SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 1999

Vol. 2 No. 4

Estimates for Public Services, 1999.

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

Vote 27 — First Level Education (Supplementary).

Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education (Supplementary).

Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education (Supplementary).

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, and his officials.

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider Supplementary Estimates within the aegis of the Department of Education and Science. The Supplementary Estimates which have been referred to the Select Committee by the Dáil are as follows: 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. A proposed timetable for the consideration of the Estimates has been circulated. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. Martin)

The Estimates process for next year has, as Deputies will be aware, resulted in us being in a position to implement further significant service improvements to the benefit of all levels of the education system. The Supplementary Estimates before the committee show that during 1999 additional funding has been allocated, beyond an already generous provision, which has been targeted at a number of welcome developments.

These Supplementary Estimates arise mainly because of the following factors: additional capital for first and second level schools and for the third level; the cost of a special reading initiative grant to first and second level schools; additional amounts for the provision for primary teacher pay and pupil capitation development costs of the revised primary curriculum, child care assistants, the institutes of technology, the Higher Education Authority institutions and additional amounts for certain grant-in-aid subheads; lower than anticipated receipts from the European Social Funds in 1999 — these moneys will be received early in 2000; shortfalls on the teacher pension subheads due to considerably increased numbers of retirements; and additional sums to meet the cost of third level pay, mainly Partnership for Competitiveness and Work pay settlements which were not provided for in the 1999 Estimates.

In all, I am seeking approval for four Supplementary Estimates which total £158.765 million. In explaining these Estimates, I will leave some of the smaller amounts until the detailed discussions by Vote area.

A Supplementary Estimate totalling £2.537 million is required on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education and Science. This Vote includes all of the basic operations of the Department and various general programmes. The Supplementary Estimate is comprised of the following elements: a Supplementary Estimate of £187,000 is required in order to make a payment towards the administrative costs of the "Children's Hour" which is a initiative of the Irish Youth Foundation to encourage the workforce to donate the equivalent of one hour's earnings to children's charities; a sum of £350,000 is being sought by way of Supplementary Estimate to cover PCW pay awards and to upgrade computer systems at the Royal Irish Academy of Music; provision in this subhead C is made for receipts of aid from the European Social Fund towards the costs of measures which improve the quality of the education system — an additional amount of £2 million is required because receipts from the European Social Fund expected in November-December 1999 are not now anticipated until early 2000.

A Supplementary Estimate totalling £29.945 million is required on the Vote for First Level Education. The Supplementary Estimate is comprised of the following elements. Deputies will be aware that this year saw the first expansion in teacher numbers in many years. Moving from a situation where the 1997 budget proposed a reduction in the number of teachers, the Government has retained and expanded teacher numbers at a time of declining enrolments. An additional sum of £4 million is required to fund additional teachers, mainly for remedial and home-school liaison as well as the reduction in maximum average class size to 30.

Under subhead C, 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 and actual enrolments were higher than projected. There was also a significantly larger number of pupils receiving the higher rate of capitation which provided for children with special needs. I have also improved the secretarial and caretaker services scheme in relation to secretaries that were heretofore shared between primary and second level schools.

I am seeking, under subhead F.1, a supplementary amount of £6.195 million, £3.7 million of which is required to enable me to make a special once-off reading initiative grant to primary schools. This is to be taken together with a similar allocation to second level schools and will make a significant impact in schools throughout the country. An additional £700,000 is required for the rent of temporary accommodation, due mainly to the increased rate of grant which I have made available to national schools. The balance of the increased sum sought under this subhead is to cover the greater than anticipated costs of the revised primary curriculum in the current year.

With regard to subhead G — Child Care Assistants in National Schools — Members will be aware that I launched a major initiative in the special education area. This includes the first ever 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, more than 460 additional child care posts have already been sanctioned in 1999. An additional sum of £500,000 is required by way of Supplementary Estimate as allocations have proceeded ahead of the original Estimate.

An additional £12.25 million is sought for primary teacher pensions in order to meet the cost of significantly increased numbers of pensioners. The numbers of primary teachers retiring in 1999 have greatly exceeded the estimate and the additional lump sums constitute most of the extra requirement.

In respect of subhead K.1, over the past two years the Government has dramatically increased funding for school building and renovation projects. Next year's Estimate will see such funding at primary level reach a level of roughly 200% higher than that set in the 1997 budget. During 1999, with the agreement of the Minister for Finance, we were in a position to go beyond the additional allocation. An additional £6 million is being sought today. Arising out of the additional allocation, a greatly enhanced capital programme is under way. This year major works are being undertaken at about 175 schools while a further 775 schools will have received grants for improvements projects.

A Supplementary Estimate totalling £62.3 million is required on the Vote for Second Level and Further Education. The Supplementary Estimate is comprised of the following elements. Under subhead D, an additional £8 million is requested for pensions of secondary, comprehensive and community school teachers mainly to meet the cost of significantly increased numbers of pensioners. The numbers of second level teachers retiring in 1999 have exceeded the Estimate and, as is the case at primary level, the additional lump sums constitute most of the extra requirement.

Under subhead K, an additional £2.8 million is being sought to enable me to make a special once-off reading initiative grant to second level schools. This, taken together with a similar allocation to first level schools will make a significant impact.

As at primary level, the Government has dramatically improved funding for building projects at second level. Next year's allocation, at more than £100 million will be fully 229% higher than that included in the 1997 budget. A supplementary allocation of £33.5 million is sought for additional work carried out during 1999. This additional funding has enabled much needed and long delayed projects to proceed.

An additional amount of £18 million is required because receipts due under subhead M from the European Social Fund expected in November and December 1999 are not now anticipated until early 2000.

On Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education — a Supplementary Estimate totalling £63.983 million is required. The Supplementary Estimate is comprised of the following elements. The funds under subhead B.2. — An tÚdarás um Ard Oideachas — General (non — capital) Grants to Universities and Colleges and Designated Institutions of Higher Education (Grant-in-Aid) — 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 £21.916 million is now being sought to cover items which arose during 1999. These items mainly relate to wage-salary settlements under the PCW, a shortfall on the pay provision for Partnership 2000 and unanticipated superannuation costs. Additional amounts are also required for underestimation of the free fees requirements and the higher cost of property leases of NUI Maynooth.

