I welcome the Minister and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the following Supplementary Estimate falling within the remit of the Department of Education and Science: Vote 26 - Education and Science. The Minister will make a statement of about ten to 15 minutes and we will allow similar times for spokespersons on behalf of Fine Gael, Labour and the Technical Group.
Estimates for Public Services 2003.
Vote 26 - Office of the Minister for Education and Science (Supplementary).
I thank the members of the committee for the invitation to discuss the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Education and Science for 2003.
The amounts required for the Supplementary Estimate for 2003 are as follows: €1,000 under subhead B24, residential institutions redress; €12 million under subhead E1, higher education grants; and €53.7 million under subhead F1, appropriations-in-aid. The total required is €65.701 million.
Deputy O'Sullivan took the Chair.
Before explaining the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate this year, I refer briefly to the fact that we are dealing with only one Vote whereas previously education was dealt with under four separate Votes. This year, following consultation with the Committee of Public Accounts, it was decided to amalgamate the four education Votes in a single Vote in the publication of the Estimates for public services. This is purely a technical matter to which I referred last May when the committee dealt with the Revised Estimates for 2003, and which will also have been explained in briefing material provided to the members. While this may cause a little confusion in studying the figures in the Votes, I hope the briefing material provided will have clarified matters for the members of the committee.
The Supplementary Estimate contains a token amount under one subhead and more substantial amounts under two other subheads. In the case of subhead B24, residential institutions redress, there is a token amount of €1,000 arising from the necessity to amend the title of this subhead. Expenditure under this subhead relates to redress for former residents of certain institutions. This amount is a token one whose sole purpose is to ensure that the subhead title adequately embraces all relevant expenditure as distinct from the current title which might infer expenditure incurred directly by the Residential Institutions Redress Board only.
There is a view that, in the context of making payments under the indemnity agreement from the subhead concerned, the current title of the subhead might be regarded as too narrow. This aspect of the Supplementary Estimate is accordingly only a technical matter to ensure that the title adequately comprehends the different type of expenditure, all of it related to the issue of institutional redress, that arises under the subhead.
On the substantial aspects of the Supplementary Estimate, Deputies will note that I only seek substantial amounts in respect of two areas, namely, higher education grants and appropriations-in-aid. Expenditure on subhead E1, higher education grants, during 2003 was considerably higher than originally anticipated due to the improvements in the student support schemes which I announced last May. Deputies may recall that these improvements included a 15% increase in grants levels as well as substantial increases in the income thresholds to qualify for grant aid.
As a result of these improvements, the level of expenditure was significantly higher than when the Estimates for the year were originally framed, as would be expected. At the time the improvements were announced, the Government acknowledged that these extra costs would arise and agreed for their provision. The full-year cost of these major improvements is upwards of €42 million, and I have succeeded in obtaining such an allocation in the recent Estimates which will enable the funding of these improvements to continue into the future.
The other substantial issue relates to subhead F1, appropriations-in-aid. A Supplementary Estimate of €53.7 million for the Vote is required because receipts from the European Social Fund, projected to be received by my Department as appropriations-in-aid in 2003, may be lower than provided for in the original 2003 Estimate, and some receipts may not arrive before the end of the year. The possible shortfall in European Social Fund receipts is due to a longer than anticipated delay in the closure of the 1994 to 1999 round of Structural Funds and because technical accounting issues have delayed the processing of some receipts in respect of the 2000 to 2006 Community Support Framework.
In these circumstances, for prudential reasons and to avoid the possibility of an excess on the Vote, in the unlikely event that none of these ESF receipts are received before the end of the year, I am obliged to seek a supplementary amount to cover the complete anticipated level of ESF receipts projected at the beginning of this year, which is €53.7 million. However, the best information available to me at this stage indicates that my Department should receive about €35 million in ESF receipts before the end of the year. The indications are that most of the remainder will then be received sometime in 2004.
In summary, I have proposed a token amount to deal with the renaming of the redress subhead, an additional €12 million to pay for improvements in the schemes of student support and a technical supplementary amount to ensure that a minor or temporary shortfall in ESF receipts does not result in an excess on the Vote. I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the committee.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Minister has introduced what he calls a token Estimate for residential institutions redress. What payments have already been made under the indemnity clause? In answer to a parliamentary question tabled by a colleague of mine some weeks ago, the Minister said one had been made. However I believe another one has been reported in the newspapers since then. Is it intended or likely that more institutions will be added to the schedule?
