools. The coming on stream in recent years of the junior certificate schools programme, the leaving certificate applied programme, the leaving certificate vocational programme and the transition year inevitably required adequate accommodation for the delivery of these courses.
Members will appreciate the impact that these factors have had on school accommodation requirements. We could have avoided that impact if we had decided to wait and provide the accommodation first and the additional teachers later. However, I do not believe that too many people would have supported such a policy.
Understanding the contributing factors is of little comfort to a school which is waiting for its own building project. However, I must emphasise that, in the period from 1998 to the end of 2002, in excess of €1.2 billion has been expended by the Government in improving the quality of the educational landscape. When account is taken of the further €392 million available in the current year, the reality translates into an unprecedented level of capital investment of in excess of €1.5 billion over a six-year period in upgrading schools. I venture to suggest that this is probably greater than the amount spent on school building projects during the previous two generations. I intend to try to build on that programme of investment and to maximise the amount of funding available for building projects.
The challenge facing my Department is how to ensure that the State gets the best return on investment in educational infrastructure. New ways, such as the devolved building initiative for small rural schools and the permanent accommodation initiative - both initiated this year - show my commitment to finding new and innovative methods and flexible solutions to the difficulties faced by schools seeking to refurbish their buildings or provide additional accommodation quickly. These schemes fund schools to respond quickly to accommodation difficulties, there is minimal interaction with my Department and schools are fully empowered to drive the design and construction process using the guidelines issued by the Department. I fully expect these initiatives will inform future policy and that both schemes will be expanded to include more schools in future years.
Much has been made of the amount being paid for rented accommodation. However, a permanent approach is not always practical because of the immediate needs of the schools and the necessity to provide suitable accommodation within a reasonable period. I consider that the area that is critically in most need of investment is the primary sector.
The capital allocation for third level institutions in 2003 is based only on legally enforceable contractual commitments within funding envelopes approved in advance by the Department. A review is being carried out by the Higher Education Authority to assess the entire set of demands in all publicly funded third level Institutions in order to establish prioritisation and agree rephasing in preparation for a building programme in 2004 and future years. In the context of the current funding position, an alternative funding proposal for PRTL cycle 3 has been put forward by the Higher Education Authority and the institutions concerned to allow progress on capital projects. A decision will not be made on that outside this year's budgetary discussions by Government, which involve consideration of capital envelopes for Departments to 2007.
I refer to the issues raised by Educate Together. Historically, schools at primary and post primary level were predominantly denominational in character and privately owned. The development of a network of second level schools under the aegis of vocational education committees and, more recently, the emergence of all-Irish and multi-denominational primary schools under State ownership, have added to the variety of patronage and trusteeship arrangements. I fully accept the status of Educate Together as a patron body and its role in promoting the expansion of the multi-denominational sector.
Given the way the provision of primary education is structured, it is open to a patron body to submit an application to open a primary school. In general, we are prepared to grant recognition to new schools where sufficient demand is demonstrated and where there exists no suitable alternative provision within a reasonable distance. The procedures for recognition of the new primary schools, which were implemented this year on foot of recommendations made by the Commission on School Accommodation, involve a number of stages, including formal notification of intention to apply for recognition; public consultation and identification of need; formal application for recognition; assessment of the applications by a new, independent schools advisory committee, which will consult with interested parties and report to the Minister; a decision by the Minister or the Minister seeking further information before making a decision; and provision for appeal by the applicant to an independent appeals committee.
A key recommendation of the report was the establishment of a new schools advisory committee, which considers all applications having regard to the following factors: the need for a new school in a given area; the degree of local support for the application; the desirability of diversity in local education provision; the sustainability of the proposed new school; and the availability of suitable temporary premises. As Educate Together is represented on the steering group of the Commission on School Accommodation, I am surprised that it is pointing to difficulties in the implementation of the commission's recommendations.
ln terms of funding decisions, I accept there are many competing issues and choices must be made between the pace at which the State provides permanent accommodation for schools granted provisional recognition and ensuring the existing stock of schools is adequately resourced in terms of addressing health and safety issues and upgrading the standard of accommodation. However, existing schools should not be given reduced priority because of their position in the denominational sector. If I were to ring-fence funding for new schools, this would suggest that parents of children attending schools in the denominational sector would have to make a financial contribution, a concept which Educate Together would not countenance for schools under its patronage.
I remind the committee of the tangible evidence of the State's commitment to the provision of primary education and its acknowledgement that a number of emerging patron bodies do not have the resources required to fund the establishment of schools, that is, the decision of the former Minister for Education and Science, DeputyMartin, to purchase sites and build schools, which would then be leased back to the providers. Prior to that decision, the burden of acquiring sites rested with the patron bodies. At the same time, the local contribution that school managerial authorities were required to pay towards the capital cost of a school was reduced. This financial burden on a school had been set at 10% of the capital cost but this has been reduced to a maximum of €63,000 in the case of a new school or €31,500 in the case of an extension project.
With regard to future school planning, the Commission on School Accommodation recently completed a report entitled, Planning School Provision - Three Praxes, which makes recommendations on the proactive planning for school provision. The report recommends that all partners in education should be appropriately involved in the planning stage and I subscribe to that. The Department is considering the commission's report and decisions regarding its implementation will be taken in due course.
When I published the 2003 building programme, I made it clear that I was determined to operate the programme in an open and transparent manner. I have established and published a level of need and I have determined that the way forward is to secure multi-annual funding envelopes that will allow the Government to address identified needs in an effective manner. I am pursuing that course of action with my colleague, the Minister for Finance. I hope I have touched on the various issues the committee wished to discuss and I welcome questions and comments from members.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Minister began by referring to 2002. The Department underspent on the secondary school building programme by €12 million that year. A number of schools listed on the Department's website were ready to proceed once funds became available but they still await funding and they will have to wait into the future. Why was this money returned and to what use was it put?
We have all seen the letters that were sent to various schools, which promised that projects would be undertaken and which committed the Government and the Department to proceeding with them. For example, there was an accident recently at St. Nessan's, yet a letter issued by the previous Minister in 2002 stated refurbishment work would be carried out. During Question Time recently, I asked the Minister a specific question regarding Killeen national school in north Tipperary. The school board received a letter from the former Minister, Deputy Woods, and the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, stating the necessary work would be undertaken. Nothing happened and it is no longer on the school building programme list. The Minister replied that may have been an inadvertent omission but, in reply to a subsequent parliamentary question, he stated the school would have be considered in the future.
The school received a commitment in writing from two Government Ministers at the time but now we cannot generate a response regarding the current position nor can the school. Perhaps Deputy Hoctor is more enlightened in this regard.
I am.
When I met school representatives last week to discuss this issue, they were no clearer on the current position. How can a school disappear from the list?
The Minister stated he could only allow projects to advance within the funding allocation available for capital projects at primary level, which was a reference to the decision not to proceed with a number of projects on which commitments were made in 2002. Was that decision taken by him or his officials? I made an application under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 for details of the decision-making process that led to projects on the 2002 school building programme not proceeding. The reply stated the Minister for Education and Science did not make decisions in regard to the matter under scrutiny and in the circumstances there were no records in this regard. If schools were listed in the 2002 programme and, subsequently, the projects were not undertaken, there must be records detailing how such decisions were taken. When commitments are made but not honoured, they cannot just disappear. There must be some mechanism for recording those decisions. That is quite serious and I seek confirmation as to who made decisions in this regard.