A supplementary estimate of £6.78 million is required in respect of subhead C which provides for running costs of the institutes of technology. The items mainly relate to wage-salary settlements under the PCW, and a requirement to make a special once-off payment to the Dublin Institute of Technology.

Subhead K — Alleviation of Disadvantage — provides funds to assist students who might otherwise, due to financial or other circumstances, be unable to access third level education. The additional allocation of £1.4 million is sought to fund access initiatives in the institutes of technology sector, to provide funding for the educational activities of area based partnerships and extra funding for the hardship fund and grants for students with disabilities.

Under subhead M.1 — Building Grants and Capital costs of the Institutes of technology — an additional £3 million is required because a number of projects in the institutes of technology proceeded faster than was anticipated and it was necessary to provide for equipment updating for certain courses to match the rapidity of technological change.

Under subhead M.2 — Higher Education Authority — Building Grants and Capital Costs for Universities and Colleges and Designated Institutions of Higher Education — I am seeking a supplementary estimate amount of £5 million . The additional money is mainly to provide office and teaching accommodation to cater for increased student numbers and for the cost of capital works related to health and safety.

An additional amount of £24.5 million is required because receipts due under subhead N — Appropriations-in-Aid — from the European Social Fund in respect of third level programmes which were expected in November and December 1999 are not now anticipated until early 2000.

Overall, these Supplementary Estimates represent very significant extra funding being applied to all areas of education. They underpin an unprecedented level of funding for developing and improving buildings and equipment for schools and colleges at all levels. They allow for increased provision for students with disabilities and they ensure that all students at primary level will benefit from the reduction in class size. I am particularly pleased that the Minister for Finance has agreed to make additional provision to enable the reading initiative grant to be given at first and second level before year end. The additional activities which this spending has enabled serves as an excellent foundation for the further improvements which we will be able to implement during the coming year.

I commend these Supplementary Estimates to the committee.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Minister is presiding over a large spend, which everyone welcomes. The recurring theme is that while huge sums are being spent, accountability is lacking. One of the blind spots of the education system is its consistent failure to collect information which would allow us to see how well we are doing. This is true in the case of literacy where an occasional survey is carried out, usually at the behest of international bodies. It is true in the case of school attendance, where, the Department has failed to honour the statutory obligation, imposed on it by the 1926 Act, to collect information on that subject. It is true in the case of special education, although I commend the Minister for committing to funding for children with special needs. However, the Department is totally ignorant of the level of need among these children. Their number is in some doubt and it is not known what services they are receiving. There is no systematic planning for the development of this sector. For a long time, the Department was willing to go court rather than provide the educational services which were expected.

There is a determination across the board not to look at outcomes but only to look at inputs. This is one of the big problems with the education system. The Minister is standing by foolhardy advice from his Department that parents should be kept in the dark about examination results. Parents have a right to know everything about the school which their children attend, including examination results. After all, this Department has insisted over the years that the only yardstick of success in education is examination results. It is ironic that it would then say such information should not be available to parents. Under the Constitution, parents are the primary educators. The Department does not have a right to go to court to refuse access to this information. I do not support the newspapers who are leading the charge in this regard. However, this is because the Department has consistently stuck its head in the sand and refused to give this information to parents.

At a time when we have money, we must look at the results to see are we getting value for it. It is all very well for the Minister to receive publicity for announcing more teachers for this or a pilot project for that. However, this hides some grim figures. The retention rate at second level is not improving — it seems to be stagnant or even falling. This is the main target set by the Department and it is failing to meet it. Third level participation by non-traditional students is at a ridiculously low level. The results of a USI survey, released today, shows it is lower among lower socio-economic groups than it was five years ago. This is at the time of the Celtic tiger and the availability of enormous resources.

The Education (Welfare) Bill was a disappointment and fell far short of the model the committee suggested in its report on early school leaving, which was more supportive of home educators, which received a great deal of attention, but also supportive of how schools deal with problem children. The imposition of endless bureaucracy to report is all very well. However, principals and educators want to know what support will be available after the early warning? People know there is early warning but where are the support services for the children concerned? I was amused at the reply to a recent parliamentary question stating the Department had made provision of £250,000 for the Education (Welfare) Bill. That would barely employ those already working in the area, let alone develop a structure for the future.

I do not know what has happened to the Department of Finance. I was amazed that it sanctioned this without reporting on the resourcing implications. Either the Department of Education and Science does not intend to properly resource the Bill or it is conceding it to the Minister for Finance. The Minister of Finance used to be responsible for scrutiny of spending. Perhaps he was so distracted by taking a few bob from the stay-at-home mothers that he forgot his job of tracking accountability. The Bill will be in Committee here shortly and I would have expected the Department to outline the implications, available resources and the support structures in place. We are told we have to await the uncertain outcome of its passage through the Dáil. This is not acceptable.

The Minister's heart is in the right place in many areas. However, he is being conned in respect of what needs to be done. Early school leavers are the priority. They should not be handled by way of small pilot schemes. The Minister's latest pilot scheme, which follows on from the previous initiative, allocated £4.5 million to 30 schools. The issue of early school leavers should dominate the education budget — not the incidental allocation of extra money in the Estimates. The Department has set the participation as its primary target and the one by which it should be judged. It is not good enough. Breaking the Cycle was a pilot and the early school leavers' initiative is a pilot. The Department does not know what will happen with these schemes. It must wait until they are completed and, perhaps, then it will decide to make then mainstream. It is unacceptable to proceed in this manner.

The impact of research budgets is far more uncertain — we do not pilot research programmes and to allocate £10 million or whatever amount to see how successful they will be. The Minister is looking for applause because he is putting £550 million into research. There is no doubt that this is worthwhile. However, the contrast between the £550 million funding for the uncertain enterprise of research and development and the funding allocated to the already failing early school leavers' initiative defies belief. We need to look at what is important and put money into it.

