Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Wednesday, 9 Dec 1998

Vol. 1 No. 9

Estimates for Public Services, 1998.

Vote 26 — Office of the Minister for Education and Science.

Vote 27 — First Level Education.

Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education.

Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education.

On behalf of the select committee I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Mr. Micheál Martin, the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Willie O'Dea and the officials of the Department. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Supplementary Estimates falling within the remit of the Department of Education and Science, namely Vote 26: office of the Minister for Education and Science, Vote 27: first level education, Vote 28: second level and further education and Vote 29: third level and further education.

I propose we hear a statement from the Minister in relation to the various sub-heads of the Supplementary Estimates and then have an open discussion taking the form of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Will the main spokesmen of the Opposition parties have an opportunity to make statements?

I apologise, Deputy. When the Minister has made his contribution Opposition spokesmen will speak.

I welcome the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee on Education and Science to discuss the additional sums required in the Supplementary Estimates for the four education Votes. The year 1998 has seen a significant increase in allocations for my Department and with the support of the Minister for Finance we have been able to drive forward major improvements in a number of areas. These Supplementary Estimates arise mainly because of the following factors: additional capital for first and second level schools; technical difficulties in implementing fortnightly pay for second level teachers; additional expenditure under some grant-in-aid sub-heads, mainly youth services and third level institutions; additional grants for books for first and second level schools; under-estimation of the provision for teachers' pensions and the bringing forward of the payment date from the end of September to a date before Christmas and increasing the provision for the education technology investment fund for the newly launched research and development programme. I am seeking approval for four Supplementary Estimates amounting to £105.148 million. In explaining these estimates I will leave some of the smaller amounts until the detailed discussions on the Vote areas.

With regard to Vote 26, a Supplementary Estimate totalling £30.449 is required in the Vote for the office of the Minister for Education and Science. The Vote includes all the basic operations of the Department and various general programmes. The Supplementary Estimate is comprised of the following elements: Subhead B.9., a Supplementary Estimate of £388,000 is required to enable the provision of increased grant aid to voluntary youth organisations to address the shortfall in current funding, mainly in the area of pay. Deputies will be aware the Minister for Finance has announced significant additional expenditure in this area on top of this increase.

With regard to subhead B13 — the Royal Irish Academy of Music — the funds in this grant-in-aid subhead are allocated to the academy to meet the costs of the estimate deficit between the academy's income and expenditure on current account. A sum of £50,000 is being sought by way of Supplementary Estimate to cover costs which have arisen during 1998 and which cannot be met from the original provision. These costs relate to unavoidable expenditure associated with the replacement and upgrading of defective and aged musical instruments and general maintenance of the facilities.

With regard to subhead B19 — Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund, an additional sum of £30 million is required to give effect to the provisions to the amendment to the Act currently before the Dáil which is intended to provide part of the funding for the new initiative to develop research in higher education, which I announced on 19 November.

The initiative involves capital funding of £150 million, of which £75 million will be derived from the Exchequer and £75 million from the private sector, and £30 million in current funding over a three year period from 1999 to 2001. It provides for the establishment of a joint public/private research and development programme in third level education institutions and is additional to other sources of funding for research. It will support research in science and technology, the humanities and social sciences and will focus on supporting quality research, the commercial application of which will be long-term rather immediate or medium term. Deputies will know that this initiative has been widely acclaimed in academic and business circles. It demonstrates our commitment to keeping Ireland at the cutting edge of research.

With regard to Vote 27 — First Level Education — a Supplementary Estimate totally £21.1 million is required. The Supplementary Estimate comprises the following elements: under subhead C — Captiation Grants towards operating costs of National Schools — a supplementary amount of £1 million is required to fund the cost of capitation grants towards the operating costs of primary schools, which will be greater than anticipated. Estimates are prepared on the basis of projected enrolments but enrolments were higher than projected in 1997-8. The variation was approximately 1 per cent.

Under subhead F.1 — Other Grants and Services — I am seeking a supplementary amount of £3.5 million to assist primary schools for the purchase of school library books. This is to be taken together with a similar allocation to second level schools and will make a significant impact in school throughout the country. We are making a basic grant to every primary school of approximately £1,000 and £3,140 will be made available to schools that are designated as disadvantaged. This is designed to enable schools to buy books for their school libraries or, in schools where there are no school libraries, to establish school libraries, especially in smaller schools.

Subhead G — Child Care Assistance for the Handicapped in National Schools — makes provision for the cost of salaries and employer's PRSI in respect of posts of child care assistants which are sanctioned by my Department in schools catering for children with special needs. The number of these child care assistant posts have increased significantly during the course of the year and an additional sum of £500,000 is required.

Members of the committee will be aware that I recently launched a major new initiative in the special education area. This includes an automatic entitlement to child care support for children with special needs who have been assessed as requiring such support. As a result of this initiative, 104 child care posts have already been sanctioned in 1998.

Under subhead J — Superannuation of Teachers — an additional £8.1 million is sought for primary teacher pensions to advance the pay date of pensions due in December from the end of the month to a pre-Christmas date. Hitherto these payments have been made on the second last working day of December, where they are a charge on the following year. With effect from 1998 the December 1998, the December payments will be a charge on the current year.

The bringing forward of the December date of issue to before Christmas has been sought for many years by retired teachers and will bring the payment of their monthly pensions into line with the payment of most other public service pensioners. Second level teachers will also be paid pre-Christmas in future. This is a major service improvement, which I know will be welcomed by all retired teachers. Part of the additional sum sought is required because of a greater than anticipated number of teachers retiring in 1998.

On subhead K1 — Building Equipment and Furnishing of National School — an additional £8 million is sought for the capital funding for primary schools. This demonstrates the Government's commitment to tackle sub-standard accommodation in schools. Arising out of the additional allocation, a greatly enhanced capital programme is under way. This year, major works are being undertaken at approximately 150 schools while a further 700 schools will have received grants for improvements projects.

With regard to Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education — a Supplementary Estimate totalling £45.725 million is required. The Supplementary Estimate comprises of the following elements: on subhead A1 — Secondary Teachers — Incremental Salary Grant — I am seeking an additional allocation of £20 million. It will be recalled it had been intended to introduce fortnightly pay for teachers in secondary, community and comprehensive school with effect from 1 December 1998. This would have meant that a portion of salary normally due for payment in December would not fall due for payment until January 1999. For technical reasons it will not be possible to introduce fortnightly during 1998. In view of this change, payment of the full amount of salary in respect of December will now fall due for payment in 1998 and this change will require and additional provision of £16 million. I can go into the details of that later if Deputies wish. The balance of £4 million sought for subhead A is due to underestimation of teacher salary costs.

The position with regard to subhead E — Comprehensive and Community Schools — Running Costs — is similar to subhead A. The amount sought for this subhead is £5.5 million, of which £4.5 million is due to the postponement of fortnightly pay and £1 million is due to under-estimation.

On subhead D — Superannuation of Secondary, Comprehensive and Community School Teachers — an additional £2 million is requested for pensions of comprehensive and community schools teachers mainly to enable the payment date to be brought forward to a pre-Christmas date. This change is similar to the new arrangement for primary teacher pensions. Part of the additional sum sought is required due to a greater than anticipated number of teachers retiring during 1998.