I welcomed the improvements in the student support schemes when the Minister announced them. Is the €12 million for payment during the college year commencing in September 2003? Does this only bring us to the end of December 2003 or would it have applied to those finishing the college year in May or June 2003? Do the 2004 Estimates cover the remainder of the 2003-04 academic year?
The Minister will be aware of the students who yesterday protested about the increase in the college registration fee and other issues. Was the €80 increase a once-off - or perhaps a "twice-off" if the previous increase is included - or will this be used to generate revenue? Last year I tabled a parliamentary question asking how this money was used. The Minister advised it was for student support services, etc. However, from reports yesterday about Trinity College that are borne out from discussions I have had with students in other colleges, because of under-funding, colleges are cutting back on the services the registration fee is supposed to provide, such as health, counselling services, library services, etc. Is the Minister concerned about this?
Are the technical accounting issues regarding subhead F1 within the Department of Education and Science or are they technical accounting issues from a European perspective? On which side does the accounting difficulty arise? The Minister referred to €35 million being received this year. Is he confident the full amount will be received early in 2004? I also wish to refer to an item in the 2003 Estimates which is not in this Supplementary Estimate. According to my calculations, on the basis of what was published in the 2004 Book of Estimates with regard to the spend in 2003, there appears to have been an underspend of just more than €60 million in the capital programme for 2003. Can the Minister explain that situation, having regard to the clear need which exists in schools and universities for more capital projects to proceed?
I believe there were five school building projects in 2003 under the public private partnership scheme. What is the current position in this regard? According to the Budget Statement yesterday with regard to the programme for the next five years, the Exchequer contribution to capital projects in the Department will reduce while reliance on the public private partnership element will increase. However, on the previous occasion we discussed this, we were informed that, because of EUROSTAT or whatever, we could not proceed with more public private partnerships. Has that difficulty been resolved, or are the Minister and the Minister for Finance still in negotiations with the EU on this issue?
I wish to share my time with Deputy Crowe. I will not delay the Minister unduly. I have a few questions about the Residential Institutions Redress Board, including the point raised by Deputy Enright about the amount paid so far. I refer to payments to people applying for redress and, if it is possible within this remit, the amount of funding which has gone to groups providing support to survivors. I tabled a question in the Dáil previously on the type of accounts required. Is any form of accounting procedure tied into this situation? There have been complaints, mostly spurious, that certain groups are frittering money away.
Before further groups are added, is there a screening procedure to ensure that their accounts are in order? The Minister said in the Dáil that audited accounts would be required. Is that adequate? It is important that spurious claims be put to rest as some groups are being played off against others and there is a great deal of confusion. It may be that one or two individuals have committed offences which led to rumours being spread to a disproportionate extent, thereby giving rise to a great deal of bad feeling and ill will. In that context, is it planned to provide for any new groups and are any new stringencies being introduced, having regard to the crossfire there has been between groups, both in this country and in the UK?
The money for third level education is very welcome, but has there not been a cutback, taking account of the increase in annual college registration fees and the change in arrangements with regard to means testing? Since the back to education allowance is being increased from six to 15 months in respect of the third level option - many students were denied assistance during the summer holiday period - does the Minister agree that many students are less well off this year than last year and that this situation will continue into 2004? In the context of efforts to break the cycle of poverty and unemployment, this will have a negative impact.
In the aftermath of the Estimates and the Budget Statement, what is the position for next year regarding the increase in registration fees? The increase was approximately €80 per student this year, which represents an increase of 12% on the previous figure of €670. In real terms, there has been an increase of 90% to 100% since 2001 when inflation is taken into consideration.
According to the Union of Students in Ireland, the Minister assured its representatives, after the 2002 increase, that any future increases would be in line with inflation. Obviously, that has not been the case. The increase has been far above the level of inflation and students are concerned that the registration fee may increase to €1,300 next year. Will the Minister clarify that he will not increase registration fees or at least that any increase will not by any means approach that level? There are concerns that fees are being re-introduced by the back door. That situation needs immediate clarification.
On the expenditure side, is there any procedure for tightening up how and where the proceeds of registration fees are spent? As Deputy Enright pointed out, Trinity College had to cut back because, although registration fees had increased, there was still a shortage of funds. Library services have been cut or restricted in a number of colleges. That is simply not good enough. Young people who have a valuable contribution to make to the economy of this country will be forced to emigrate as a result of conditions in our third level colleges. That is a throwback to conditions in the 1980s.