I understand three primary schools are taking legal actions against the Department arising out of the state of their schools. Is that the position or are there more than three? Is this influencing the decisions being taken by the Department on the school building programme? I have a copy of an e-mail, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which describes how the Department prioritises schools, particularly how temporary accommodation is provided. It states that the outcome of a meeting in March should have left them with a priority list and estimated costs of absolute must-dos, such as units for autistic children, following on legal suits or to avoid legal suits.
The Department, and the school building unit in particular, should not operate on the basis of avoiding legal action; it should be operating on a must needs approach. If that is how the system operates the best way for schools to get something done is either to go to court or to pretend to go to court. That way the Department will step in to avoid legal action but that is not an appropriate way to operate. What are the Minister's views on that?
The contingency fund was withheld in January for reasons I can appreciate, and announcements were made in May regarding temporary accommodation. Again, how is the Department operating here and making decisions on temporary accommodation? The philosophy here seems to be: can the school operate without this? I can understand that, but what are the Minister's views on the use of other rooms such as general purpose rooms? Ideally all schools should have such rooms, and all new schools being built have such facilities provided, but existing overcrowded schools find themselves further down the list because they have general purpose rooms which cannot be used for their original proposal and must now be used as classrooms. That is one way to get over the problem but those facilities are necessary for schools and there are many schools in the programme.
The Minister referred to the multi-annual programme as the school modernisation fund. I know he has been looking closely at this since coming to office last year, but when will we have a resolution? When will the discussions with the Minister for Finance end? In a response to a parliamentary question on 10 June the Minister said a submission had been made to the Minister for Finance on the multi-annual financial envelope for educational infrastructure. Has he received any response from the Minister for Finance on that? When does he expect a response? Will this be announced before the Estimates or can that only be done in conjunction with the Estimates announcement in November?
The Minister has said several times he is considering public-private partnerships for school investment, though there may be difficulties with Eurostat. Where are negotiations on that issue at present? Does the Minister see that as the way forward? In the North in March 2001 it was announced that eight schools were built that year, with C70 million being provided by public-private partnerships. They have proceeded with those schools so if they do not have difficulties, and they are also obviously in the EU, then what is holding us up?
The Minister also referred to the current pupil-teacher ratio. Can he confirm or advise us whether he intends to improve that ratio further and to outline his commitment to that in the future? Will action in that regard be unaffected? The Health and Safety Authority inspected 34 schools and issued improvement notices in six cases. Is the Minister aware of any further investigations or improvement notices? Does this affect the school building programme? The Minister mentioned the emergency top-up maintenance grant in the past and I should like to know how many schools have received that grant which comes under the normal maintenance grant scheme. How much money has been paid out on an emergency basis under that scheme this year and for what kind of work?
I, too, welcome the Minister and his officials. I will start on decisions made last year.
It seems from my reading of the Minister's comments that the former Minister, Dr. Woods, intended that the commitments he made would be honoured after the general election. That is my reading of what the former Minister said. It seems that the present Minister decided not to honour the undertakings that were given earlier in 2002. He said it became clear in 2002 that the funding allocated for 2003 might prove less than was anticipated and on that basis it was deemed prudent not to proceed late in 2002 with projects intended to go to tender and construction. Did the Minister decide to renege on the promises made by Dr. Woods after the general election? That appears to be what he said. Why did he not insist on being given the appropriate financial allocation to honour promises made during the general election campaign and which were sometimes conveyed by personal letters from candidates, Deputies, Ministers and the Taoiseach himself in one case? Promises were made to parents and boards of management. Is the Minister saying he decided to accept an inadequate allocation to fulfil those promises and that that is why many schools did not proceed in accordance with undertakings given in writing? It is important to clear that matter up. A large number of schools were given undertakings but do not know now where they stand with the building programme.
There is a claim that the programme is transparent, and I admit it is better than what we had before in that schools know where they stand, but if, for example, one's school is at stage 6/7, band 2, one is with approximately 60 other schools at the same stage and band. One may know one's school will not proceed immediately but that it is ahead of other schools and bands. However, one still does not know when one's school will proceed. The ceiling of St. Nessan's school in Mungret, County Limerick, fell in on its pupils. It is at stage 6/7, band 2 but the board of management has no idea when the work will proceed. It is unlikely to proceed in 2004 as the band 1 schools will probably go ahead then. The parents of the pupils attending that school have no idea when its permanent building work will start. That is just one example, but it is an indication why such schools want greater clarity, particularly when promises were made to carry out work. In the case of St. Nessan's a Minister of State met the parents and said a new school would be built. Greater clarity is required.
Will the Minister provide new prefabs at Mungret in the interim while allowing that school to maintain its place on the building programme? The Minister said it will not leapfrog over other schools. A request has been submitted for new prefabs as there is an understandable fear of sending children into the old prefabs when such a large section of a roof fell in. The Minister should provide new prefabs while allowing the school retain its place in the building programme. There is a need for more transparency, particularly for schools to which promises were made.
On the multi-annnual building programme, what kind of finance will the Minister have and when will there be information available for schools? Also, 20 small schools were included in a pilot scheme which devolves more authority to those schools, a good idea, but what progress has been made with those schools?
I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply on the new schools and Educate Together. I do not think Educate Together will be satisfied with it either. They outlined in detail to us - their case was accepted by people across the political spectrum - that they have particular difficulties. There is a right enshrined in the Constitution for parents to have their children educated in the religious ethos they choose. The demand is real for these schools. They have real problems, not so much during the initial phase of the temporary approval, but in getting permanent approval and permanent accommodation. In Donabate-Portrane, they looked specifically for land designated for educational purposes but they are having difficulty making progress in this regard.
The general problem for these schools is that they must raise so much funding and obtain so many resources from the parent body. The existing denominational schools do not have the same problems. Obviously, they have problems in extending schools but they are already in place. I ask the Minister to meet Educate Together to try to resolve these issues. There are real problems for people who are trying to provide parents with what is their constitutional right. The original intention behind setting up the national school system was that the school should be multi-denominational.
On third level education, €20 million was taken from the third level budget in order to address issues at primary and second level. There is a real problem for those who are not currently in a third level building programme. The programme has been stalled. The Minister in reply to a question I put to him said that architectural planning of all third level projects will pause at the end of their current stage pending clarification. Teacher training colleges, in particular, have a real problem with this. Mary Immaculate College in Limerick and St. Patrick's College, Dublin, have similar problems. These colleges have not had a new building for 25 years. Mary Immaculate College is spending up to €6,000 per day on rented properties. They are now stalled. Can the Minister give us some indication of when the teacher training colleges, in particular, will have their building programmes addressed? There is a capacity in Mary Immaculate College for 800 students but it has 2,300 full-time students. Teacher training colleges are a special case. As they might be dear to the Minister's heart, I hope he will respond and give them some kind of information as to when they might be able to proceed. Mary Immaculate College has received planning permission. It thought it would be able to proceed but this programme has been stalled.