The national plan indicates that substantial moneys will be available in the next few years. The Minister should convene some form of social partnership to examine priorities. We hear about consultations with the partners in education which take place behind closed doors. I am sure this is happening — I would never beg to differ. By and large these are small groups and national representatives. However, we must look at what is happening all over the country and put resources into that. The educational initiatives which are paying dividends are not the idea of the Department, but of community groups, schools and teachers. We should include their ideas in future education funding. There is no proper forum for airing these ideas. Many of these initiatives, if they are funded by the Department, are done so on a shoestring. This is a great opportunity. The Department should look at how people are contributing in the community and try to harness it in a more meaningful way.

A minimum of £20 billion will be spent in the period up to 2006. We can report hard facts about what is happening in the areas of retention, literacy and exam results and what is happening to children with special needs in terms of where they are, who they are and what they are receiving. That is the type of debate we should be able to have but unfortunately we cannot. We usually have a debate about a list of arid spending lines with no corresponding outcome lines. I appeal to the Minister, now that he has both resources and time, to examine the overall management of the Department.

I do not disguise my belief that devolution and decentralisation from the Department is needed. A development authority with real power is needed as a technical support for schools. It is ridiculous that schools are trying to run programmes in health and sexual relationships, counselling and many other areas with no proper technical support. Not only that, we are also holding out against principals being given time to plan the activities of their schools. It makes no sense that principals are expected to be the gatekeepers for the management of a hugely expensive resource while at the same time being told they must teach.

If we are to impact on existing problems, more time must be given to planning, case conferencing and using experts from outside schools, something which is foreign to most schools. We must invest in resources and people to do that. While I commend the increased provision next year for in-service training, it is still at a derisorily small level. There is no serious in-service training for principals who manage what is a key resource. We must realise that we are running a professional service and are training and developing schools and principals in a professional manner. We have not yet reached that level.

I notice a massive increase in the schools building programme and I know this will be very welcome. However, I recently went to Dublin 15 to address a public meeting on education and I was flabbergasted by the failure of the Department to foresee that an area such as Dublin 15, which has become built up at breakneck speed, would need schools. Parents do not know where to enrol their children. Schools operate from halls. Equipment must be cleared out in the evening, put it in a shed and brought back out the following morning because the hall must be used for another purpose in the evening.

I do not understand how the Department can run the building unit on a shoestring, which it is doing at present. This is a crucial matter. People looking at Ireland say we do not plan. We develop houses without providing corresponding shopping centres and swimming pools. The scandal is that we do not provide schools, although we know that, as night follows day, if people move into an area in three years' time or sooner a large number of children will be seeking education places. It is a scandal that the Department has not yet got to grips with the problem in Dublin 15. I do not blame departmental officials because they do not have the staff and they are not resourced to carry out this type of planning. This has not been done and we are paying the price for that lack of planning.

Reviews are being conducted on everything, but this is a review which must be done. We will see continued population growth and, if policy works, we will see new centres for development throughout the country. We must not repeat the mistakes made in Dublin 15 in these new centres for development. There must be proper advance planning so that, when children reach 12, parents will not be forced to enrol them in schools ten miles away and they will not have to wait until there is deemed to be a sufficient number of pupils to warrant the building of a school. Such advance planning does not seem to be the way the matter is handled at present. This is an area in which the Minister needs to take an interest. It is all very well to announce that we will improve leaking roofs and outside toilets, important as that may be, but we also need to ensure that schools are available in growth areas when they are needed and not many months after.

Mr. Sargent

A number of items strike me about the Estimates from the Department of Education and Science. I am glad the Minister has had the opportunity to outline his stance and I thank him and his officials for being here. The first item is that a large amount of money is being spent and that ought to be welcome. The other is that huge pressures are being placed on the world of education by other Departments and the economy in general. Graduates are being lured away before they complete their postgraduate studies and there are difficulties in recruiting science teachers. As the Minister said, teacher enrolments are declining. There are huge pressures on the Minister which I do not see reflected in the Estimates, only in his comments.

Three items in the Minister's opening statement need to be put together. He said that most students at primary level will benefit from a reduction in class sizes. Taken on its own, that sounds like a welcome statement. However, if it is put alongside a previous statement that the numbers entering primary teaching are declining and that the numbers retiring are exceeding estimates, one begins to see that teachers are in short supply and that schools find themselves in great difficulty when they advertise for teachers. That does not come across in the Estimates. Notwithstanding the amount of money available, it is something which must be addressed and must be the focus of attention.

Money can do a great deal but the spending of it must be planned in a holistic way. Spending on IT has increased in recent years but that has only been called for in recent years. Complaints from schools of lack of space for IT equipment, lack of training and lack of furniture on which to place computers all indicate a piecemeal approach to spending. One cannot say that not enough is being spent because more is being spent than ever. Perhaps the problem is that it has not been thought through in consultation with teachers and there should be some planning before spending.

Pressure is placed on principals. I spoke with a principal with seven assistants and she would like to know if there is any movement on lowering to six assistants the threshold at which a principal does not teach. I would go further if possible. If the money is available, we should ensure principals are given the time and space to administer as required.

The Minister mentioned additional places. How many classroom assistants, caretakers and secretaries now being provided for from additional spending are filling gaps previously filled through FÁS? A considerable number of schools have become dependent on community employment schemes. There is huge uncertainty as to whether the Minister is prepared to take up the slack caused by the reduction in the community employment schemes. When the Minister mentions additional places, I do not know if they are additional to FÁS or are replacing it. Could the Minister clarify that? Two issues, namely, additional costs for temporary school premises and the new curriculum, amounting to £20.813 million, seem to be juxtaposed and I wonder why. They are two very important issues which should stand on their own.

Mr. Martin

I will take note of what the Deputy has said.

Mr. Sargent

It concerns temporary school premises and spending on the new curriculum.

Hopefully we can amend a number of provisions in the Education and Welfare Bill in relation to home education. I am thinking of it in a broader context than the genuine role of home education which should be cherished as it is in America and other places in a very formal way rather than being tolerated, and reluctantly tolerated in some cases. It is an important issue if we are to get to grips with early school leaving. As I mentioned earlier, the pressure of the private sector pulling children out of second and third level education requires real involvement by parents at home in terms of understanding education and how it is of benefit. It would help to have a much more central role for home education in the education system. This would mean that whether the child is attending school or being educated at home the parent would feel he or she is the primary educator, as is provided for in the Constitution.