On subhead K — Miscellaneous — an additional £2.5 million is sought to assist second level schools with the purchase of books for school libraries. Each school will receive £2,500 and disadvantaged schools will receive £5,300.

On subhead L — Second Level Schools — Building Grants and Capital Costs — a Supplementary Estimate of £15.725 million is sought for post-primary buildings on top of what was already an increased allocation. This additional funding has enabled much needed and long delayed projects to proceed. At both levels an unprecedented number of capital projects are under way because of extra funding provided by the Government during the year and a desire to move ahead with projects and not to stall with capital projects that were close to going to tender or under construction.

With regard to Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education — subhead B2 deals with An tÚdarás um Ard Oideachas — General (non-capital) Grants to Universities and Colleges and designated Institutions of Higher Education (Grant-in-Aid), the funds in this subhead are allocated to the Higher Education Authority for disbursement to the universities and other institutions of higher education operating under the aegis of the authority. A further sum of £787,000 is being sought to cover items which have arisen during 1998 and could not have been foreseen when the 1998 Estimates were prepared. The items mainly related to staff superannuation and wage/salary settlements which arose in the course of 1998.

On subhead C — Grants in respect of the running costs of Regional Technical Colleges, the Institute of Technology and certain Vocational Education Committee Colleges — a Supplementary Estimate of £5 million is required to meet the following additional costs: a sum of £1 million is required to meet the costs of extra apprentices in 1998 and £4 million is due to the running costs in the sector in respect of new courses, additional student numbers and skills shortages initiatives etc., being greater than originally estimated. This extra funding again demonstrates the unequalled commitment of the Government to supporting the technological sector of higher education.

I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate of £2 million for subhead M2 — Higher Education Authority — Building Grants and Capital Costs to Universities and Colleges and Designated Institutions of Higher Education. This is required to allocate funding of £500,000 each to St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, and Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, and £1 million to NUI, Cork. The proposed funding to St. Patrick's College will enable the college to undertake priority works necessary to comply with health and safety regulations and to provide urgently required computer facilities to facilitate information technology training for students as well as linkages with Dublin City University.

The funding to Mary Immaculate College will enable it to undertake priority works necessary to comply with health and safety regulations and also to contribute towards the upgrading of the college's computer facilities for students. The balance of £1 million will provide funding to NUI, Cork, to provide for the relocation and refurbishment of premises for the biological services unit, which was previously housed in the Munster Institute, and to promote and facilitate the research activities of the unit. The necessity for this funding arises from the transfer by NUI Cork of existing operations at the Munster Institute and the consequent relocation of those facilities.

Overall, these supplementaries represent significant extra funding being applied to all areas of education. They underpin an unprecedented level of funding for developing and improving our school buildings; they allow us to proceed with an historic initiative to develop the research capacity of our colleges; they allow us to dramatically increase the quality of school libraries throughout the country; and they allow us to improve the service available to retired teachers. In addition to the significant increases in education spending which were already included in the 1998 Estimates, these supplementaries mark another important move forward for Irish education.

I commend them to the committee.

I am disappointed with the priorities set out in the Supplementary Estimates. When you strip away the £8 million provided for pensions at primary level and the technical pay adjustments at second level, it becomes clear that the Minister is providing, via the Supplementary Estimates, an additional £13 million at primary level, an additional £23 million at second level and an additional £38 million at third level. The Minister made a commitment that the primary sector would receive priority from the Government in terms of access to funding, but it will receive only 17 per cent of the available money. The primary sector is not being given priority, it is being left on the hind tit in respect of the allocation of resources.

The above position is reflected in the 1999 Estimates. When we take account of the increase in current spending which was made available in the Estimates and the changes announced by the Minister for Finance on budget day, we can see the Minister for Education and Science is making available an additional £154 million for 1999. The primary sector will receive 16 per cent of that. It must be borne in mind that 50 per cent of all pupils in the education system are involved at primary level. However, less than 20 per cent of available resources are being targeted at primary education at a point when everyone recognises that problems in the education system begin at primary level and that primary level education has been underfunded not only historically but also by European standards because we spend only half as much on each primary pupil as is spent in other countries. The Minister should reorient his priorities.

The Minister's recent major announcements on education, for which he was correctly applauded, were predominantly concerned with third level where large investments are being made in technological education and research. Considering needs at third level, I do not doubt that these investments were needed. However, it must be borne in mind that third level education is well funded by international standards while primary level education is hopelessly underfunded. I would have liked the Supplementary Estimates to place greater priority on the primary education sector.

The 1998 Estimates did not provide for the employment of additional teachers at primary or second level. It will not be until September 1999 that a number of extra teachers will be appointed. The committee must be made aware that this extra allocation pays testament to a drying up of the so-called demographic dividend. The Department's figures on population projections — in our later discussion I would like the Minister to provide chapter and verse on these — have shown that in three to four years the demographic dividend in primary education will have disappeared entirely and no further teachers will be appointed in the primary sector as a result of declining pupil numbers.

The Minister won applause during the week when he announced that he will appoint additional teachers in September 1999. However, he should not be complimented on his largesse because the provision of additional teachers is an essential requirement. If he did not appoint those teachers, the primary education sector would be starved of resources.

Another issue which concerns me is the Minister's introduction of schemes and the his announcements about their merit. I am disturbed that a regional bias is evident in the allocation of resources under these schemes. Under the recent early school leaver initiative announced by the Minister, 32 per cent of the money on offer went to Cork. Approximately 11 per cent of the population lives in Cork which means that county received three times more money than one would expect. Under the teacher-counsellor allocation this year, 40 per cent went to Cork which means almost four times more money went to the county than one would expect. Under the resource teacher allocation, 23 per cent went to Cork which means it received twice what it should have been given. Under the home-school liaison scheme, Cork fared far better than expected when it was granted 15 per cent of the money available. Under the remedial teacher allocation, where schools which already had a remedial service obtained an additional full-time teacher — there were nine such schools — 44 per cent were allocated in Cork.

Members are aware of a cynicism which exists regarding the allocation of resources within the education system. There is no transparent system under which resource teachers, funding under the early school initiative or the home-school liaison programme, or teacher-counsellors are allocated. These areas have not been properly codified and there are no transparent decision making processes in place. I have no doubt the Minister will draw himself up to his full height to inform us that it is an extraordinary accident that Cork is doing so well. It is apparent that Cork is faring three to four times better than the remainder of the country under the majority of these schemes. That will make people extremely cynical and they will ask why we do not have transparent and objective criteria for allocating teachers under these schemes. I am completely on their side in that regard.

It is not acceptable that projects as important as the early school leaver initiative should have a sniff of political opportunism attached to them. People will become cynical of projects of this kind if the shots are being called by the Minister's favoured Deputies or Independent Members. That is not acceptable. There must be clear commitments that these allocations will be made on an objective and transparent basis. People must be able to see why certain schools were successful. Allocations must be made at arm's length, without ministerial invention, and a proper and fair system must be put in place.