I know the Minister was not present at yesterday's protest at which students from Trinity College held aloft a coffin to signify in graphic terms that a death knell has been sounded in third level education. The perception, if not the reality, is that further increases in registration fees will mean that free third level education is dead and buried. In the context of our investment in the future, we need to ensure that students can afford to attend college in Ireland. In that way, they are more likely to work in Ireland and contribute towards tax revenue. I hope the Minister will provide some reassurance on registration fees.
I welcome the Minister and his Department officials. The allocation of €12 million for higher education grants is welcome. On the basis of this year's increase of €80 in college registration fees, the figure for 2004 to 2005 will be almost four times the level at which such fees were introduced in 1996. At the same time, the Minister is cutting back on capital investment in third level education. In the recent Estimates, there was a 47% cut in funding for buildings in the information technology sector and 45% in the university sector. It is the view of many students that they are being charged more and will get less value in the coming year. There were also complaints that the proceeds of registration fees were going back to the Exchequer rather than being invested in the third level sector.
I am greatly concerned to note the small increase for the National Educational Welfare Board and the National Educational Psychological Service. The NEWB was mandated, under the Education (Welfare) Act, to provide a service to every school in the State. I note the Minister's recent comment that those are not the only bodies dealing with school problems. However, although an independent consultant's report stated that 363 staff were required, the Estimates only provide for 84 staff by the end of the year. Does the Minister envisage a Supplementary Estimate to enable the NEWB to fulfil its statutory responsibility?
Funding is also required for implementation of the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill. The interest groups concerned are worried that NEPS will be severely restricted by a lack of resources. In some areas of the country, almost 60% of schools are not covered by NEPS. The east coast seems to have fared rather well while many other areas are lagging behind. The Department seems to believe that 200 psychologists will be able to cater for all these schools and to meet the needs of the large number of assessments which will be required. Does the Minister believe sufficient funding has been allocated to the National Educational Psychological Service in the 2004 Estimates? Does he anticipate that he will return to the committee to seek a Supplementary Estimate for the service?
I would like to raise a matter that relates to the disability Bill. Will there be a need for clerical assistance? Will the Minister need to return to the committee to seek a Supplementary Estimate in this area?
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I would like to concentrate on the three elements of this Supplementary Estimate. A nominal figure has been sought for the Residential Institutions Redress Board. The Minister indicated that he intends by way of regulation to add new institutions to the list contained in the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. Every time I ask when the new institutions will be added to the list, I am told that it will be done soon. I thought it might be done before the end of the year and that a Supplementary Estimate might be needed as a result. Will the Minister indicate when he intends to add more institutions to the list? Some people living in the UK were residents of institutions that are not covered in the legislation as it stands. The Minister has indicated that he is in discussions in this regard. I would also like to know if an extra cost will be attached to that. When does the Minister expect to be in a position to announce the additions to the list?
I welcome the increase in higher education grants, but I share the concerns of my colleagues in respect of the increase of €80 in the registration fee. Students seem to have it on good authority from the Department of Education and Science that there are plans to increase the fee even further in future. I am aware that the Minister has denied this charge. Can he allay our fears in this regard? Headlines in a newspaper seemed to suggest that source of the rumour is in the Department. The members of the committee, as well as the public, need to be assured that a substantial increase is not planned next year.
The sources in question are unreliable as they said this year's increase would be to €1,100.
That is why I would like the Minister to clarify the matter.
Other speakers have spoken of the serious shortfall in the funds being provided for the running of third level institutions. Such institutions are encountering problems as they try to pay benchmarking increases and the increases to which part-time workers are entitled. Today's Irish Independent reported that the library at UCD closes at 5.30 p.m. on Fridays and does not open on Sundays. The withdrawal of students’ library facilities is a serious concern. I hope the Minister will address the genuine difficulties of third level institutions which are obliged to deliver a certain level of service to staff and students. They have had to take the drastic step of closing libraries at times when students want to use them.
I would like to comment on the section of the Minister's document relating to third level and further education. Some €23.9 million was allocated for the alleviation of disadvantage in 2002, but just €8.6 million has been provided in this Estimate. I appreciate that we have to multiply certain figures by two because of the new accounting procedures. Regardless of how the figures are assessed, however, it seems to me that there has been a fairly severe cut in the moneys provided for the alleviation of disadvantage at third level. I invite the Minister, who has often expressed concerns about disadvantaged students, to comment on this matter.