I agree with the comments of the two previous speakers. I wish to talk mainly about the present and the future. The Minister said that it became clear in 2002 that the funding allocation might be less than anticipated. Either his predecessor seriously misled the electorate prior to May last year or else the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance misled the electorate. Being a Meath man and a Dub, and given how Meath tackled the Dubs in recent years, I will not question the Minister's ability to put his case across at the Cabinet table. The jury will always be out on the Minister while the funding shortfall exists. I suggest that the main problem lies with the Minister for Finance. If the allocation was less than anticipated, it was because the Minister for Finance reduced it. This is a Government policy issue to which I will refer later.
The Minister referred to the multi-annual funding window. I was pleased when he mentioned it on the last occasion he came before the committee and in the Da?il Chamber. According to his officials, it is absolutely necessary to have clarity of funding over four or five years in order to efficiently spend the limited funding available. Given that approximately €2.5 billion is required to sort out the shortfall in primary and secondary infrastructural projects, I suggest that to have this window prepared sooner rather than later could shave a couple of million euro off that list.
In terms of how he will find the funding, I have already suggested that instead of public-private partnership there should be a system of integrated public partnership in conjunction with local authorities, sporting bodies and others to create multi-use facilities that would be modular in construction and would enable a huge level of inter-operational ability over a period of years as different needs arise. There are cases where schools need sports facilities. Clubs could join with a school and create a sports facility beside the school. It is particularly relevant to new building projects. Local clubs could construct a building with much better economies of scale which could be used as a school, a community and a sports facility. I want to hammer this home as an alternative to public-private partnership which has run into difficulties.
I have an ideological suggestion on funding which could be put to the Minister for Finance who does not appear to be coming before people very often at present. He is out of the public eye and, unfortunately, the Minister for Education and Science must take the flak. It has been stated recently that Irish people are not saving or investing enough because there is not enough incentive for them to do so. One way would be to have an educational fund whereby they would be given a guaranteed return over the current interest rate to invest in education as is necessary. Borrowing seems to be an ideological "no" word on the part of the Government. I suggest that if the revenue is not available, borrowing is required because it will pay for itself in the longer term, particularly if we are to compete in the added-value higher skills field. Our manufacturing companies are currently shedding jobs and it is only in the higher intellectual capability areas we can compete in a global market. This investment is required now.
I have a question on Educate Together. The Minister said it is open to any patron body to start up a school. In recent years, with the exception of gaelscoileanna and Educate Together, there have been just two denominational primary schools. The major body starting up new schools is Educate Together. As Deputy O'Sullivan said, it is running into difficulties in terms of becoming permanent. It is running into difficulties even in relation to finding temporary accommodation. This is a wider issue in terms of which section of the Department knows something other sections do not. What sort of communication is taking place? I am referring to Griffeen Valley Educate Together. I have raised this issue on numerous occasions. The Minister informed me in the Dáil recently that the Office of Public Works is negotiating with the developer on Griffeen Avenue with a view to negotiations, but the details could not be revealed because they are sensitive. I have it on good authority that negotiations have not taken place in the last two to two-and-a-half months on Castlethorn. That project seems to be stalled. What is happening? Is there a plan to move Griffeen Valley into the Lucan Educate Together pre-fabs in September? Are negotiations taking place between the Office of Public Works and Castlethorn or is it just a case of the Office of Public Works saying the price is too high and it will not proceed? As those involved in Griffeen Valley Educate Together, the local community and I do not know what is happening, I would appreciate clarity as to the current position.
I welcome the setting up of denominational schools. However, multi-denominational and inter-denominational gaelscoileanna are experiencing problems because the system which existed in recent years was that church-run institutions provided land. In many instances it provided the principal and the State topped that up but the State must now take control of everything. My final suggestion to the Minister is to recommend to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that a site on land rezoned by developers should be given to the State for use as a school with a suitable patron body. Houses have been built on the land Castlethorn owns but there are no school facilities. There is need for a school in the area but the site must be purchased or leased from Castlethorn. It would make more sense to amend the legislation so that the developers, who make huge profits on housing for communities that do not have facilities, should make the land available for educational purposes at no cost to the State or local community.
I, too, welcome the Minister and his officials. The issue of Killeen national school has been raised. I was not involved in the provision of the letters sent by Government Ministers promising that effective work would be carried out under the 2002 programme. Nevertheless, it is more important to discuss what is happening now at Killeen national school. A proposal from the board of management and parents council of the school is currently before the Minister and I ask that he urgently consider the expansion of buildings there. The parents' council has worked very hard and is providing the necessary funding required as its contribution to the building programme.
The issue of communication between the building unit and finance units of the Department of Education and Science has been raised by many of my colleagues. The committee raised this issue before in the context of money spent on temporary facilities being better spent on long-term developments. I will give an example. Nenagh Vocational School, of which I am a member of the board of management - I am also a member of the vocational educational committee of north Tipperary - has been subjected to vandalism on a number of occasions. The insurance company is no longer prepared to insure the school and without a proper security system the school cannot function. The only means of protecting the school at night is through the employment of a night watchman from a local security company. The cost of employing such a person is enormous. The school has an application before the building unit for the erection of a perimeter fence to secure the school and thus enable it to obtain insurance cover. This money could be spent in a much more productive manner. The provision of the perimeter fence as a permanent fixture on the school site has not been adequately addressed by the building unit of the Department. There should be greater communication between the building and finance units in relation to such developments which are urgently required. The provision of the perimeter fence will eliminate the need for the night watchman. This is but one case of which I am aware, I am sure there are many others.
Changes in demographics are evident throughout the country in the case of non-nationals. Primary, secondary and VEC schools are providing literacy and numeracy programmes for non-nationals. There is an urgent need for more accommodation. St. Sheelan's College in Templemore is one of the schools providing such programmes. A great deal of success has been achieved in the provision of such programmes and adult education courses yet toilet facilities and basic requirements are not being met. It is important to examine the building programme for 2004 and ask how far the projects on the 2003 list, which we received in January, have progressed.
I congratulate the Minister on the pilot programme involving 20 schools. I understand 18 schools have successfully taken up the offer. This idea should be examined and expanded in the future because it has been positively received by the authorities in question. Some of the schools in the earlier stages of application should be assisted in this regard given the success of those schools already participating in the initiative.
I, too, welcome the Minister and his officials. The putting in place of a multiannual building programme is the key to the Minister's plans for investing properly in education. Obviously, there are enormous constraints and restrictions when one is dealing with an annual budget in that one does not know what money will be available the following year. I wish the Minister well in his endeavours to secure that envelope from the Minister for Finance and look forward to an announcement in the forthcoming budget which will give us all a clear picture of where we are going over the next couple of years. I honestly believe that is the key to an open and transparent capital programme.
I note officials from the PPP section are present this morning. It is in that area I would like to concentrate my remarks. What is the future of public-private partnerships? Are they gone? Are we tied up in bureaucracy? Are we being tied up by Europe or is there a case for selective interpretations or accountancy procedures? The Cork School of Music was championed as a pilot project; it was to be the flagship of PPPs. We now find ourselves caught up with interpretations by our own CSOs as to how Eurostat would interpret such a project. Is there any update on the DGB issue? Is there any means whereby the money earmarked for this project can be spread out among all Government balances rather than that of the Department of Education and Science? I do not have to make a case for the Cork School of Music; that was well made and accepted by Government and the Departments of Education and Science and Finance when the process commenced three years ago. The reality is that we now have a crisis. There is no plan B. What will happen in September? We have students in 17 different locations; we have a PPP project on hold and we do not know where we are going. I would like an update on that issue. A decision must be made. If the decision is taken not to proceed with this then we have to know what is the alternative come September.