The Minister should not allow his penchant for PR and publicity to get the better of him, nor should he attempt to conceal or distort what is happening. Like other Deputies, during recent Private Members' debates in the Dáil, I was dismayed by the level of debate to which the Minister sank and by the fact that he briefed members of the committee to prepare their hymn sheets in respect of these Supplementary Estimates. The Minister stated that his first action on entering office was to increase Youthreach places. Anyone who has observed events surrounding Youthreach will be aware that the number of participants in the scheme has declined since December 1996. According to the most recent figures made available to me by the Department of Education and Science, there has been a decrease of 200 in the numbers participating in Youthreach. The Minister's claims about places allocated to Youthreach are incorrect because fewer people are now involved in the scheme. It is not acceptable that the Minister should inform the House that he is a clever fellow when he is aware that the information he has given is incorrect.

Given the Minister's statements about Youthreach, I am sceptical of his claim that an additional 5,500 apprentices have been appointed. I understand there has been no such increase in the number of apprentices. The Minister may again be using distorted figures to state that because a new type of apprenticeship is being introduced he will consider one form of apprenticeship and not another and claim there are an additional 5,500 apprentices. I do not believe the figures stand up to scrutiny.

There is a lesson to be learned here. The Minister should not overplay his hand or treat his predecessors with the sort of derision he appears happy to heap upon them. Members of the public may state there is honour among thieves, but there is a certain decorum in the way debates are conducted.

I do not heap derision on prèdecessors, on individuals or personalities. I do not engage in personality politics.

I will withdraw that but it was certainly the impression that was left. I do not speak for myself. Your predecessor was not from my own party and I am not super sensitive about your predecessor, but I felt that the way in which your predecessor was treated during that debate was less than honest. We will not reopen that debate.

I have made a few general observations because this is the end of a session. I will pick up individual points when we are examining the Supplementary Estimates line by line at a later stage.

In general one could not quibble with the areas where the money is applied. However, we will have criticisms about the areas where moneys were not applied in this Supplementary Estimate. Some money has been provided for special needs, for example, classroom assistants. My party would like to see more resources applied to that area as well as to the disadvantaged, the extension of the early start programme, Breaking the Cycle, etc.

As I read this brief the issue of the school psychological service became more apparent. Recently I tabled questions in the Dáil, and in reply to one of them the Minister indicated that there was no primary school psychological service in my constituency and that some of the cases could be taken up by the Brothers of Charity or the South-Eastern Health Board services. I tabled two questions to your colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, and he indicated to me that there had not been referrals to the Brothers of Charity or health board services in the 1997-8 school year and the current school year to date. That is an appalling situation. I hoped I would see something in these Estimates regarding the ten additional psychologists that were announced as having been put in place last August. They do not appear to be taking up their positions in the 1998 year. I would like to know when they will take up their positions. There is an appalling situation in my constituency and it needs to be rectified.

I expected to see a Supplementary Estimate for the recent large land acquisition by Waterford Institute of Technology but for some reason there is not one.

There is no need for a Supplementary on it.

Some weeks ago I tabled a question directed at the Minister and he indicated that the cost was £2.2 million. In response to the question I tabled yesterday he indicated that the cost was £2.45 million. What is the correct amount?

I prefer to be positive about this Estimate and I welcome the extra money provided for books at first and second level. Is this money totally restricted to the acquisition of books? Can it be used to acquire information technology material where a school feels it is appropriate? I am also pleased to see the much larger grant available to disadvantaged schools. A built-in inequity already exists because there are many schools that should be designated as disadvantaged so not all the schools that should receive the larger grant will get it. Will the Minister consider extending the grant? There are still situations where a boys school in an area is designated as disadvantaged but the girls school is not and vice versa. I do not believe the Minister has to rigidly adhere to the schools that are formally designated as disadvantaged. There may be other criteria that can be implemented to allow a fairer spread of the grant for disadvantaged schools.

With regard to the measures for pensions, teachers who were on a pension before the early retirement agreement came into existence some two years ago are still due payment. I understand the Department is working at all speed to ensure they receive payment before Christmas. Can I take it that is not included in this Supplementary Estimate?

No. The Supplementary Estimate is on top of the PCW. Our aim is to pay out all those arrears before the Christmas period.

Are you on schedule?

Yes, my staff are working flat out.

Some of my constituents will be very happy when I tell them that later on today.

All I can say is that my ears were burned during the by-election in Cork.

So there were some education benefits to the by-election.

Deputy Bruton raised some interesting points about the inordinate amount of resources going in the direction of Cork. Is the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea missing out completely on this?

Not completely.

I have no problem with the Supplementary Estimate but I may have some questions when we go through them later on.

I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State. Under B9 of the Supplementary Estimate £388,000 has been allocated for youth services. That is a very welcome decision because I know the Minister of State has been working closely with NYCI and the voluntary youth organisations to try to provide funding in a very difficult situation. Can he explain how this money will be spread around the organisations?

Under subhead B13 the Royal Irish Academy of Music has been allocated £50,000 for renovation costs and the purchase of additional musical instruments. Music education is one thing that needs to be addressed by this committee and the Department. A lack of music education is a serious gap in education. This matter should be adopted as the central theme of our discussions and part of the committee's work programme in the coming year.

Subhead C refers to the discrepancy of £1 million in capitation grants for primary schools. The Minister mentioned a figure of about 1 per cent of an unanticipated increase in the numbers. How did that arise?

Subheads F1 and K refer to extra funding for school libraries. I am delighted with this because I raised this issue last year. My information is that there was virtually no investment in post-primary school libraries up to now. In the Dublin area Ballyfermot Vocational School had the only publicly funded post-primary school library. Will all schools benefit, or will it be done on a phased basis?

Subhead G refers to child care assistants. This is an excellent intervention by the Minister. I know through correspondence I have received that many schools are delighted with the grant.

Like other speakers we have heard, teachers will be delighted with the decision taken under subhead J. It is a very appropriate one.

Under subhead K1 £8 million is provided for substandard primary schools. Is this the list of schools that have been waiting for a number of years? The Dublin Institute of Technology has published on an annual basis a list of schools regarded as seriously disadvantaged, lacking in basic accommodation such as toilet facilities, etc. Are these the schools that are being targeted?

Under subhead L an allocation of £15.725 million has been provided for the long delayed building projects at post-primary level. Will they be new schools in expanding urban areas, will they be replacement buildings or will they be replaced by buildings or extensions at second level?

At second level.

What disciplines is the Minister talking about when he mentions an extra £1 million for apprentices, given that there are skills shortages. Will the money be targeted at FÁS or Dublin Institute of Technology which provide apprentice training? I am pleased St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, will get IT upgrading. The staff and students have been lobbying for this for some time. I welcome this expansionary and focused Estimate. I hope my contribution will not be interpreted by Deputy Bruton as me singing from the hymn sheet, particularly as I have always got the bare 40 per cent in singing from the Department of Education and Science hymn sheet.

Are we taking each heading separately?

I suggest we take a general overview now and then go back to individual Votes.