Regarding teacher education, I am aware of the difficulties concerning accommodation in Mary Immaculate training college in Limerick and in other teacher training colleges, but I do not see the kind of provision I would expect if the concerns of the colleges were being taken seriously. Enrolment, which must also be tackled, will not improve if accommodation is dire.

To what extent is the reading initiative designed to be a comprehensive response to illiteracy? Is numeracy part of this initiative? I mentioned early school leaving and the general opportunities people see in the short-term in taking students and even graduates out of what would otherwise be continuing education.

Will the Minister give any further consideration to scholarships for science teachers, an issue I raised in the Dáil? This has been recommended by the science and technology association which feels that some type of scholarship is necessary to provide a counterbalance against the enticements, mainly in the private sector but also in the public sector. Otherwise science teaching will be a very difficult challenge and we will seriously lose out. We have built up a reputation as a place with graduates who will satisfy the needs of the scientific economy, but we are now in danger of collapsing and committing suicide from an educational point of view.

When will money be provided to help further with accommodation for third level students? I mentioned the other pressures on education, but the education system is putting pressure on availability of accommodation. Whereas in other countries the provision of accommodation is accepted as a straightforward part of state provision in terms of education, here the response I have received to parliamentary questions is that it is primarily a matter for individual institutions. It is fine to say that, but the problem is too big for the institutions to handle and a far more hands-on approach is necessary. I know there are tax concessions and various other means of encouraging the provision of accommodation, but they are not working to the extent which is necessary. The Minister may be aware of an extremely large protest outside the gates of the Houses which was primarily concerned with accommodation.

Mr. Martin

Yes, I met the protesters.

Mr. Sargent

That problem will not decrease or fade away — it is growing. The Department should try to intervene now in this problem which has been festering and growing, rather than waiting until the situation becomes even more desperate.

Young people's physical wellbeing in terms of exercise is not mentioned very often except in relation to studies in that area. We probably have the lowest level — I have not looked at all the figures — of physical wellbeing among students in terms of exercise. I believe this is directly related to provision for sport, leisure and recreation. Who has responsibility for the provision of informal recreational facilities? The Minister seems to be dealing directly with schools. In terms of playgrounds the Department of the Environment and Local Government seems to be saying it does not have direct national responsibility and that they are a matter for local authorities. The Department of Health and Children says it is only concerned with children who are in some way vulnerable, damaged or injured. This does not involve major capital expenditure and some Department should include the physical wellbeing of children as part of its responsibility. The wider environment requires playgrounds and facilities for children to exert and exercise themselves, and encouragement for people to walk or cycle more. The Department of Education and Science has a role in this regard, not just within the walls of educational institutions. However, perhaps educational institutions are the place to start and we should be investing more money in physical education to provide equipment.

Chairman

I wish to thank the Minister and the spokespersons for their contributions. In accordance with the timetable we will proceed to take questions on the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 26.

Mr. R. Bruton

The psychological service comes under Vote 26. From this year's Estimates I see the staff complement was to increase by 1.5 from 34.5 to 36. I presume I must be missing something as I thought the Department was recruiting 27 or 30 psychologists while there seems to be provision for only 36 in the psychological service. What is the state of play on the psychological service recruitment programme? Certainly there are very significant expectations and needs in this area and there appear to be terrible bottlenecks in terms of recruiting. It also seems that educational psychologists who have graduated from colleges are not getting these positions, that we are educating people who are bright eyed and bushy tailed but who are not being recruited.

Regarding in-career development, I have a specific interest in remedial teaching. It seems there is chaos in the in-service provision for remedial teachers. There is a huge waiting time in the provision of the initial remedial qualification. Many have been employed in remedial posts without the qualification and are in the queue. There is no in-service training for them after their appointment and I would like the Minister to say what is being done in this regard. I forwarded a query to the Department regarding the Institiúd Teangalaíochta. I would like a reply at some point to this outstanding issue.

Mr. Martin

The Civil Service Commission is currently interviewing for posts of psychologist. It is expected that 25 posts will be filled in early 2000 and 25 more by the middle of 2000. There is the issue of the progression of the interviews and selection procedures but we are pleased by the numbers of applications. These exceeded our expectations in terms of the estimates of the numbers of qualified personnel available. There were concerns in the beginning that there might not be the necessary pool of qualified psychologists available.

Mr. R. Bruton

Are they graduates?

Mr. Martin

Yes. An additional 165 remedial teachers were appointed last year. The in-career development budget has increased significantly this year. We acknowledge there is more to be done in terms of in-service training for remedial teachers.

Mr. R. Bruton

There is no in-service training for remedial teachers. Even the pre-service training is in arrears.

Mr. Martin

Two review groups have been set up to look at pre-service training for teachers at both primary and secondary level. Their remit includes remedial and special education technology.

Mr. R. Bruton

I am not talking about the curriculum. There are people appointed to remedial posts who cannot get pre-service training. They take up the posts without having training and they must wait two and three years for such training.

Mr. Martin

They will not be waiting that long. There has been a substantial increase in remedial teachers in the last two years. This has created a logjam. It is preferable to appoint remedial teachers rather than wait until they have pre-service training. This would delay the process of allocating badly needed remedial teachers to schools that have no service.

Mr. R. Bruton

Can the Minister give me the number of pre-service training places relative to the flow?

Mr. Martin

I will come back to the Deputy on that question.

Mr. R. Bruton

If people get on the wrong footing in these posts——

Mr. Martin

Revision of the remedial teaching guidelines is almost completed. This is important in terms of the ERC review of the remedial teaching service. It indicates the best strategies to employ and so on in terms of remedial teaching.

Mr. R. Bruton

There is nothing wrong with the old guidelines. They are just not being used.

Mr. Sargent

On a point of clarification, there is an allocation for youth organisations and youth work activities. Where is the demarcation line between the Department in relation to youth organisations and youth work activities and the Sports Council in terms of recreational sport and so on under the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid?

Mr. Martin

The National Youth Council is the umbrella body. There are many youth organisations throughout the country. The youth section of the Department works with the National Youth Council and the organisatations affiliated to it. There is a well established precedent in terms of the funding of youth organisations. There might be some overlap of capital funding in terms of sports grants from the lottery but we provide the current funding.