Deputy Crowe raised the issue of the National Educational Welfare Board. I share his concern that the board has been given just €5.7 million even though it sought €25 million. Certain areas will not have an adequate service next year. Similarly, just €1 million was allocated for youth affairs when €5 million was expected. I appreciate that I am talking about the future, but these are serious concerns. A small amount of money has been provided to the National Educational Psychological Service in the mid-west region. People in the region have to rely on the private sector, by and large. This is not good enough, especially when one considers that the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003 is before the House. I hope the Minister will provide some information in this regard.
I was recently informed in response to a parliamentary question I tabled that almost €50 million allocated for school buildings this year has not yet been spent. Will the Minister assure the committee that the money will be spent? If all the money is not spent by the end of the year, will the remaining funds be added to next year's building programme fund? The Minister is aware that many schools could do with spending the money in question.
Deputy Enright raised the issue of public private partnerships. I am not sure what will happen to schools which were originally supposed to be built under a PPP, such as Ennis national school. What happens to such schools now? Will they be catered for under a normal programme? Will extra funding be made available for them? Will they have to go through the same process as the other schools involved in the building programme? How can schools which were not part of the programme because they were supposed to be part of the PPP programme reach the appropriate level on the normal programme?
On subhead B20, which relates to schools' activities in the area of information and communications technology, it seems that funding in this area has been reduced by 74% since last year. I am not sure if it is a six month figure and should therefore be multiplied by two. Nevertheless, it is a substantial reduction on last year's figure.
I also welcome the Minister and his assistants to this meeting. Primary schools have to wait many months for the payment towards tuition fees incurred by them in the knowledge that they will be reimbursed by the Department. Some schools are waiting to be paid for last year's tuition even though a tutor has been sanctioned for the forthcoming year. Primary schools are often not in a position to write cheques because they have a lack of money and payments to the Department may be outstanding. I can give the Minister details of the school in question if he needs it. I am sure other schools are similarly affected.
I would like to raise the issue of the supervision payments in voluntary secondary schools during the ASTI dispute. I do not wish to suggest that the religious orders have a hold on the payments, but payments seem to be due to voluntary secondary schools for the supervision carried out by people who were employed at the time. I would like an update in this regard. I hope the Department of Education and Science will benefit from the moneys accruing from dormant bank accounts, as media reports have suggested. I would like the Minister to respond to my comments.
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. I thank the Minister for his opening statement and his explanation of this Supplementary Estimate. The committee has been asked to approve the Minister's request for an extra €65 million under subheads B24, E1 and F1. I thank the Department for sending the members of the committee a briefing document on the Supplementary Estimate. The document contains information on other matters. Should the committee discuss the Supplementary Estimate and the other matters? Should my remarks be confined to the Minister's request?
The committee's consideration should be confined to the Supplementary Estimate, technically speaking. I will be quite liberal, however, as I am interested in the answers to some of the questions that may be asked.
I will provide the answers if the relevant information is available.
I will not spend too long on the other matters. Members would welcome a briefing from departmental officials on the changes that have been made as a consequence of the grouping of the Votes. What does it mean to the way in which these matters are presented? It is somewhat confusing. Perhaps a briefing could be arranged in private session. None of us is an accountant. These matters can be a little difficult to follow. As I have clearance to go beyond what the Minister is looking for——
We always did that anyway.
We did. Given the clearance, I have a few points to raise. Colleagues have referred to the need to support youth organisations and youth work. Every time I have met and interacted with the Minister recently, I have made this point to him. Youth organisations are disappointed by and dismayed at the level of support they receive from the Department. The organisations indicated that they needed €5 million simply to stand still, but they only received €1 million. I draw the Minister's attention to the fantastic work youth organisations do. The hundreds of thousands of volunteers working with them save the Exchequer a great deal of money by carrying out work on a voluntary basis. It is essential that we support these organisations to a greater extent.
I am disappointed to note that the implementation of the Youth Work Act 2001 is at a standstill. Will the Minister examine the matter to establish if he can assist youth organisations throughout the country? Is it his view that this area is not worth supporting? With all due respect, that appears to be the case. Youth organisations are in a position to identify and assist young people and children at risk. They can positively develop among young people the leadership and citizenship skills which are so important today. I cannot make my case more strongly.