I am disappointed with Deputy Bruton's comments. In terms of the historic funding of education, I will not take the blame for what happened in the last 30 or 40 years. It is unreal to suggest we should stop all funding of second and third level schools and fund just one level. The world cannot stop at the other levels. There has been a distorted view of the figures. Supplementary Estimates are not the entire picture in terms of primary school funding vis-à-vis other sectors. We all know higher education has greater unit costs per——

On a point of order, what stage of the discussion are we on?

We are dealing with the initial queries. We will then go back to the individual Votes. Is that agreed?

It is not satisfactory if the Minister engages in——

I am entitled to reply to the debate. The charge was made that primary education is losing out again in the Supplementary Estimate. This is not the case, it is actually gaining. I am not casting aspersions on anyone. However, we are in politics. I attack or praise policy by speaking in policy terms; I do not speak in personal terms. During Private Members' time last week, I spoke about the previous Government of which Deputy Bruton was a member. I did not single out any individual. As Minister for Education and Science, I depend on my Cabinet colleagues and I must accept collective responsibility for what transpires. We must defend, advance or advocate our policies. That is what political debate is about.

In terms of capitation and capital funding, primary education is receiving unprecedented increases in funding. In terms of the 1999 Estimates, the capitation grant of £10 plus the additional grants for science and early education represent significant increases. I have always said a lot more needs to be done. I have never over-played the facts in terms of primary education. My basic philosophy has always been that we have a lot of catching up to do in terms of primary education. However, both services are being improved significantly.

The background to additional teachers next year is not the narrowing of the demographic dividend. For the first time in years we sought additional funding in the budget for additional teachers. This was targeted at the disadvantaged. The Deputy complained about the lack of remedial teachers and resources. He is correct in this. It is my view that every school should have a remedial resource. If we go back over the last five or six years, in some years additional posts were created and in others there were no additional remedial posts created. Over the years there has been an intermittent approach to the appointment of remedial teachers and the same applies to home-school liaison officers. I set myself a basic target that by next September every school would have a remedial teaching resource available to it and that every disadvantaged school at primary and second level would have a home-school liaison resource. These are basic targets that are being achieved through the appointment of additional teachers. The Supplementary Estimate makes significant funding available to primary education in the form of books. The allocation of an extra £1,000 to small schools in rural Ireland to purchase books is very significant. We know from research that there is a significant correlation between access to books and children's reading abilities and standards.

There is an £8 million increase in the Supplementary Estimate for primary capital funding. This indicates that we have been pressing ahead with primary school building projects and not making excuses to schools, as was the case in the past. If a project is coming to fruition, we want to build new school extensions and new gaelscoileanna. For the past ten or 15 years, many gaelscoileanna have been operating in prefabricated buildings or school dressingrooms. This is unacceptable. This is why I unapologetically sought an extra £8 million in the Supplementary Estimate, notwithstanding the fact that next year £55 million will be spent on primary school building projects compared to £27 million two years ago. Likewise we are seeking an increase of £15 million for second level projects.

On special needs, I take Deputy O'Shea's point regarding the school psychological service. What we managed to do in the budget package is significant in the sense that we separated the building up of the education psychological service from the dividend. In the last two to three years posts were being snatched from the dividend to create a psychological post. There has been disagreement between the unions vis-à-vis the status of the new psychologists which slowed matters. The report I received set out separate funding arrangements for the appointment of an initial 30 psychologists next year. These will be separate from the dividend. This is a significant step forward in terms of building up the psychological service. The Deputy repeatedly made the point regarding the situation in Waterford. Following the announcement four weeks ago, there will now be clear-cut criteria for the filling of child care posts and the appointment of resource teachers. If there is a cluster of 12 children with special needs in a given area, a resource teacher will be automatically appointed. The difficulty up to now was that there was no automatic staffing schedule for children with special needs. I could not understand this because children with special needs should be entitled to an automatic staffing schedule like other children in the system. There will be complications and difficulties in terms of different areas, but we must work through them.

On the question of educational software, I would prefer to concentrate on books in libraries. However, educational software is valid. We will not be very strict on schools in this regard. Under the IT 2000 funding arrangements, some of the funding should be used to purchase educational software, particularly on the remedial side where there is good software available.

Regarding Waterford, we recently released sanction for that acquisition by the college. There were difficulties between the Department and the college regarding the funding. Sanction has been issued to the college.

The deal has not yet concluded.

We sanctioned this some time ago with specific conditions. The conditions were not adhered to. We sent a communication to the college indicating that we agreed to the purchase of the land under specific conditions. The Department wanted those conditions observed. The difficulties have been ironed out and the letter of sanction has again been issued confirming that the difficulties have been solved.

I am interested in the Deputy's comments regarding disadvantage status and flexibility. This would create difficulties. I know some schools are not designated as disadvantaged. However, these schools would have a significant cohort of students who are disadvantaged. At present they do not benefit. I have an open mind about this because we must help some of them. It has come to my notice that some schools did not come under this in 1994 or in the previous surveys, but they are clearly in a serious condition. We must use our good judgment to assist such schools. Once the home-school liaison and remedial services are in place in every designated disadvantaged school, we can look at how we can top up and improve the base, but we must get the base right first.

Deputy Bruton raised the issue of apprenticeships. We provided funding for an additional 1,000 places on the Youthreach project. The majority of that funding came through the mid-term review and ESF funding. Europe is extremely anxious that we develop further initiatives on early schooling. However, there was not the level of take up we would have liked. That is why in the Green Paper on Adult Education and in the budget allocation for our disadvantage package we are proposing the development of part-time Youthreach programmes to see if we can increase the numbers participating in Youthreach. Part of this is the result of the Celtic tiger economy in that there is evidence that some young people are going straight into work again. There is evidence that potential early school leavers or people who do not have qualifications are taking up work too early. I am worried about that because it means that in a time of economic decline they will not be able to get sustainable employment and they will be back on the route to long-term unemployment. In the context of the adult education programme, there are some initiatives to increase the numbers through the provision of part-time places in Youthreach and the VTOS.

Apprentices are registered with FÁS, a statutory authority with responsibility for designated apprenticeships. The number of those registered, which we have given to the committee, is provided by FÁS. PESP sought an increase in apprenticeships from 2,500 to 3,500 per annum. The intake in the past two years has been 5,000 per annum. By and large the intake of apprentices is market-led but we will all be aware that over the past two years there has been a huge outcry from industry about the need for increased apprenticeships. We have provided colleges with money to increase facilities to cope with the intake. There is a lead-in time between FÁS and the colleges in the new standards based apprenticeships. This is the critical year for the colleges which need to be in a position to absorb the increased numbers which FÁS took in. There is no doubt those are real figures for the numbers of apprenticeships.

On figures for the primary capitation, to which Deputy Carey referred, the actual enrolment figure was 460,930. The projected figure was 457,000. In the figures of the original Estimate the £5 was not fully factored in. There are a number of factors involved and one can never be totally clear on them. About half of our four year olds go into primary education — there will always be an estimating factor in terms of how many children go into primary school in any one year. In addition, there is evidence of returning emigrants from Europe and America in particular and that is having an impact on enrolments.