Mr. R. Bruton

On Vote 27 — First Level Education — how many primary teacher are now employed? The numbers were estimated to be 21,175, including 3,329 principals. What is the reason for the £4 million overrun? I am not familiar with the reading initiative. Is the £1,000 per primary school allocated for books?

Mr. Martin

Yes, this is for books. I must clarify that the full reading initiative has not yet been announced. However, the Department has secured additional money to kick-start an announcement in the first week in January in terms of the broader reading initiative. We are focusing on a reading and literacy initiative. This worked well last year when a similar exercise was carried out. This year it will be integrated into a more broad and comprehensive programme.

Mr. R. Bruton

Will the grant amount to the same regardless of the size of the school?

Mr. Martin

No. Last year it was decided to give a once-off grant to small rural schools because up to that there had been no funding for schools to buy library books. This year it relates to the size of schools and the number of pupils but there will be a basic grant. The letters will issue to the schools next week. This will amount to approximately £8per capita.

Mr. R. Bruton

The miscalculation of pensions seems to be vast. It amounts to 16% at secondary level and 7% at primary level. Is there something radical going on, given that teachers are bailing out? What are the numbers involved?

In relation to building and equipment, perhaps the Minister would comment on the points I made regarding planning. I am aware that a review is taking place. What are the numbers of primary teachers in the system?

In relation to the Educate Together plan, this group is catering for a growing demand where more and more parents are interested in the multi-demoninational, democratically run model of education provision. I understand they are trying to develop a five year plan which would accord with sensible planning. However, they are not receiving resources from the Department to assist in this planning. This is an emerging sector which does not have the resources the traditional sectors have had. It seems there is a case for additional support to this group to help them plan ahead.

In relation to subhead G, teachers have recently been appointed to residential centres which traditionally provided care for children with profound disabilities. There seems to be a problem in deciding how the teaching resource should be co-ordinated and managed with the caring resource in these centres. There seems to be a need for some form of integrated initiative from the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children to properly integrate education into what was just a caring service. I do not believe this integration has been very successful to date. There is a need for the Minister and his colleagues in the health board to manage the resource effectively, given that since the remit has changed the scheme is not working as well as it might.

Mr. Martin

In terms of pensions, the PCW agreement is being put in place. Teachers may retire voluntarily from the age of 55 provided they meet certain minimum service criteria. The estimated number of teachers who may retire in any one year is difficult to predict. The original estimate for 1999, prepared in 1998, projected retirement figures in the region of 850 for both sectors. The average figure for lump sum payments estimated for this year is somewhat higher than was provided for in the estimates. Taken together, the additional cost for lump sum payments was projected to be in the region of £7.238 million. If 24 teachers retired, the lump sum payment would amount to approximately £1 million. In terms of the numbers involved, one can see that would increase very rapidly to £20 million. We brought forward the payment of pensions to December last year which resulted in the need for additional funding. Those receiving pensions had been demanding for years that they too, like public servants, should receive payment before Christmas. Following agreement with the Minister for Finance in 1998 I brought forward the issue of pensions for teachers to 21 December. Consequent on this change some of the pensions were presented to the Paymaster General within the year and that created a problem for us. The main problem stemmed from the fact that more teachers than we expected retired. Longevity also plays a factor in this.

The school accommodation commission has set new guidelines for planning and the setting up of a forum with local authorities to plan ahead with county councils and corporations on their projections as to where housing developments are likely to take place. We recently established regulations, following the school accommodation commission report last year, on the procedures to be followed for the establishment of new schools.

Mr. R. Bruton

There is something radically wrong——

Mr. Martin

Which area in particular?

Mr. R. Bruton

I do not know all the areas but we are talking about Mulhuddart and Hartstown, etc. Development there has taken place very quickly. No issue other than the fact that children were hanging out of the rafters of schools or parents were being turned away from schools because of a shortage of places was ever raised. The planning system is not very effective. Perhaps the Minister could consider having an outside evaluation of planning in these areas. One could not say the present situation is acceptable.

Mr. Martin

The problem of development may not lie with us alone.

Mr. R. Bruton

If the Minister and his Department are planning an educational resource and he expects somebody else, whether it is the——

Mr. Martin

We need a forum between ourselves and the local authorities in given areas. We must plan properly in terms of what areas are zoned for housing over the next five years and where we expect the growth to take place. Local authorities have to work with the planning section of my Department on this.

Mr. R. Bruton

That may be the key but it is not opening the door.

Mr. Martin

Perhaps not, because of the pressure on staff, but that is the plan. I do not have with me the exact number of primary teachers in the system. I will supply them later. We have established an interdepartmental committee between Health and Children, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Education and Science on residential centres and general co-ordination of departmental inputs into areas comprising a care and educational element. There is a great deal of work to be done. We are also looking at the education submission.

Mr. Sargent

On Vote 27, does the salaries section take into account any improvement in the amount of assistance a school would receive before a principal would become a working principal? Is there any room for maneouvre there? Will the Minister respond to that need?

Mr. Martin

We are dealing with Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Sargent

I understand that.

Mr. Martin

The Supplementary Estimates do not cover that issue.

Mr. Sargent

I am trying to read between the lines as to whether the Minister might have anything on his mind in relation to that issue.

When the Minister speaks about other grants and services in terms of the reading initiative does that tie in with software, etc., or does it relate simply to printed books?

Mr. Martin

Is the Deputy referring to the grant?

Mr. Sargent

Yes. Is it a separate grant?

Mr. Martin

Yes. We have separate grants for software under the IT initiative. We will be issuing grants to schools next year giving them the flexibility to buy software or more computers.

Mr. Sargent

It is a good idea, as Deputy Bruton and the Minister said, to liaise with local authorities to try to prevent crisis accommodation problems arising. Is subhead F.1 included as a result of the failure in the planning area? How does that come to be a significant part of the Department's spending?

Mr. Martin

It relates to groups which new schools may wish to establish in accordance with their constitutional rights. A multi-denominational group may get together and decide to establish a school and we cannot build one overnight so we may provide a prefab or they may rent a premises. A Gaelscoil may do likewise. We have increased the amount which we contribute to them to alleviate the rental charges; it increased to 95% last year from 50%. We make very substantial assistance available to them. That is partially why the Supplementary Estimate is required. We generally provide prefabs for established schools during building projects.