Has the Minister made any progress on enabling people to access decisions on higher education grants earlier? I raised this matter before. We have moved the beginning of the tax year back to January from April. Despite this, students and parents do not know if they are eligible for grants until well into the college year. Many of them are under financial pressure. Is it possible to make decisions earlier to allow students to know when they receive the results of their leaving certificate examination whether they will receive a grant? It should even be possible to make decisions in June or July before the exam results are published and change of mind forms are submitted. I see no reason that cannot be done. If the Minister could effect this change, he would take an innovative step. Now that the financial year has been moved, this action should be taken.
I would be interested to discover the reason for the delay on the European Social Fund. This was also an issue last year. If I remember rightly, the Minister said the delay was in the Department. I stand to be corrected on that. Can the committee assisting in speeding up matters? It is unacceptable to have to wait this long for money. Where is the bottleneck? If it is in Europe, we should do something about it there. If it is not, we should do something here.
Reference was made to information and communications technology for schools. Will the Minister supply the committee with information on the matter?
When the overall Estimates are considered, has the Department saved money this year? Many primary schools are under pressure with increased insurance costs. Will the Minister discuss the capitation grants which fund the operations of these schools? Is the grant level adequate? Is the Minister aware of the significant fund-raising stresses and strains parents and local communities face as they try to keep schools afloat? Increases in refuse and other charges create difficulties for these schools.
I welcome the increase in higher education grants. We would seek more if we could. It is important to support students at third level and I am interested to hear what other proposals the Minister has for changes to the schemes in this area.
I welcome the Minister and his delegation. Is it intended to extend the higher education grant to four years in some circumstances? Many degrees and combinations of diplomas and degrees cover four years. Some people have come to my attention to whom the higher education grant is not available from their local authority for more than three years.
I am a little at sea on the appropriations-in-aid issue. What happens if the expected ESF receipts are received by the end of the year? Will the money which is appropriated now be restored to the Exchequer? The Minister for Finance said yesterday that there would be a roll-over of multi-annual funding and that envelopes of funding would be provided into the future. Will there be an impact on that? Will this funding be available to the Department or will it simply be restored to the Exchequer?
The Minister indicated that he might provide an extra funding allocation to vocational education committees which were in difficulties with the vocational training opportunities scheme, Youthreach and the senior Travellers' centre programme. Is a Supplementary Estimate required to make such provision?
The ICT grants scheme ends this month. Does the Minister intend to provide a new scheme for the coming years?
Some of the following issues may have been referred to in my absence. A number of boards of management have informed me that their schools are at some point in the programme. They have spent some money on fees. They are taken by the success of the pilot scheme for small schools under which they feel progression is more likely for them. There is a view in the building unit of the Department that schools are tied in to some extent if money has been expended on consultants. This is an issue that many boards of management would like to see addressed. My former colleagues, who have examined what has happened in this area, have received positive feedback on the pilot scheme. Local boards have a great deal of energy and expertise which they are unable to bring into play. I would like to see the extension of the pilot scheme.
There have been some difficulties involving temporary accommodation. Deputy O'Sullivan referred to Ennis. The town, which has many problems, provided temporary accommodation at its own expense but has not been paid for it. Clearly, the problem is tied up with public private partnerships. It is ironic that the building in question is a 1970s structure of poor quality. On foot of the experience in that era, the Department went in the opposite direction and began to build in the style of Fort Knox. At issue is the need to strike a balance.
I presume Deputy McCreevy's announcement yesterday means the Department has been granted its wish in terms of control of the rolling programme. Gaelscoileanna attended the committee recently and voiced their concern about the recognition criteria. They are trying to build up schools from a small base. The committee would like to see a liberal approach in this area. I acknowledge that this comment strays somewhat beyond the matter of the Estimates. Gaelscoileanna have difficulty reaching the minimum required number of students by a certain year. There are also difficulties at the start-up phase. Some which have improved their numbers have said that they are in danger of having their recognition withdrawn.
There is an additional cost involved in the Department's network of regional offices. It may have been provided for in the original Estimate. As I do not want to deal in detail with the matter now, can a briefing note be sent to the committee on how the matter is progressing?