I take on board the comments about music, which is dear to my heart. We will see if we can advance that in the year ahead.

The Minister of State was asked a question by Deputy Carey. I have had representations from a group known as the No Name Club. It is a voluntary organisation which deals with functions or discos where no alcohol is served. There are other such groups in other counties, such as Dóthan in County Mayo. The group has made the case that it is receiving little funding on a national basis.

The No Name Club is one of a number of worthy organisations which have applied to the Department for funding. Unfortunately, as the legal maxim states, nemo dat quod non habet, you cannot give that which you do not have.

Spoken like a true barrister.

The simple reality is that we did not have the funding until now. As the committee will be aware, there will be a very generous provision in 1999. I do not want to pre-empt the decision but we will be able to look much more favourably at a number of these worthy organisations.

Deputy O'Shea asked was I losing out in some way. The people I represent are delighted with the expansionary policies by my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, over the past 18 months. Why would they not be delighted? Limerick, in common with every other part of the country, is benefiting enormously from those policies.

I was surprised at the tone adopted by Deputy Bruton. He will recall that before the Estimates were published I took Question Time on education matters in the Dáil and he pressed me on the question of extra teachers in addition to the demographic dividend. I assured him the Minister had fought tooth and nail during the course of the Estimates procedures to get funding to provide extra teachers. Deputy Bruton will recall — the record will bear this out — that he expressed extreme scepticism as to whether the Minister would be successful. Now he can see the Minister has been outstandingly successful. Deputy Bruton should be gracious enough to admit that.

The position in regard to Deputy Carey's point is that, if agreed today, the extra funding for the voluntary youth sector will go to the organisations in the same proportion as the original Estimate was distributed. My understanding is that about 61 per cent of this funding goes to the pay sector. The remainder goes to non-pay areas, various programmes, etc. I do not know how the organisations are fixed. Some of them met their obligations under the partnership agreement and paid the 2.5 per cent increase. That would have meant either a cut in the actual programmes or running a deficit, which is undesirable. The extra funding, which I hope will be agreed today, will alleviate that situation. It will enable them to pay their full partnership obligation and at the same time maintain their programmes. It will avoid the necessity for any of them to run a deficit.

Are there any questions on Vote 26?

I am not willing to laugh off with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea the idea that certain regions should get preferential access to resources. That is not good enough. When one looks at each of these schemes, there are people who submit cases to the Department in good faith and expect them to be dealt with in a fair, objective and transparent way. It is remarkable that the Minister did not offer us any assurances that the procedures for selection under these projects are objective and transparent. He suggested in an aside to Deputy O'Shea's queries about teachers-counsellors that he has been engaging in direct favouritism for certain regions and it is only in the future that he will become virtuous in this respect.

I did not.

That was the understanding which I drew from the Minister's earlier comment.

I did not.

The figures speak for themselves and they are provided by the Department. Under the early school leaver initiative, for example, 43 per cent of the applications from County Cork were successful. Some 10 per cent of the applications from the rest of the country were successful. One had four times as good a chance of getting selected if one happened to come from Cork. The Minister has not offered us, here or on the Dáil, any assurance that this system is proper or fair. The only implication can be that it is not.

Percentages can distort the picture. There were 14 projects selected and a special committee was selected, to which I gave terms of reference. As Minister, I have an interest in this project because I am anxious that pilot projects come within the context of the area partnerships. They were all selected by the committee. One was selected in Knocknaheeny in Cork. The one submission from Cork was from the area partnership. The only thing I said to the committee was that knowing Cork — although this is in north Cork, it is not in my constituency — it should be under the one umbrella of the area partnership and should link in with the resources the area partnership is giving to early school leaving. The resources of the urban project, which is also embracing the north side of Cork, should link into it.

I do not accept that explanation for one minute.

I am not worried whether the Deputy accepts it or not. It is wrong to suggest that 43 per cent was selected. As a drug task force area, it would be bordering on the ludicrous to suggest that area of Cork would not be included in the early school leaving pilot project.

The Minister is choosing not to hear the question that is being asked.

Objective criteria were used.

Will the Minister give me a moment? As I understand the figures provided by the Minister's Department, seven projects applied from Cork and 108 applied from the rest of the country, covering some of the 32 partnerships the Minister mentioned. Three of the seven from Cork were successful. They drew down one third of the money the Minister has made available. The rest of the country had to make do with two thirds of the money. In other words 90 per cent of the population is having to make do with two thirds of the money because the Minister has allocated one third to Cork. I do not believe that was based on the 32 partnerships. There was something untoward at work there.

One sees it repeated when it comes to the allocation of teachers' counsellors, with four out of ten going to Cork. I do not accept they are fair and objective procedures, and that it is not just my view. I have spoken to people and there is extreme scepticism that the allocation of these positions is not being made on fair and objective criteria. That was specifically said to me, in relation to the teacher counsellor allocations, by people who have made a close study of this matter. The same is true of the places where resources are being allocated. It is quite clear that something other than proper educational issues are being brought into play in these allocations.

The Minister cannot say it only relates to this or that matter. This concerns the use of public money for educational purposes. The Minister must tell the committee that he is going to allocate resources on fair and objective criteria, not because it suits him or Deputy Healy-Rae.

Deputy Bruton is distorting the figures. One could equally say the opposite. Ballymun was probably the best project the committee received. It recommended Ballymun at the top of the list in terms of the scale of funding. One could argue that Ballymun received 100 per cent. One could also ask why that was the case as opposed to other areas of Dublin.

One hundred per cent of what?

Of the funding they requested, given the number of projects that came in. When the Deputy was in Government the same allegations were made.

Well over 30 projects came in from Dublin.

This is a pilot project, although the notion is that this is something that will be ongoing. It is something we will have to mainstream but we must get the right project.

On every single measure, Cork is scoring top of the list. That is not objective or fair criteria and the Minister should not try to tell me that it is.

I can assure the Deputy that is not the feedback I am getting from Cork, but that is another day's work.

Do not try to tell me that.

I am not.

The Minister is not willing to say he did not have influence on any of these decisions. He is wrapping it up in something about partnership.

The European Union has made funding available for this project. One of the key parameters it laid down was that it wanted an area integrated approach to this.

We have 32 partnerships across the country.

Yes, but some of the projects did not come in the context of an area partnership. There is no point in doing this only on a schools based approach, otherwise that would have been one of the criterion at the outset.

I do not accept that 40 per cent of teacher counsellors should go to Cork. The Minister is not willing to concede that something untoward is going on here.

To be quite frank, the disadvantaged schools in Cork — on the north side of the city in particular, which is not my constituency — attracted the bulk of those posts. The real question is what were the schools doing without these additional posts over recent years?

No, the question must be asked of the Minister why Dublin's north inner city got nothing? Why did Finglas and Coolock get nothing?

They did get money.

They did not get it. I would like to know why these areas, which everyone acknowledges as black spots, did not get money under the Minister's schemes.

What the hell was the Deputy doing when he was in Government?

The Minister is again trying to hark back to his predecessor.

I am not. I am moving forward.