Discussions are in ongoing with the INTO on the issue of working principals. The budget provided us with good news in terms of caretakers and secretaries.

Mr. Sargent

I was going to ask about that.

Mr. Martin

That is covered by next year's Estimate and would not be covered by this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Sargent

But there have been calls for additional child care assistants. There is a bit of overlap in this area. FÁS has been paying some of the costs of classroom assistants who do not necessarily deal with special needs children.

Mr. Martin

Our allocations do not relate to what may or may not be available in a school courtesy of FÁS though we do appreciate what they have done and are doing in providing extra supports to schools. We are dealing with the special education initiative and our posts are allocated to children in schools and not schools themselves. There is a key differential there. The child is assessed and if he or she requires a child care assistant, then one is appointed. What may happen at a local level is that schools which may be about to lose a FÁS person because of the rules and regulations, etc., may decide to continue that person in the new post. There is room for further scope between the Department and FÁS in terms of the totality in relation to caretakers and secretaries, etc., because of the new allocations we have received in the budget. It is important to note the difference about child care assistants. They are not classroom assistants. Some schools may think they are child care assistants and are often used as such. The primary function of a child care assistant is for the benefit of a child or children on behalf of whom the application was made in the first instance.

Chairman

Are there any other contributions on the Vote?

Mr. Martin

Deputy Sargent raised the issue of temporary school premises and why they are lumped in with the primary curriculum. They are funded from the same subhead.

Mr. Sargent

Why are they not separate?

Mr. Martin

We are unusual in that my Department has more subheads than any other. There are positive and negatives in that. The negative is that we have very little discretion in terms of funding needy causes in education. It is the way things have evolved over the years. The Department of Finance wishes to keep a close eye on us.

Chairman

Are there any other contributions on Vote 27? We will move on now to Vote 28.

Deputy R. Bruton

The Estimates are remarkably difficult to read as they do not itemise any of the programmes as one would expect. It would be worth reforming the Estimate presentation so that in some way it would be programme-based. Perhaps some of these matters are going through the local authorities who are possibly still employers. What is the present budget provision and what will be the likely impact of the new legislation upon it? How quickly will we move to having a relatively comprehensive service, moving from three or four urban centres? The Minister mentioned the home-school liaison service, but why is that not being presented as a programme so that we could examine the Minister's activity in that area? Perhaps the Minister could report on it and in that way the Estimates would be more meaningful. We would then see the levels of activity going on under the different programmes and, similarly, with teaching counsellors or guidance services. It would be much more useful for us to have a meaningful debate on what policy is rather than looking at the incremental salaries for 13,100 teachers.

It is very hard for us to have a sensible debate about what is going on in the Estimates. Perhaps the Minister could reformulate them or present a programme-based account of what he is doing under different headings, as an appendix to the Estimates. That would be useful to the general quality of debate in the Oireachtas on education issues.

Mr. Martin

The education welfare board is an attendant service and all current expenditure is within the local authority's ambit. School attendance officers are currently paid from the Vote of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. We have secured £250,000 for 2000 which relates to the establishment of the education welfare board following the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas. We have a further allocation——

Mr. R. Bruton

That is the value one semi-detached house in Dublin.

Mr. Martin

No. It will do enough to set up the service. If I could present the Bill before this committee I could make rapid progress, but I have singularly failed to get the Bill before the committee over the last two months. Despite much agitation and cajoling, it is beyond my power and control.

Chairman

It is a matter for the Minister's Whip, I think.

Mr. Martin

In fact, I was hoping to get through Committee Stage of the Bill before Christmas, but it now looks like Committee Stage will be taken in January. It will be February before we get to Report Stage in the Dáil.

Mr. R. Bruton

I thought the committee was sitting next week.

Chairman

We were trying for next week but I think there is a logistical problem. I am afraid that only two rooms are available.

Mr. Martin

The whole thing is frustrating for me. We will be lucky to spend £250,000 unless we improve progress. The key point is that the no policy change Estimate, so to speak, for 2001 is £1.5 million, and it will be £2.5 million for 2002. There is a build up and we are preparing the nuts and bolts of an initiative which is somewhat similar to that for the national education psychological service. A steering committee is working on the establishment process of the services that will come under the Education Welfare Bill.

Mr. R. Bruton

Is home-school liaison one of them?

Mr. Martin

No. I am talking about things like the education welfare board and calculating the nuts and bolts of the Bill's provisions. The obligations the Bill will place on us include the education welfare board and the appointment of additional officers.

Mr. R. Bruton

There is a provision that suggests that it may be co-ordinating home-school community liaison somewhere in the Bill. A number of people took that to mean a transfer of power.

Mr. Martin

No.

Mr. Sargent

I wonder whether there is any room in the Supplementary Estimate to Vote 28 to examine the issue of scholarships. I am thinking in particular of the case that was made for science teachers. Subhead K refers to miscellaneous expenditure and focuses on the reading initiative which I would not like to take away from in the slightest.

Mr. Martin

What does the Deputy mean by scholarships?

Mr. Sargent

I am talking about the difficulty of getting science graduates to become teachers. It seems they are just not interested anymore. There is a growing problem with schools recruiting qualified teachers of science subjects. The knock-on effect of that, both for pupils and the country generally, will be a reduction in science graduates.

Mr. Martin

We have announced a major science initiative to try to counteract the decline in the numbers taking physics and chemistry, in particular, at leaving certificate level over the last ten years. The decline has been gradual. We are producing new syllabi at leaving certificate level.

Mr. Sargent

Teachers are needed.

Mr. Martin

There are a number of issues, including the provision of a junior certificate science syllabus. We are providing extra capitation grants to schools that teach physics and chemistry. A fairly comprehensive in-career development programme is under way for teachers of physics and chemistry, both at leaving and junior certificate level. Our information indicates that the majority of science teachers at second level are majoring in biology. Given the new syllabi, there is a need for in-service training in physics and chemistry. We have made increased provision for pre-service training in physics and chemistry with the provision of two new courses at the University of Limerick and Dublin City University, which provide a three-year degree programme to become physics and science teachers.