Perhaps a little astute accountancy could take place at Government level - I see heads across the table are shaking but let us at least listen. The same restrictions were placed on the Cork courthouse project. We overcame them. The Courts Service had not taken charge of Cork courthouse; it was still in the charge of the local authority. The local authority was then able to borrow the money and enter into a PPP arrangement with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. If that is the case can I then advocate that the local authority be given the site for the Cork School of Music for €1. The local authority can then borrow the money to carry out the work and lease the building to the Department and that will get us over the European problem. Cork Chamber of Commerce could take it over as could some of my colleagues and I. If a solution could be found in the case of Cork courthouse, I fail to see how one cannot be found for the Cork School of Music. I earnestly request we get some clear decision on PPPs. Are they to be one of the mechanisms for capital investment in schools in the future?
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. I ask the Minister to inform the committee on the progress of his endeavours to move to multi-annual funding. It would be useful and most members agreed at an earlier meeting that it is something that should happen.
The Minister made a curious comment in his speech when he stated that people had difficulties with the method of calculating the pupil-teacher ratio. Will he expand on the meaning of that comment and state what people said to him regarding these difficulties? Are teachers for those with special needs, resource teachers and others included in the calculation of the pupil-teacher ratio? I am referring to teachers who are teaching on a one-to-one basis or are working with one student in the classroom under the special provision for resource teachers.
The provision of science labs in schools is part of the schools building programme. Is there a view on the need for new science labs in second level schools? Is the Minister aware of the number of schools that do not have adequate science labs? What plans are in place to upgrade the science labs, given that next year there will be two different science curricula in operation for junior certificate classes because of the problems with the provision of science laboratories?
On the question of the amalgamation of schools, has any progress been made on the idea of the multi-school campus? I am aware that the Minister is keen on this concept and I also think it is a good idea. In cases where schools are facing amalgamation there may be resistance and some areas may wish to retain a single-sex school.
The Minister made reference in his speech to third level funding. He said that alternative funding proposals had been put forward for the PRTLI cycle three. What is the Higher Education Authority proposing and when will its review of third level building needs be completed and a report issued? We must not lose sight of the need to continue to expand and develop third level education.
Will the Minister inform the committee of the number of primary schools owned and run by the State? I understand that it is very few because of the number of denominational schools, gaelscoileanna and Educate Together schools. It seems strange that there are 10,000 vacant primary school places in Dublin and yet there is huge pressure further out. Has the Minister given any thought to making a developer, who is seeking planning permission to build a few thousand houses, responsible for the provision of a site for a school in the centre of a housing estate as part of the initial planning process, rather than allowing the houses to be built first and then considering the provision and costing of a school?
On what Senator Minihan said regarding the Cork School of Music, I also ask the Minister for an up to date report. Will the Minister honestly and factually inform the committee whether there is any chance of this project starting within the next year? What steps are being taken to resolve this issue? I agree with Senator Minihan that there is a crisis in Cork. The city of culture project is due to begin in 2005 and it will be a major national and international embarrassment if we do not have the school of music.
Prior to the general election, we were told €19 million was being made available to the former Minister for Education and Science, Dr. Woods. Will the Minister tell the committee how that money was spent, assuming it was made available? It was intended for extra building work.
What progress has been made regarding the use of a standard design of building? Will it result in a cost benefit? The cost of insurance seems to be rearing its head everywhere. How does it impact on the schools building programme? Does it significantly add to the cost of projects? It seems to me that building a school is extraordinarily expensive. Some of these schools are just blocks, a roof and a floor and are not that big, yet they seem to be extraordinarily expensive to build. It has been stated that a small school the size of a large bungalow can cost perhaps ten times the cost of the bungalow. Why are school buildings so expensive to build?
I welcome the Minister. He can sit back and relax for a moment because my constituency was not one of those that benefited from those famous letters that have been referred to. Expectations were not too high starting off.
I will refer to points made by earlier speakers. Deputy Gogarty and others spoke about the issue of developers providing sites for schools. This is not a new idea. In the south Dublin area, this idea has been turned from a concept into a practical delivery. The area of Adamstown was examined as part of an overall plan. This is a staged development and the onus is on the developer both to provide the site and to build the schools at specific stages of the development. There will be a number of schools, multiple primary schools and a secondary school. There will obviously need to be liaison with the Department. A sizeable number of acres of land has been provided and a fairly large development. The onus is on the developer to provide these schools before he can continue with the development. I would like to see a better scheme on these lines with better co-ordination between the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the local authorities to set up area plans when lands are being zoned or rezoned and developments being planned.
While Adamstown is a site of 500 acres of land and is a sizeable development, it should also be possible to apply the same procedures to smaller developments and incorporate one school. I agree with previous speakers that it is inappropriate that developers who provide large housing estates, should make substantial profits with no onus on them to provide such facilities. The local authority in south Dublin tackled this complex issue and it is now built into the Adamstown scheme. It will be interesting to see how it is delivered in the coming years. It is a practical way forward. It is easy for people to say that we should spend more money on building and refurbishing schools but the same people say that we need to spend more on health, that our taxation levels are too high and we need more jobs. There are limited funds available for anything we choose to do. We need to be practical in how we address issues. I often look at the list of the schools that need renovations or extensions.
I have been on the board of management of a local school since my children commenced schooling. I have seen considerable changes. I am the father of a child with a learning disability and I have noticed significant improvements. The improvements include the provision of special teachers to deal with Travellers, special needs teachers, resource teachers, etc. As a result, there is a widespread increase in demand for certain facilities, such as school extensions. The success inherited by the Minister has led to increased demand for space.
I wish to conclude by discussing a burning issue in my constituency. The Minister mentioned the existence of about 10,000 surplus school spaces in the greater Dublin area, but they are in the wrong places. There is huge demand in my constituency, which is in west Dublin and includes Lucan and areas near Blanchardstown. We are struggling to keep pace and, to be honest, the school programme is not providing enough school spaces at primary level. It does not take a genius to work out that there will be accommodation problems at second level in time. What are the Minister's views on the difficulties in the western region of Dublin? How quickly can they be addressed? The Minister recognises that the primary system in west Dublin is at bursting point. Something needs to be done in the short-term to tackle these problems.
I would also be interested to hear the Minister's comments about PPP projects. We had great hopes that such projects would be helpful, but the Government's plans in that regard seem to have been scuttled by Eurostat. I appreciate that the regulations that apply to Ireland are different to those applying in Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK, because we are part of the eurozone.
I welcome the Minister and his officials from the Department. I acknowledge the investment in the primary schools building programme, which is an important initiative. The Department's website lists the schools involved on a priority basis, which is a fair system. All members of the committee would like certain schools in our constituencies to be included in the programme. How long will the programme take? When can we expect it to be expanded so that more schools in our constituencies can be included?