He is not willing to answer the question about his own responsibilities.

I am answering the Deputy's question. I have made sure that, as and from next September, every designated disadvantaged school will have a home-school liaison teacher, which is the only way to deal with it. I am also ensuring that every school gets a remedial service.

We are talking about what the Minister has done in 1998. There is a clear distortion of the selection procedures.

I do not accept that.

It is crystal clear.

The Deputy is using very small numbers. He is talking about ten teaching counsellors and he uses a figure like 40 per cent. There are 14 early school leaving projects, yet the Deputy uses a percentage which is a complete distortion. It is easy to do, but it is not valid or fair.

On every single issue where discretion was available it has not been used in an objective way. It has clearly been used with a political motive behind it.

I reject that.

That is what the figures show.

We will not reach agreement on this matter. Will members please put their questions on other issues concerning the office of the Minister?

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, for his response to the overall performance of the Government. However he did not answer my question about whether anything disproportionate has happened in relation to Limerick.

I thank the Minister of State for that firm and unequivocal reply. I wish to refer to the extra £30 million that is being sought for the scientific and technological education fund. My understanding of the Government's decision in relation to the Blanchardstown Institute of Technology was that £20 million was to come from the fund to finance the capital side of the project. I understand that the revenue side was to be found within the Department's own budget. Therefore, £20 million has been committed to Blanchardstown, but it will not be spent in the current year. The new Bill relating to this fund was circulated this morning. This £30 million relates to the provisions of that Bill, is that correct?

That is fair enough. I have another question relating to educational psychologists. Ten such posts were announced in August and the Minister says that 30 will be provided next year. Are we talking about ten and 30 or will the ten be subsumed into the 30? When will Waterford get one?

I alluded to the problem we have had with the ten educational psychologists in terms of inter-union difficulties. That has slowed up the process. Those ten posts are still there and are provided for.

So there are 40 in all?

Yes, but because of the clean break we have developed within the budget — in other words, that we have a clear funding sub-head for the appointment of the psychologists — we are looking at whether, because of the delay and the difficulties that have arisen, we should use if for the ten psychologists. We may just use it for additional teaching posts. I want to be open with the Deputy about the fact that we are considering that point at the moment because of the difficulties that have arisen in processing the matter. The 30 posts will be appointed next year, in the context of the sub-head for the psychological service. The Deputy has made a strong case for Waterford. The idea is to try to increase the coverage and I have made certain commitments to the Deputy in that regard in answering parliamentary questions.

So I can expect good news?

Yes, I expect to come back to that matter. However, we all acknowledge what the Deputy has identified as a gaping need in the south-east.

So I can expect some progress in the short-term?

I thank the Minister.

We will move on to Vote 27: First Level Education.

I wish to pursue the issues raised by Deputy Carey concerning the Department's capacity to forecast pupil numbers. From what the Minister seems to have said, the Department's figure, forecasting just one year ahead, was 3,900 out. It is hard to convert that figure explicitly to teachers, but if one converted it at a ratio of 22:1 it would obviously be nearly 180 teachers. It is a massive deviation from what was expected.

Looking ahead, the Department has published its estimates of pupil enrolments for the future. I would like to know to what extent it has recalculated those enrolments in the light of this miscalculation. There is a view, rightly put forward by the INTO, that the Department is askew on some of its projections and that the reality of returning emigrants is different, even from the Department's figures which show the demographic dividend will shortly dry up. Whose estimates are these? What are the assumptions about birth rates and returning emigrants which underpin the departmental estimates? What will they be in the next three or four years? What is the expected gross and net demographic dividend? This issue is important in looking at the future of the education system. The INTO has rightly articulated the need for a coherent vision for the future.

The demographic dividend has more than halved this year, dropping from 400 to 189. The Minister will say that one swallow does not make a summer and estimates that it will be back up to 300 next year. However, the estimated decline in pupil numbers next year will be less than this year. Therefore, it is counter-intuitive to have an increase of that nature against the demographic background. I know the Minister will probably be unable to give all the statistics today. However, these figures have alerted us to a problem in the departmental system of predicting pupil numbers. This could have serious implications for planning in first and second level in the future.

As regards retiring teachers and remediation, I wish to refer to an issue I raised with the Minister at Question Time last week, the question of retired teachers, whether they retired early or at the normal age, being provided with part-time positions to cater for remediation where there are a number of schools spread out in an area. Will a scheme such as this be developed in the new year?

In the disadvantaged package we announced last week, there is provision for part-time hours in respect of remedial and resource services.

Will they be trained teachers?

Yes. That gives us more flexibility in terms of responding to individual needs and the needs of small rural schools. As regards statistics, the Department is good on statistics and there is evidence that the dividend will decrease in the next two to three years because of a number of factors including the reversal of the decline in the birth rate and returning emigrants. We base the projections on the annual CSO returns as regards emigration, immigration and the birth rate.

What about the total birth rate?

These figures were predicted in 1997 when the multi-annual estimates process began in the Department of Finance. It is about 1 per cent of the overall enrolment figure, so it is not hugely out of kilter.

What is 1 per cent? The miscalculation?

The variance.

It is not even 1 per cent. In terms of predicting a demographic dividend, it is 25 per cent out.

This year we will know exactly what the dividend is early in the new year. There are many complications involved and departmental staff can approximately predict the dividend from year to year.

Is 300 a gross or net figure?

That estimate is net.

How is it estimated to rise within a year?

Last year's figure decreased to 190 from 400 the previous year and 350 the year before that, because staffing schedule improvements were introduced. Improving a staffing schedule in one year will affect the schedule for the following year and the actual dividend. For example, as regards the one teacher initiative, the appointment of 60 posts will not get rid of one teacher schools immediately but will deal with those coming into the one teacher school thresholds. Because the figure is decreased to 18:1 those likely to go below the former 22:1 do not have to lose a teacher.

I would be grateful if the Minister would provide a table of figures.

Perhaps the committee could be briefed by our statisticians.

Could we have a couple of pages setting out the birth rate predictions etc? The figures have been disputed by the INTO. It is hard for a layman to understand.

The INTO disputed a great deal. It wrongly said the Department was working on birth rates of five or ten years ago — they were not.

I know that from the Minister's reply.

I have no difficulty with our statisticians briefing the committee. We will issue a sheet of figures. Looking back on the 1980 statistical projections, in terms of third level participation etc., it is amazing to see how five year statistical predictions can be so out.

These are mechanical.

I can get the figures for the Deputy.

We will move on to Vote 28: Second Level and Further Education.

An issue has arisen in the context of the PCW where posts of responsibility have been agreed which allow teachers take four hours from their class contact hours. This is causing a great deal of consternation particularly in the VEC sector which is complaining that 500 posts of responsibility is 2,000 hours. It has no way of compensating for those lost class contact hours. It is running into big problems on this front.

Perhaps the Minister will comment on the concern that because this legislation will post-date the local elections next year, the appointment of parents and teachers to VEC boards could be postponed until another term because local authorities could legitimately appoint people under the old legislation, which would result in a fait accompli for five years. The intentions of the legislation will then be frustrated. This is a genuine concern.