We are also undertaking the refurbishment of laboratories. This follows a survey of all science laboratories in the second level sector, which pointed to the need for increased investment in laboratory equipment, including information technology.

I acknowledge there is still an issue in terms of attracting science graduates to education rather than industry. The problem will not be resolved easily because of the industrial relations issues involved. It is not clear that our partners will agree that one set of teachers should receive more remuneration than others. The situation is also complicated by the way the higher diploma in education is evolving. When the quota was introduced four or five years ago there was no selectivity in terms of subjects as to who would secure a place in the H. Dip. courses. It created a panic so everyone who had completed their primary degrees suddenly decided they wanted to do the H. Dip. Therefore, we had thousands of people applying for hundreds of places. We have increased the number of H. Dip. places and now the education departments in each university have handed the matter over to the Central Applications Office.

It is basically being done on a points basis but that does not help us because if 30 or 40 science graduates want a H. Dip. place I would like to make sure they all get it because we need them. Likewise, we could also do with teachers having qualifications in one or two foreign languages. I am reviewing that matter and I will be talking to the universities' education departments about it. It was something that was slipped into the CAO last year and it has not helped us to attract science graduates into the education sector. At present, even if science graduates want to become teachers there is no guarantee they can obtain a place on a higher diploma in education course, by virtue of the fact that it is now determined by the Central Applications Office.

Mr. Sargent

It is worth looking at it again.

Mr. Martin

It is.

Chairman

Are there any other contributions on Vote 28? If not, we will go on to Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education.

Mr. R. Bruton

Student accommodation is becoming an acute problem. I know the Minister will point to the initiative in the Finance Bill under which, I understand, a few hundred places are being developed. However, a recent USI submission referred to the extremely cheap costs per place by direct provision — in the region of £5,000 or £6,000 per place. I do not know whether USI got its sums wrong or whether it is possible to do that. Is the Minister considering a capital budget in this area, rather than relying on the private sector which may be leaning on a reed with so many other areas of private sector activity booming? I would be interested to hear the Minister's view on the submission made by USI which is seeking significant funding in the area.

The Minister indicated earlier this year that he was considering a grant for third level students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There was a rumour that he was considering a top-up of £1,000 to the higher education grant. If an announcement was made about that, I missed it.

Mr. Martin

An announcement has not been made yet.

Mr. R. Bruton

What is happening? There is an expectation that it will be announced. The other issue which arose is the report of the USI. It stated that the proportion of people from lower skill backgrounds getting through to third level is in decline. Does that statement concur with the Minister's own research? The pace of establishment of programmes in this area is extraordinarily slow. Is the Minister considering placing a requirement on colleges to do more in this area as part of their budget contract? Despite goodwill and the odd pilot scheme, numbers do not seem to be growing. The only thing which will cause significant change in provision at third level is either to go the direction of education vouchers or to set a programme in place. The previous White Paper made clear commitments that the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds was to be increased and there is not an impression that the present Government thinks differently. Is it a case of needing a stick as well as a carrot to set up these programmes?

Mr. Martin

The Deputy may be right about the need for a carrot and stick approach. The level of funding over the years was not adequate to put any basic system of access for the disadvantaged in place. There is also some evidence of institutional lethargy in driving the agenda. I do not get a sense that access for the disadvantaged is at the core of every university's planning or at the heart of the thinking of the academic councils of the institutions.

The funding available as a result of this Estimate will allow every institute to have an access office. That is a starting point. There will be significant funding over the lifetime of the national development plan for all third level institutions. Funding alone, however, will not produce the desired results. Some colleges have produced good pilot schemes but I still sense a certain conservatism. The colleges feel that once they run the pilot scheme, that is enough. I am not happy with what is happening.

Having said that, we have to wait. We cannot just create places overnight. The programmes which focus on second level students in areas where they would not be orientated towards third level take time to feed through the system. The funding which will come on-stream will allow the colleges to expand the initiatives in which they are engaged. It will be sometime, however, before we see the results of that.

Mr. R. Bruton

What about the voucher approach? Economists call it effective demand. The colleges will respond if they see there is a block of money which could add to their budgets.

Mr. Martin

There is more to it than that. We want to ensure that when people come on-stream, they have the necessary wherewithal to complete the four years. That is particularly applicable to mature disadvantaged students. They cannot be just plucked out and told, "Here is a cheque, you are on your own now. Go and find and institution.". The institutions have obligations not only to take students in but also to guide them and advise them.

Mr. R. Bruton

There are 38 partnership companies which could become involved.

Mr. Martin

Yes. We responded to the Northside Partnership. I told my staff that this grassroots approach and some of these partnerships are working well. They are pointing the way. That might wake up some of the institutions.

Mr. R. Bruton

If the student had a budget and they acted as brokers for them, it could help.

Mr. Martin

Some of those schemes work with people who are already in college. When people look at the statistics, they ask what is produced. In terms of this top-up grant, the social welfare statistics showed us that there are 10,000 students in college now who depend on welfare payments of one kind or another, or whose parents depend on such payments. That suggests that the numbers from disadvantaged backgrounds are greater than people believe.

I was in New York University a month ago for an afternoon. We had a worthwhile session. Even in a private institution in the centre of New York, there is an entire network of people who drive the community agenda of the university, including initiatives for the homeless within the city. A dean is responsible for that area and a vice-president of the college oversees the entire community programme. The budget allocated to the programme was not huge but the number of senior university personnel involved in its co-ordination was instructive.

A person could walk into any institution in this State and he or she would not see a similar presentation. No college here could say that it has a vice-president whose sole focus is the disadvantaged. We need much more effort from the institutions and broader thinking.

Mr. Sargent

I certainly agree with that. The lack of accommodation, however, is also becoming a screening mechanism, whatever about the registration fees, although those must be addressed. Direct State intervention will be necessary. The private sector is not in a position to offer a comprehensive solution to this problem.

Mr. Martin

Last year's Finance Act gave significant incentives.

Mr. Sargent

I know.

Mr. Martin

People have taken them up. The problem in Dublin is that it takes a long time to secure planning permission. It does not matter if the State gives Trinity College money directly or if Trinity College is engaged in collaboration with the private sector to provide up to 1,000 units, a significant number when dealing with the alleviation of accommodation difficulties. It is stuck in the planning quagmire. People from all sorts of backgrounds object.