I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Minister is familiar with the frustration that exists throughout the country. Most members have seen some of the many letters that were distributed about 12 months ago. Can the Minister tell the committee if the Department has a policy aimed at tackling this problem?
As each day goes by it becomes clearer that the status of individual schools is changing, depending on how a delaying tactic can be put in place. Planning permission for new school buildings, or the refurbishment of old ones, was obtained by many primary schools some years ago. Some of the tactics used by departmental officials to delay projects include deciding to build a new school on a green field site or reviewing the demographics of the area. People have become so used to such jargon and terminology that they are sceptical as to whether a coherent policy exists in the Department.
The Minister said he is committed to finding innovative and flexible ways of working. Perhaps he feels that the provision of new prefabricated buildings should be considered to be an innovation. I appreciate that he is responding to emergencies that develop at primary schools, but surely his Department is aware that the provision of prefabricated buildings, at primary or secondary level, was deemed to be out of the question ten or 15 years ago. It was seen as a foolish way of spending money, as prefabricated buildings are of a temporary nature and tend to depreciate quickly. What is innovative about the Minister's approach in that regard? The Minister should come clean and state clearly that he is responding to one crisis after another.
I wish to ask the Minister about the INTO's list of schools that have been classified as unfit for human habitation, most of which are in rural areas. What has happened to the list? As far as I know, fire prevention measures have been taken in relation to three of the schools to make them habitable and useful for education purposes. What has happened to the rest of the schools? Some of them have disappeared from the list entirely. Is the Minister in communication with the INTO regarding the provision of reasonable and safe accommodation in which education can take place? That is all we can ask for at this point. The Minister must be aware that many letters have been sent to his Department.
Rationalisation and amalgamation are terms that were mentioned earlier. The Minister is being asked to provide facilities for groups such as Educate Together that have certain beliefs about the proper way to educate children, for gaelscoileanna and for standard traditional national schools, many of which are in an unsuitable condition. The Taoiseach gave an absolute confirmation this time last year, with Ministers of State, Deputies and budding Deputies in attendance, that the gaelscoil in Ballinasloe, Scoil Uí Chearnaigh, would go ahead. Within two months, however, the school authorities received a letter from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor telling them not to proceed with a purchase. This may be surprising for some members of the committee, but it is the reality of what happened in relation to Scoil Uí Chearnaigh in Ballinasloe. The school building was provided to the Department free of charge and the Taoiseach said that the project would go ahead, but the Chief State Solicitor said the purchase could not be proceeded with.
I am sure it is obvious to every member of the committee that there is no focused policy, other than a reaction to a crisis. It is important that a system is put in place for once and for all. If the Minister wishes to speak about value for money and innovation, why does he not ask the public, vested interests or developers to put a price on the works that are needed in rural national schools? I am sure that one would not have to wait indefinitely for all the red tape, such as the arrival on site of the Department's architect, the Office of Public Works, etc. I ask the Minister to take action in this regard. Many schools that are in poor structural condition could be improved within a couple of years, rather than having to wait indefinitely.
At present, everybody has to look at a computer screen with a degree of anticipation to see when school projects will be advanced. Is the Minister saying that there is no point in public representatives writing to the Department, as we will be given the same rubbish replies that are given to parliamentary questions? If one examines the website, one will see whether a given school is on the list. If the school is on it, it might be dealt with in the next five or ten years. If the school is not on the list, however, we have to keep on hoping that something will happen eventually.
We all recognise that the country's financial circumstances have changed. The finances that are being made available should be used properly. The Minister should declare that no school will be provided with a prefabricated building. We should revert to the situation in which such buildings were condemned by the Minister's Department as in no way representing an efficient use of scarce money and resources. This should be stopped for once and for all and things should be allowed to happen as opposed to being held back.
I welcome the Minister's statement and his obvious commitment to a major schools modernisation programme. I have no doubt that over the next four years, the Minister will have achieved a major upgrading and improvement of school accommodation. Deputy Curran was correct to point out that the increase in the human resources provided to schools has put pressure on accommodation. Only a few years ago, the most significant issue for those of us representing rural constituencies was the loss of teachers and the decline of school populations. While there has, thankfully, been an increase in the rural population, such a trend results in accommodation problems.
I welcome in particular the Minister's decision last January to introduce the devolved building initiative for small rural schools of which there are two in my constituency. No planning or design had been carried out in respect of the Fairgreen national school, Belturbet, prior to the Minister's decision. Since January, the necessary planning and design has been completed, planning permission has been obtained and construction is commencing during the school holidays. This process demonstrates the value of the scheme. The school is very happy with the price at which it has been agreed to undertake the work. I hope the Minister can expand thescheme.
I have been galled over the past number of years by the rip off in respect of professional fees. It is scandalous that 11% to 12% of the overall cost of a project is spent on architectural planning and design teams. In some instances Rolls Royce designs have been produced for school accommodation projects, as well as for projects undertaken by other Departments, instead of planning to provide good, basic facilities. I hope the Department produces a prototype or template design. If one is building a four or five teacher school in Cavan or east Cork the same design should be used in both instances. When building on a green field site there should be a basic design for the required number of classrooms and ancillary accommodation. One gets very little return when one spends a great deal of money on professional fees. Greater value for money would result if other important work were carried out with that funding.
Is it correct to say that there is no Vote for the further education sector within the Department's capital programme? If there is not, it is a mistake as the post-leaving certificate and further education sector has grown in importance in recent years. The sector constitutes a worthwhile progression to third level for many students who would otherwise not make the transition from second level. The colleges of further education and the post-leaving certificate centres respond to needs and address themselves to employment opportunities in their respective geographical areas. Without wishing to be parochial, Cavan College of Further Studies is probably the leading post-leaving certificate college in Ireland. The college, which the Minister visited with me some months ago, is attended by 700 students at five different locations and provides a valuable service for Cavan and adjoining counties. Upon graduating, an exceptionally high number of students immediately enter employment or go on to complete degree courses. The further education sector should receive greater prominence within the budgetary allocations to the capital programme of the Department of Education and Science.
I thank the Minister for attending and I thank the Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to contribute.
I am delighted to be present as a visitor, though I am no stranger to the committee.
I welcome the Minister whose difficulties I understand. I was not in receipt of letters before, during or after the general election campaign which were misleading to my constituents. I take the steam out of that kind of nonsense. The Minister will be well aware that I continue to write letters as often as anyone.
One would think the money involved in public private-partnerships would not have to be direct. What will be the cost to the State when the capital provided for current and envisaged public-private partnership projects has to be repaid? Will repayments be made from the current budget or the capital budget?
There are two outstanding projects at University College, Cork, the country's second largest university and its premier institute of business education. Does the Minister have proposals in respect of funding for business and information technology projects at the university? While he has said other educational centres are a priority, we must not neglect business education, especially in the high technology area, when jobs are needed. Third level education today is as important as primary education was in the 1920s or secondary education was in the 1950s and 1960s. We must consider third level very seriously, especially the UCC projects given the fact that the university services the large technology sector in the southern region.