There are children with special educational needs at primary and secondary level who, because they missed opportunities of appropriate placement, have to attend institutions overseas. I have been approached about students looking for funding to attend a special school in Boston. What is the Department's view on this? Some of these children have not been appropriately placed. The Department says it will assess them, but it is not offering appropriate placements. Some health boards are supporting children who attend schools overseas. There should be a clear policy on who can be supported. It is unfair that children from some health board areas are supported while others are not. There are serious grievances because of this and I have alerted the Department to one such case. The issue of where a child gets appropriate education will become a greater focus of attention in the future.

I reiterate what Deputy Bruton said about the deputy heads at vocational level and the loss of time coming out of hours provided for teaching. Has the Minister any proposal to rectify that?

As regards funding for school libraries and books for second level schools, which is an exciting and welcome development, will every school get the same amount of money or will it be graded according to the size of the school?

As regards the four hour issue, I did not negotiate or sign the PCW which has caused many headaches. We have dealt with that problem in the second level section of the Department. We have told vocational education committees that if they are having difficulties with the implementation of this aspect of the PCW, they should come back to us with their needs. It is a more complex issue at second level because it involves curriculum options. We have made an increased allocation to vocational education committees to facilitate their needs. An additional 150 posts and whole-time equivalent hours have been allocated to VEC colleges this year alone.

To meet the four hours.

Yes, and other needs of the colleges. We recently met the TUI to discuss this issue. It is working in depth with our officials in the Department and with vocational education committees.

I do not accept some of the language used in relation to this issue or that there is a crisis. If one uses the simplistic method of adding the number of children and teachers at second level, the pupil teacher ratio is lowest in the vocational sector. The issue arises in the core classes, such as Irish, English and mathematics, where students come together. We have asked the unions to find a solution to this problem. How can we improve staffing rather than reducing the pupil teacher ratio across the board, which will not have a great impact in terms of targeting teacher resources? Some 30 per cent of second level schools are well below the ratio of 15:1.

We need a more sophisticated look at the statistics in second level schools and what is happening there. We are satisfied we are dealing with the PCW effectively. We have asked the TUI and vocational education committees to come back to us if they are not satisfied that some cases have been resolved properly.

As regards special education needs, the Higachi school deals with children with autism. I visited it last year to see what was on offer. People always believe that something provided in America must be better. We also met with the special education community and professionals in the Boston area to discuss this issue. Our policy as of our announcement last month is that we can provide for children with autism and that the resources will be provided.

My understanding is that a class is being provided in Donnycarney for four year olds, but we cannot suitably accommodate a ten or 11 year old, who is in the Boston system, in that class.

We can provide for them in other settings.

Perhaps I should take up the individual case.

The autism issue has been around for a long time. It is complex because the spectrum is broad in that there are high functioning children with autism and children who have severe difficulties with autism. There is no one solution or model which will meet every autistic child's needs. I met with the Mayo Society for Autism before lunch and it is looking for a model which is different from models we were preparing under the last initiative, such as a special class model. It is a complex issue, but we must work at it from the pre-school level if a child is diagnosed at two and a half years of age. No one should have to go to Higachi or anywhere else in America, irrespective of age. It is our function and responsibility to provide children and young people with autism with a proper education.

It could happen that the people will not feel happy with what the Minister is offering. If that is the case, can there be arbitration?

I accept the system must listen more to parents.

Will the Minister deal with the VEC boards?

We do not see a difficulty with the VEC boards because we hope to have the legislation published before the elections. When the Harbours Bill came into effect, local authorities had to withdraw their members from the harbour boards and conform to the new arrangements in midstream. The same can happen with the vocational education committees. We expect that local authorities will not be ridiculous and ignore the new legislation.

Does the Minister have legal advice in that regard?

I have legal advice which states we can include a provision in the Bill which will allow the composition of the newly constituted vocational education committees, as reflected in the Bill, to become effective immediately.

As regards Deputy Hanafin's point, the size of schools will not determine the amount of funding because many small schools tend to lose out under that system. The cost of books is the same for big and small schools. There is evidence that bigger schools have a greater fund-raising capacity. We are hearing many stories that because of falling numbers in smaller schools in rural Ireland, they do not have the same fund-raising capacity or the same supports available from the local community as they once had. It is better to give a once-off grant based on what would give them enough books to get started.

I recently visited the TEACCH facility in the University of North Carolina. As there are many military bases in that area, military people who have children with special needs may seek to be transferred there and this helps the facility to develop. I was in the pre-school when a child with autism was introduced on his first day and I saw the problems associated with adjustment. Our teaching methods are comparable with those I saw in that facility. Some autistic people cannot speak, so basic methods are employed to deal with everyday issues, such as cleaning their teeth. For example, a set of cards is placed on one side of the bathroom mirror and an empty bag on the other side. When the function is completed, a card is moved from one side to the other and placed in the empty bag.

When I visited a mainstream school in New Jersey, of which the St. John of God Brothers have taken charge, I saw an autistic child in one of its special needs classes for intellectually disabled children. He seemed to have adapted well to his environment. There is a view that autistic children do not mix well with other children. That is not an easy problem to solve.

One major problem outside the large urban areas is the fact that the autistic population is thinly spread. As a result, it is difficult to put the appropriate facilities in place. I am concerned that children will have difficulty travelling to pre-schools, particularly if they are spread throughout the country. I welcome the fact that resources are being provided to resolve this problem.

I accept the Deputy's point. We are learning from the Irish Society for Autism and from people around the country that Montessori teachers are being used. I found out today from the Mayo Society for Autism that the Western Care Association funds the placement of a number of individuals in a local Montessori school in places such as Castlebar and they tend to respond well. It is important to listen to parents from different parts of the country as they place different emphasis on things. The parents I met today are in favour of integration and they do not want a special class model. The majority of the autistic children are high functioning and could develop well. Their argument was that those children do well in the primary school system. They want integration and the resources to facilitate that.

In Cork a group of approximately ten parents have got together and they are insisting on the Lovaas method which has a strong emphasis on pre-school. It is also an American methodology and it is used in Norway. We have sought information from the Norwegian department of education on how it operates there. In Dublin the TEACCH method in Beechpark has been in operation for a number of years under a pilot project and we will continue that. The parents there and the Irish Society for Autism are happy with the application of the TEACCH method. There are a variety of models and we will listen to the parents more and more to inform how things are done. Of course, at all times professional advice will underpin what we do.

The classic autistic and Asperger's child are light years apart in terms of their skill range. It should be borne in mind that the TEACCH method is in relatively widespread use in Northern Ireland. I cannot comment beyond that but it could be worth officials examining what is happening there. It may help the development of policy here.

I will take that on board. On the introduction of TEACCH in this country, tutors came from America and tutored and briefed inspectors and teachers. That led to its introduction in Dublin. More people in our system could do with more exposure to these methodologies.

We move on to Vote 29 on Third Level and Further Education.