Mr. Sargent

Trinity College is one of the best providers of accommodation.

Mr. Martin

It has the potential to provide another 1,000 units. People are worried about that and they object to it. The point I made to USI when I met it was that every institution should be asked for its response to last year's Finance Act. Previously, when incentives were offered, there was a good result. The University of Limerick led the way over a decade ago in the provision of accommodation in the context of partnerships between the university and the private sector.

We have invested a huge amount of money in terms of the physical infrastructure in universities and institutes of technology. Our priorities are to target the capital moneys, to transform the physical accommodation of the universities and institutes of technology in terms of lecture halls, laboratories and equipment, which are all badly needed, and of the research budget which is important for the future of the country. If I get more capital resources I will plough them into those areas and into additional places, apprentices and so on.

Mr. Sargent

I understand that things are happening but a huge amount needs to happen.

Mr. Martin

Exactly.

Mr. Sargent

The difficulty of graduates not staying to do post-graduate research which might provide an academic base from which others might benefit has been growing in recent years. I balance that against the degree to which third level institutions are depending on private sponsorship. To what extent does that compromise their academic integrity? Is a watching brief being kept on the degree to which institutions are becoming voices for certain vested interests as a result of private sponsorship? Could an institution be 100% funded by a single corporation or would the Department step in at any point if it considered an institution was moving from education to the service of a vested interest?

Mr. Martin

There is no evidence of that. In fact, the bulk of funding has not come from corporations. I see no danger of what Deputy Sargent refers to happening. We have made significant investment in the form of the higher education research programme that we announced last year. This was a joint public private partnership in which the projects were submitted by the universities and institutes of technology. Each institution had to do a strategic analysis of where it wanted to lead into the future, what its strengths were and the areas it wished to promote. The institutions then made research submissions to the Higher Education Authority research programme and these went to an international panel of assessors.

This panel decided which submissions should be funded. One or two people from the corporate world were on the panel but they represented the world of industry rather than a particular group. The best strategic submissions and the best projects got the funding and all the institutions were satisfied with that approach. The universities were obliged to put the sum total together. The sum available was £220 million; it has now gone to £235 million. Everyone knew the sum available in the first phase and the universities agreed to that approach. It was very important to put all the money in one pool and draw from it.

Deputy Sargent has raised an important issue of graduates not staying to do post-graduate work. There is a decline of about 7% this year. The booming economy is a factor in this. The research and development funding which we have announced over the lifetime of the national development plan is about £550 million in the Department of Education and Science and £1.9 billion between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and ourselves. More flexibility will be given to the institutions to make sure they can provide adequate amounts in scholarships, fellowships and so on to keep people in the post-doctoral arena. We must do that.

Mr. R. Bruton

How well is the joint responsibility of one Minister in two Departments working?

Mr. Martin

It is working very well.

Mr. R. Bruton

It does not seem to be making much public impact as to what exactly it is doing.

Mr. Martin

We were together announcing the second phase of the Higher Education Authority research programme.

Mr. R. Bruton

We have never seen the Minister's colleague in this room but we hope to rectify that.

Chairman

That is up to the Members.

Mr. Martin

Exactly, Chairman. It has been a very worthwhile innovation to have a Minister working out of both Departments. It makes sense. There has been a significant emphasis on science and research since we made this arrangement. We can draw from it in the sense that the Department of Education and Science has had a strong science remit and programme and a strong science profile at all levels. There has been better integration between the two Departments and a common agenda has developed, most notably manifested in the business education skills forum which we established more than two years ago and which is now chaired by Mr. Danny O'Hare and which is involved in skills forecasting.

Chairman

Are there any other contributions on Vote 29? If not, I invite the Minister to make some brief concluding comments on the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Martin

I thank the Deputies for their constructive comments. I refer to some points made at the beginning of our discussion. We are very keen on evaluation and accountability and a number of processes are in place, such as whole-school evaluations, school development planning and the development of an evaluation unit within the Department which will evaluate all our programmes. Funding has been allocated for that unit.

Deputy Bruton referred to the early school leavers initiative. The new initiative which we call the stay at school initiative or the completion initiative is starting off with 30 schools but the national development plan gives us significant resources for the expansion of that programme in the years 2000 and 2001 so that we can reach all the critical schools. It is not a pilot, rather it is a rolling programme. A national co-ordinator and assistant co-ordinators have been appointed to move on that initiative.

It was decided in the House and in this committee that we would not allow the compilation of league tables of examination results for comparison purposes on a nationwide basis. That is what is in the Education Act to which all parties agreed.

Mr. R. Bruton

Every education plan should provide that this should be provided by direction of the Department as a matter of course. This would allow any parent to see it in the report and if people want to shop around and look at the different reports that is fine. We do not wish to go down the British route but we have gone to a ridiculous extreme in the other direction. It is crazy.

Mr. Martin

We are going to develop the whole-school evaluation process. I acknowledge that it is taking time to develop but it is the best process available.

Mr. R. Bruton

It is the only one available.

Mr. Martin

I would say it is the best as well. It means we can develop a process that will evaluate the entire school community. It is better to get something right than not to get anything at all.

Mr. R. Bruton

It is not being got right.

Mr. Martin

For years we have had nothing. It is better to have an evaluation of a school which takes in the breadth and depth of activities in the school——

Mr. R. Bruton

And will tell us nothing.

Mr. Martin

——and league tables do not do that.

Mr. R. Bruton

It is ridiculous to say one can improve without comparing. No organisation in the world which sets about the pursuit of excellence does not compare itself to others. The notion that education is somehow different from the rest of the world is ridiculous.

Chairman

I am sure we will come back to this question at future meetings. I will ask Deputy Bruton and Deputy Sargent to make brief contributions when the Minister has concluded.

Mr. Martin

I think I have covered most areas. Disadvantage will remain our priority for the forthcoming year at all levels of the system. We must continue to press on in a determined way to ensure that more children stay on at school. Certification and a successful school life is the key to a good quality of life. I thank the Deputies for the debate.

Chairman

Thank you, Minister.