I have a comment to make in respect of St. Nessan's national school, Mungret, which was the subject of a sketch on David Hanly's "Morning Ireland" radio programme one morning. It provided great drama involving three or four politicians at different times. What obligations are placed on the principal of a school or its board of management to ensure it is safe? The two plaster boards which fell at the school were threatening to do so for some time before they did. Plaster board does not fall without threatening to do so for a while. Many of us have such boards in our homes which have to be repaired from time to time. It is good politics for the Opposition to involve itself in issues like this where things went over the top.
Is Deputy O'Keeffe suggesting that the school arranged deliberately for the ceiling to fall?
I have asked a question and I await the Minister's answer.
That is a scurrilous suggestion. I know the school and its principal and I assure the Deputy that is not the case.
I am finished.
As in the case of Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, there were no letters in respect of my constituency either. Perhaps there should have been as we managed to lose a seat.
I should declare an interest in relation to the INTO. I am very interested in the response the Department makes in respect of schools highlighted in the soon to be completed INTO study and the further study to be undertaken in the autumn. I am aware of up to three schools it is proposed to move to different locations. In at least two such cases, the sites on which the schools stand are extremely valuable commercially which means the management or patron may be able to make a substantial contribution to the relocation costs. Such arrangements are not provided for in any of the Department's current schemes. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that? As a product of Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, it is incumbent on me to mention the matter.
The pilot programme which has been mentioned by quite a few people is working very successfully in the 18 cases in which it has gone ahead. Why is it not going ahead in all 20 cases? Have any of the other schools on the programme for the next three to four years been asked if they will be in a position to proceed under the pilot programme?
Is it true that there are 100 new schools in temporary accommodation? Will it cost €400 million to buy sites and build new schools to accommodate them permanently?
Have costings been made in respect of the expenses in 2003 of the schools projects it was decided not to proceed with at the end of 2002?
I shall give a composite answer to some of the questions. A number of Deputies, and Senators Minihan and Burke, raised questions on the 2002 building programme. No school has been removed from the school building list. This is the case whether they received letters or not. There is a commitment to those schools which will be honoured. We cannot live in an airy-fairy world where we can produce money left, right and centre. All Government commitments, as I think was the case in all party manifestos, were contingent on the economic climate. The commitments made were subject to resources being available and that remains the case.
I wish to refer to the commitments made by the former Minister, Deputy Woods, who had an ongoing battle which was well-publicised in the newspapers with the Department and Government. It dragged on from December until March or April of last year, the net result of which was that he got an extra €19 million for schools. Commitments were made and work commenced on many schools. Deputies referred to letters going all over the place, yet if one analyses what has been said, the same half a dozen names keep cropping up and there are a few more as well. They think that exerting political pressure will make me change the building list, which it will not. The schools will proceed when the money is available on the basis of the priorities that are decided by the building unit in the Department and not on any other basis. I want to make that clear.
We do not hear anything from many of the schools which got commitments. The work has started in those cases, and is proceeding. Most schools in the category to which we are referring are proceeding, although I accept that some are not. These are all well known to members of this committee who have received letters about them. Any schools that are outstanding will be considered for the 2004 programme along with any other meritorious candidates, strictly in order of priority and need. If we have sufficient funding they will go ahead but if we do not, they will not. It does not matter how many times they appear on RTÉ, TV3 or in newspapers, or how many questions are tabled, they will be judged on their merits. I cannot make it any plainer than that; this is the way I will operate. Members of my own party as well as those in Opposition should know that.
Some of those that got commitments were at a certain stage but did not move to the stage where they could start construction by the end of 2002, at which point it became obvious that we would not have as much money in 2003 as we had in 2002. As a consequence, I had to make decisions on the programme for the next two or three years on that basis. Part of our current difficulty is that in the past too many projects were allowed through the system when we knew we did not have the money for them. People can point fingers at Fianna Fa?il governments but I can point them back just as easily. The departmental records are most interesting in regard to what happened when other people were in power. Let us cut out the nonsense about this being the preserve of one particular Minister or party. It is a practice that has gone on for far too long and it is not fair to the schools or the children. In relation to the multi-annual programme——
Will the Minister please clarify——
If clarification is needed, we might as well deal with it.
The Minister outlined the criteria he used in the 2002 programme. What changes in policy were made within the Department? When schools were looked at in 2002, were they regarded in a different light for the drawing up of the 2003-building programme? The Minister said there are a few schools along with the six that crop up regularly in discussion. A certain number of schools fell from being progressed to not being progressed. They are no longer at the same level in the building programme. The bands and criteria in 2003 are different so one cannot make a clear comparison between the two years. Changes were made to the list and schools that were due to proceed did not. What made those schools less urgent?
There were two changes.
I have a related question. It was decided in 2002 that some projects should go to tender and construction in 2002. In the case of St. Nessans in Mungret, for example, it is only in a band two priority now yet it was considered a top priority in 2002. What happened? The people of that area do not understand what is going on.
It was money.
But there are other schools that are in band one priority that were not scheduled to go ahead in 2002 that have jumped ahead of it.
There is little difference between bands one and two. I accept the general point. There was not as much detail given to people prior to this year which has caused a certain amount of difficulty. The Department operated systems internally. My understanding of the criteria that are now published is exactly the same as the criteria that the officials in the Department used for the building programmes right up to last year. We could not go far enough along the list in 2003 because we did not have the money. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the few schools that got through, either at primary or second level, did not deserve to get through.
It was wrong to give the commitment that they would go ahead and then withdraw it.
That was not known at the time.
How could the commitment be given if it was not known? It was wrong to do that.
Every conceivable question that could be asked has been asked in regard to this matter. I would like to answer them. This is related. That is why I want the multi-annual programme, so that I can say to the schools that we have a one year programme and that is the template we will use for the multi-annual programme. If we get a commitment to multi-annual funding and the programme I will be able to come before the committee and say St. Nessans is at stage four or five and will go to stage six or seven within three months; it will go to construction in September and will be finished by such and such a date. I will be able to do that with practically all of the schools in the building programme.
I do not have any new developments in regard to PPPs. From a schools' education point of view they are still operating on the basis that it is affecting the GGB. Talks are taking place between the Department of Finance, the CSO, Eurostat and at European level. No great progress has been made to my knowledge.
On the general point of making developers responsible for providing schools and so on, I thought long and hard about including that in the Planning and Development Act in my previous existence as Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The strong advice I got was that it would not be legally possible and could give rise to constitutional difficulties as it might interfere with property rights to put an onus on a builder to provide land free of charge or at agricultural rates. Many think the builder is paying for this if he provides a site free of charge but he is not because the poor devil buying the house is charged €10,000 in addition to the price of that house. This is where the difficulty arises. We introduced provisions in the Planning and Development Act to overcome those difficulties. They include the making of specific area plans compelling builders to make specific sites available, but these sites still have to be paid for. In addition, there is constant contact between the Department and the local authorities.
Some Senators and Deputies suggested that we should have more contact with the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We do keep in contact with them and will continue to do so. We encourage approaches that have been mentioned, but which I will not refer to specifically because I understand that there are appeals procedures under way. We encourage local authorities to phase developments and to say that a certain school must be provided once a certain phase is reached in large-scale building developments. If Deputies, Senators and local authorities examined the Planning and Development Act, they would note that powers exist to allow more school-friendly policies to be adopted for all of us. We could obtain sites much more cheaply if the proper plans were put in place by the local authorities.