I have unsuccessfully tried to obtain from the Department by way of parliamentary question, a simple table showing the impact of bringing forward the higher education grant on spending flows in each year or, in other words, a series showing the spending if no change had been made and the spending after the change. However the Department has not been able to provide that. I cannot understand why. Could the Minister obtain that information? It is difficult to interpret what is going on in the Estimate when a sum as big as £40 million or £60 million is brought back each year. As I understand it, there was a certain level of flow and that continues but it was pulled back in 1997 and the flow is uninterrupted thereafter. Nineteen ninety seven was the only year in which spending would have been affected by the change. However I have not been able to get confirmation of this and I would like to get a clear tabular statement on the impact of the change. It is difficult to read the Estimate without that information.

My officials can advise the Deputy on the difficulties and complexities of this. I understand we do not have the outturns yet or the returns from the local authorities for this year. We should be in a better position by early spring.

In conceptual terms, is it the case that all that was done was to make a once-off investment in paying earlier but the flow thereafter should not be affected? Other statements from the Department suggest that the flow has also been affected and one cannot compare 1999 with 1998 because 1998 has been affected. My interpretation is that what was done should have no impact on 1998 spending on third level and it is a true base level for considering 1999.

It did increase the base in 1998.

No, it is like a pipe with water flowing through it. All that was done was to pull the contents of the pipe forwards, but the amount flowing through the pipe at any given time has not changed.

My officials will brief the Deputy.

Is the extra money for the TRBDI under subhead C to provide or start up courses? It seems quite a small amount given that 15 groups are to benefit.

Subhead C concerns the grants in respect of the running costs of regional colleges, institutes of technology and certain VEC colleges and the £4 million extra required in respect of new courses, additional student numbers, skills shortage initiatives and others. I have raised the issue of the fallout rate in our institutes of technology before and the Minister might now be more open to my points than he would have been the first time. Students who are euphemistically described as AQA — or "any qualified applicant" — have 5 Ds on pass papers and are studying certificate courses where any objective appraisal of their qualifications would lead me to believe there is little chance of them completing the courses. I understand there is a significant fallout rate and I asked someone who is heavily involved in PLC courses if the students who drop out of the institute of technology sector are picked up by PLCs. That does not seem to be the case. When they fall out of the education system they are lost. Perhaps they return at a later stage, I do not know. While we are creating extra places, we need to critically review intakes in terms of whether those being taken on are effectively just taking up numbers as opposed to having any real prospect of completing their courses.

As regards the Waterford Institute of Technology, I asked a question yesterday which uncovered some information on this. There are two issues. First is the £0.25 million increase in the purchase price and, second, 170 acres was to be purchased with approximately 50 being retained following a feasibility study. In Waterford we would like to hold on to all of it but that was obviously not the deal. It is a rectangular piece of land between a road and the river. A selling point was that it would provide access to the river and therefore water sports activities. If it is reduced to 50 acres, part of the site will be used for a link road to the bridge in Waterford. I understood from our last debate that approximately 30 acres will be required. That 30 acres is not quite on the bank of the river but near the river end of the site.

For the road?

Yes. Is 50 acres a sufficient amount of land for the optimum use of this new facility? I worry about the shape of the site, that slice of land being taken out of it and where exactly the 50 acres — the question indicated it might be 70 acres.

I would love to discuss the issue with the Deputy. Broadly and bluntly speaking, this was never going to be another Belfield. Local interests may have tried to present it as another Belfield but that was never meant to be. We are already investing substantially in the existing plant of the college to the tune of approximately £14 million out of the investment fund; I do not have the exact figure. There is no point investing that money and then doing something else. Some people think we are talking about taking it all from where it is and putting it elsewhere. That could not be justified to the taxpayer. Fifty acres is a lot of land and my building unit told me it is more than adequate to cover the needs of the college, particularly its sporting facility needs. Those were the reasons the college advanced to us as necessitating the purchase and use of 50 acres. It did not make a case for 150 acres. That is the context in which we agreed 50 acres. The Deputy is saying that whatever package emerges — the feasibility study will probably help in this regard — the use of the river for water sports and so forth should be retained for the college.

A 30 acre strip across the land is allocated for the road. The area left between the road and the river appears to be less than 50 acres. How does one link the two pieces of land across the carriageway? What I find mind boggling is the description I was given in the reply to the parliamentary question. On the one hand there will be the development of adequate and appropriate recreational facilities and, on the other, there will be car parking facilities to meet the needs of students and staff. However, the students and staff will be at the main college campus which is about three miles away by road so that does not make sense.

There will be car parking facilities for the facility itself.

That is what was stated in the reply. It does not make sense.

I will get my officials to brief the Deputy on the project.

I thank the Minister.

With regard to Deputy Hanafin's question about Tipperary, that subhead does not relate to the RBDI. The subhead provides funding for 13 institutes of technology, the Tipperary Rural and Business Development Institute and the vocational education committee in Killybegs. The extra money is allocated in respect of the institutes of technology.

I am familiar with the road along WIT as a result of listening to AA Roadwatch in the mornings. There are faulty lights there which should be repaired. Perhaps the Minister could provide a grant for this work.

There is an allocation of £1 million under subhead C to meet the cost of extra apprentices in 1998. Given the skills shortages that have been identified, what trades appear to require more apprentices? Are they in the construction sector, the hotel and catering industry or across all sectors? Has the Minister or his Department considered the possibility of designating additional trades, particularly in the newer technologies? I was talking to a person yesterday who is in the photography industry and its members are finding it difficult to retain staff. They need to upskill their staff and they believe that if their industry were designated a trade, they would be able to design paths of progression for staff in, for example, digital imaging and so forth.

I forgot to respond to an earlier query. I share Deputy O'Shea's concern about the retention initiatives at third level and in the institutes of technology. The package announced last week provides money to help the institutes to retain students in first year and, indeed, within the system. We do not have precise data on how many are leaving but it is a waste of the resource, both for the individual and for the system, if a significant number of students drop out. Additional resources are being provided but we want the institutes to come to the Department with their proposals.

We are currently considering mentoring systems, a greater number of tutorials and more tutors to ensure closer contact between teachers and pupils, particularly in first year. I was speaking to academics in UCD recently and they told me they have a strong tutoring programme with small numbers of students per tutor, particularly in first year. It appears to be having the desired impact in terms of their outcomes and retention figures.

With regard to Deputy Carey's question, the key area of demand is the construction industry. The number of apprentices in that sector rose from 2,400 to about 4,500 in the last 18 months. Substantial investment has been provided for CERT in terms of physical capacity under the investment fund. There is about £20 million for the institutes of technology to increase their catering colleges and to build new ones in the case of Dundalk and others. However, there is a problem with take up in the industry.

It is a matter for FÁS to designate new skills as constituting a trade or apprenticeship. The Deputy has a valid point. Having watched the national skills competition and the performance of our apprentices in the Olympics, I notice that technology is being integrated in existing trades. Computer aided design, in particular, is a new feature in recent years and we are doing well in that area. Ireland came sixth in the Olympics.

The staff in the institutes of technology and in FÁS have an incredible commitment to apprenticeship training; it is remarkable. We are lucky to have such commitment.

To be fair, the Department's staff has also had a remarkable commitment to that competition.

They are here with me.

Top
Share