The Killeen school is a minor project. It is under a value of €300,000. Such projects do not appear on the list, except when they are approved. It will be considered for next year's programme.
On the permanent accommodation initiative, which was raised by some members, we were offered temporary accommodation and where the schools indicated that they could meet their needs better with permanent accommodation, we gave a grant for this purpose. We offered it to 20 schools and 19 have taken it up. Further discussions are taking place with the remaining schools, with which we had a briefing session. Everybody welcomed the initiative and thought it was good. We are very supportive of it.
On the small schools initiative, 20 schools were selected, the bulk of which are now at planning permission stage. I understand that one of them will place a tender shortly. I cannot provide any more details but I was told by a Deputy that I would be invited to open another of these schools in October. I hope she is correct. The scheme is devolved and therefore we do not have much day-to-day contact with it, apart from keeping a general eye on it.
Anything we can do to reduce the cost is extremely important. Deputies have spoken about templates and the cost. Deputy Stanton spoke of the cost of building schools being higher. There is more involved in the process than just taking a comparison of a house price and a school price but there are undoubtedly ways and means by which we can reduce costs. Deputy Smith mentioned the standard design and the template therefor. Standardised designs would reduce costs, particularly the professional costs and fees of which the Deputy spoke. All these concepts are being advanced in the Department and are certainly part of my programme for the next three or four years.
A Deputy stated that people were afraid to go back into St. Nessan's primary school. If this is true, I regret it very much. What happened was not that the ceiling fell in but that plaster board fell. We have investigated the matter and discovered that the wrong nails were used to attach the plaster board to the ceiling. The Office of Public Works report indicates that the school is structurally sound, and people need not be afraid of re-entering it.
Let us consider the list of schools that the INTO regularly issues. I do not want to be disrespectful to the INTO but, as far as I am concerned, the experts in this area are in the building unit of the Department of Education and Science. I do not know who compiles the reports for the INTO or what technical expertise it has in drawing them up. It is my understanding that they write to the schools and ask people to make submissions on those schools. One will appreciate that the building unit in my Department is busy enough trying to ensure that the funds and schools are looked after and that we do as good a job as we possibly can. We do not go out chasing lists compiled by the INTO or any other group.
Many of the specific issues raised by the INTO concern hand-washing and drying facilities, heating, replacement of windows and doors, water supply, etc., which should be resolved through the devolved grant we give to primary schools. Members are aware of what is involved in this process.
Deputy Brendan Smith mentioned the state-of-the-art designs that exist and that everything is the bee's knees in respect of building. I believe this is the correct approach. It is more expensive but we should not revert to anything less than this. However, we get beaten over the head by the INTO and others who state that because schools that have been in existence for a long time do not adhere to a very fine set of guidelines, which I believe were updated in 1999, they are somehow substandard. I do not accept that argument and I certainly will not do so. With all due respect to the Chairman's colleagues in the INTO, that is my answer.
I disapprove tacitly.
A question was raised about the €12 million handed back from the education budget last year. If I am wrong in respect of this matter, I will come back to the Deputy on it. One has to estimate everything one does and one tries to come in within budget. In some cases one comes in over budget and one has to rectify this. Last year, as the committee will know, there were adjustments within the Department. I understand the €12 million was spent in the Department even if it was not spent on the second level building programme.
A number of Deputies and Senators referred to the third level building programme. It is under review. I accept I said primary and second levels are my priority. Some people might read into this that I have no interest at all in third level but that is completely incorrect. Third level development, particularly the furthering of research and development and the PRTLI, is extremely important. Unfortunately, the budget has been squeezed this year because of the kind of issues that Deputies have raised regarding primary level and also, to a certain extent, second level. It is not a viable long-term policy to continue to squeeze the budget in this area; we have to make progress and that is why we have asked for a prioritisation of third level. That is what the Higher Education Authority is doing.
In answer to Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, the Higher Education Authority has been told to take into consideration all Government policies, the skills needs that have been identified, the science and technology needs, the spatial strategy and the health strategy. All these have to be taken into account before I receive the list of projects to be prioritised. The Higher Education Authority is doing this and it is making good progress.
I accept that we must ensure, despite the difficulties and constraints at primary level, that third level and particularly the PRTLI are accorded priority next year. On Deputy Hoctor's point about facilities for literacy and adult education, we will be in a tight financial situation for the next few years.
Deputy Smith made a point about the further education sector and Cavan College, which is a wonderful college of further studies. There will not be large sums of money available in this area in the immediate future. While the VEC sector has done good work in responding to the need for lifelong learning, has anyone considered making approaches to patrons of various primary schools to use their facilities at night instead of having to hire halls? A patron body would charge for this facility but there are many primary schools located at the centre of communities that could be used at night, although we may have to provide furniture. The facilities are there and many schools have the necessary equipment and this would be a source of extra funding and finance to the local primary schools. There should be much more integration in this area.
Deputy Stanton asked about generic designs and standardised designs, and Deputy Smith raised the question of the standard design. There would be a positive cost impact in using those; professional fees at present vary between 12% and 12.5% and the committee can calculate what that would amount to in a budget of €360 million. The cost of building and the insurance, which we have mentioned, must also be taken into account.
In response to Senator Burke's points about prefabs being abandoned ten to 15 years ago, I noted on a recent visit to the Intel site that its buildings are a form of prefab so I do not accept the pejorative point that today's buildings are the same as those in which I taught and in which many of us attended school. Today's prefabs are totally different. We have to provide a great deal of temporary accommodation. I would prefer to provide permanent accommodation but if a school is approved for an extra teacher in April, who is to start in September, it cannot wait for permanent accommodation. If this committee were to agree to a policy whereby we would approve the teacher but not allow him or her to go into the school until we have permanent accommodation I would carry it out. It would make life easier but that is not the reality. I accept the more general point that Senator Burke is making that we should avoid it if we can at all but it is not always possible to avoid it. I have tried to answer all the questions.
What is the state of the legal suits? Is there some action being taken against the Department at present about accommodation?
The only action of which I am aware is that TLC indicated that it was trying to get a number of schools to take legal action but no notices have been served on us. Court settlements have been made in one or two cases but they concern children with special needs or whatever and as part of a settlement we provide temporary or specific accommodation out of our emergency contingency fund.
Did the Minister answer my question about Griffeen Valley Educate Together? The Green Party has just launched a paper on childhood obesity and this might be relevant as it is connected with infrastructure. Will the Minister agree that the €635 million cut in the primary physical education and sports grant will cost the State far more money in health care in five or ten years? Griffeen Valley Educate Together is the question to which I did not get a reply.
The Minister said that wrong screws or nails caused the problem in St. Nessan's
That is what I was told. I did not examine the issue.
Is he aware that these prefabs are 14 years old and have had to be moved once already in their lifetime? The school has been bringing many problems such as rotting and sagging floors, no ventilation and so on to the Department's attention for years. I do not like the simplistic message to be going out that there is nothing wrong except the nails. There is a great deal wrong with these prefabs and the Minister should reconsider the school's request for new prefabs for the moment. The authorities accept his decision that they cannot jump the queue but they want to stay where they are in the queue and get new prefabs because they are genuinely worried about the condition of the prefabs there.
I do not know if Deputy O'Keeffe's comment is worthy of an answer but I have a letter from the board of management.
What was the problem?
It has ongoing needs to maintain these prefabs and it has only a limited amount of money per year to do that. This is a genuine plea out of concern for the safety of the children.
I had asked a question about the way the pupil-teacher ratio was calculated. The Minister referred to it and said that there were issues around it. Are special needs and resource teachers included in that calculation? Many of those teachers would be dealing with just one child or maybe two.
While there are problems at present about creches in some of the VEC schools and colleges and they are losing funding is any thought being given to the need to provide creches when building new schools, secondary schools and so on?
When will the third level review be completed? I also asked about the number of primary schools owned by the State. I did not get a reply to that. I asked about the 100 new schools in temporary accommodation. Is it the case that there are 100 new schools which have to start off in temporary accommodation?
In case I was not understood, I asked about the public-private partnership. It is expensive to initiate a public-private partnership programme or development. While it is only a form of joint venture it is not as expensive to embark on a joint venture in that area. My final question was how is the money being paid back? Is it coming out of the capital budget or the current budget? It has to be paid back because there is a perception among the public that public-private partnership is something for nothing but it is not as simple as that.
The Minister said he is happy with the current pupil-teacher ratios but does he intend to improve this ratio and, if so, what is the time frame? On site acquisition, €5.5 million was in the schools building programme for 2003. I understand that for reasons of privacy or protecting the negotiations it is difficult for the Minister to answer individual parlimentary questions on the issue, but can he tell me how many site acquisitions have been completed this year and how many are actually awaiting completion? In other words, how many schools have applied for greenfield sites?
Who received copies of the report completed by the Office of Public Works? Did the school authorities as well as the Department receive copies?
Yes, the school authorities received copies as well as the Department. Some Deputies expressed concern about safety; I appreciate that it is a major concern for parents, but there is no safety issue. The problem with the ceiling was that the wrong nails were used. I do not think the Deputy was suggesting that I was dismissing the fact that other works need to be done on the prefabs, but I was not. The Office of Public Works has outlined all that needs to be done in its report and all works are being carried out, to be completed by September.
There is a very limited budget for site acquisition this year; off the top of my head, it is about €5 million. Considering the prices of sites in some areas, this will not buy us too many. We are continuing negotiations in a number of areas and there are indications in a number of other areas that people are willing to enter into agreements for a phased or delayed payment for the site. Anywhere we can do that, we will. In relation to Griffeen Valley, I do not want to be specific, but it is my understanding - I will double-check this for the Deputy - that the information that the negotiations were continuing was received by me and given to the Deputy in the House in good faith.
I was informed that the negotiations have not been taking place for two and a half months.
The assistant secretary will be checking this out and if I am wrong I will inform the Deputy, but it is my understanding that the negotiations were going on.
I am not qualified to talk about obesity, but——
What about the money to be saved?
I know, but the problem is that everything is only a small amount of money. Eighty per cent of my budget goes on salaries. If money is tight I cannot sack teachers or any of the civil servants - I cannot get rid of anybody. The first priority in my budget is salaries. I would love to do a whole range of different things, including providing all sorts of physical——
The Department of Health and Children might give the Minister some extra resources.
It would be nice if it could, but it has its own difficulties at present. The pupil-teacher ratio is obtained by dividing the number of pupils by the number of teachers paid by us in the system. That is how it has always been done. This includes special needs teachers, resource teachers and so on. A question was asked about science labs. Many schools do not have adequate facilities in this regard. We carried out a survey of this in conjunction with the introduction of the new junior certificate. Twelve schools did not have the facilities to provide science at junior certificate level, out of seven hundred-plus schools. I do not have notes about this, so I am speaking from memory, but about 250 schools needed a small amount of extra money to provide equipment, while about 350 more needed a higher level of funding. Schools were given a rating of one, two or three. We have now given the schools the chance to opt in to the new junior certificate. There will not be a choice of old or new syllabus within one school, of course. The school opts in and we are making money available to upgrade the facilities. There will be an appeals system. This will have a priority claim on the capital budget next year because we think it is important as part of the physical task force.
A question was asked about multi-school campuses. That is included in the recommendations in the school accommodation report. I must make a formal policy response to this report and it will be in this context that any announcements are made. The third-level review, including the PRTLI, will be completed in the autumn. The number of primary schools that are State-owned at the moment is approximately 20. I have figures for new schools awaiting completion, although I do not know whether any of my officials can confirm it: the number is between 80 and 100, and the cost is about €400 million.
Providing crèches sounds like a good idea. I turned the sod for a child care facility the other day in Athboy which is right beside the primary school. It will operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and the children will be brought from the facility straight to the school and back. I do not think, however, that it is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science to provide these. Vocational schools were mentioned. We managed to salvage money within our Vote last year, perhaps some of the €12 million mentioned earlier, for the vocational education committees; now we are being accused of cutting the budget for child care facilites for VTOS and so on. There has been a slight cut - about €10,000 - but provisions such as these are a matter for other Departments. It should be rationalised and I will be talking to representatives of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Social and Family Affairs to see whether we can come up with something.
Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned PPPs. The repayments for these schemes are covered by a unitary payment, which covers the capital repayments and the day-to-day running costs such as that of maintenance. The boards of managements of these schools have no responsibility for maintenance or anything else for the next 25 years; that is dealt with by the company. All of what we normally give in the form of a capitation grant or any devolved grant for maintenance and so on is included in the repayments we make to the company. It is charged to capital. I am not sure whether the maintenance element is charged to current. The unitary payment is charged to capital - it is just one payment. Underlying the Deputy's question was one about the value of this scheme. Over the lifetime of these PPP buildings about €11 million or €12 million is saved compared to a public sector project. The beauty of all this is that at the end of the 25 years we are handed back a school that is practically as good as new, so we get another 25 years out of it. As I say, there are all sorts of issues on GGBs that we have not overcome yet. I think that addresses all the points raised.
In light of the Minister's comments on PPPs and the fact that the CSO, EUROSTAT and the Department of Finance are still talking about this, I propose that the committee seeks to have the Minister for Finance present to explain——
We have raised the issue with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and asked it to pursue it and that committee has responded to say it will.
Perhaps we could follow up on that again.
They had a big work programme at the time, dealing with legislation or whatever, but we will follow the matter up with that committee.
I understand that Eurostat is actually reviewing this. I know it has its own problems at present but it is, on foot of what we and other countries have raised, reviewing it. Hopefully, something positive might come from that.
A brief final question. The Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003 was published yesterday, which I welcome. Has the impact that might have on the school building programme across the State been factored in? Has the Minister been able to look ahead to see what extra resources he undoubtedly will need when this Bill becomes law?
We have made provision within the capital programme for special needs, special classes and so on, and that would continue as the need arises. The decision was made in 1998 to have the automatic response to special needs. We are now five years into that, so we practically have a full cycle of students that were in, say, first class when this was introduced and are now in sixth class or going into sixth class. I know some demands will increase but they can be contained within the capital provisions we have at the moment.
I thank the Minister and his officials. The Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, will address the committee on adult education at our next meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.42 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24 July 2003.