Deputy Stanton mentioned the cost of insurance, which is absolutely horrendous. There is no evidence that any of the initiatives taken by Government or the industry is having a positive impact. I am sure they will have at some stage, but they need to be monitored closely. There are very few companies involved. When I was speaking on a Bill in the Dáil last week I made the point, based on my experience as a principal, that it would be very beneficial if there was a scheme whereby schools could indemnify parents in respect of relatively minor medical expenses. In many cases, these expenses would not amount to much more than the cost of a couple of visits to a doctor.
It would be very beneficial in terms of public relations and serving the community well if there were a way of providing for such indemnity and if, in return, the insurance companies recognised that they would escape considerable claims as a result. I know claims certainly have been settled without the knowledge of boards of management and principals. This undoubtedly encourages false claims. I do not know how much access is to be had to the relevant companies but it would certainly be helpful if they were hauled over the coal somewhat in respect of this matter.
A question also arises regarding supports for people with special needs. This will largely be sorted out in the context of the Bill, Committee Stage of which we will be taken very shortly. In the interim, those who are deaf or blind - I know of a specific case in this regard - and who need a particular support to undertake a particular course find it takes so long to obtain approval. It is obtained eventually, but the delay has a negative impact on such students' academic progress. When the Bill is enacted, I am sure this process will be more fluid. It certainly needs to be. I have heard on the grapevine, particularly through meeting all the relevant groups, that considerable improvement is possible in this area.
I support what the Chairman said about insurance. Should the State consider indemnifying schools to eliminate all the insurance premia that must be paid? Maybe this would be unworkable but should be considered given the horrendous cost of insurance.
Another significant issue which has not been referred to in the budget or anywhere else is that of the Cork School of Music. Will the Minister state whether any progress has been made on it? No extra money has been provided for it. We would like to support the Minister in any way we can in his efforts to secure the building. I know Cork Deputies on all sides are at one on this matter.
On the issue of redress, I presume the questions asked by Deputies were about numbers, sums of money, etc. The most up-to-date information available to me suggests that the board has received 2,160 applications. Decisions taken by it so far have resulted in the refusal of 53 applications because they were outside the scope of the scheme. One or two of them might have been referred to the Garda for investigation. Some 212 applicants have agreed their settlements and they are being paid, and 26 awards have been made following hearings.
The procedure involves the hearing of applicants' cases, after which they may be offered compensation. They can accept this, as 212 have already done. If they are not satisfied with it, they can appeal it and have their cases heard by a different person. Some 66 people have appealed and received awards as a result, and 12 interim payments have been made. There is a provision in the Act to allow the board, in cases where a person is very old or infirm, to make an interim payment once it has satisfied itself that such a person was in an institution and that there is some evidence of abuse.
The average award to date has been €80,000. About €24 million is the sum pertaining to the 212 applicants. I presume awards to the 66 appellants amount to roughly €4.5 million. I do not have the total compensation figure but it is roughly €30 million. The board is continuing to receive applications at a rate of about 50 per week.
Deputies Enright, Crowe and others asked about adding institutions to the list. We are preparing an order for 12 institutions that have been identified, and this has to be submitted to Cabinet for consideration in the coming weeks.
I thank Deputies for welcoming the increase pertaining to the higher education grants scheme. On Deputy Enright's question, the allocation of €12 million is for this year, specifically from September to the end of 2003. We estimate that the total cost of the package for a full year, which has been provided for in the Estimates for next year, is €42 million.
There was a series of related questions on the package and I hope I answer them all. The package will benefit approximately 56,000 students, approximately 11,000 of whom will receive some benefit for the first time. I will not reiterate the details concerning the 15% increase. We provided the top-up grant so one would receive the equivalent of unemployment benefit. The top-up grant is a good, targeted measure. It is having the desired effect because just over 3,000 students were receiving it the year before last and there are 8,000 receiving it this year. The money goes directly to the students and is not being filtered through third parties, colleges, etc., but going to the poorer students. This is certainly the route I would like to take and I am not too sure the funding I filter through other parties and bodies is reaching students to the extent I desire. I will consider addressing this in the revision of the package on disadvantage.
Partnerships which receive access funding have worked reasonably well and they know the students on the ground. There is a plethora of schemes for third level in addition to the higher education grants scheme. In 1997, approximately €600,000 was allocated for access initiatives at third level whereas €26 million has been allocated this year. This sum will be slightly higher next year. I want to ensure the funding goes directly to students.
More general points were made about third level education and the student registration charge. Many have stated - but not at this committee - that the charge is affecting the less well-off and is contrary to my stated commitment regarding disadvantage. I do not know how many times I have to repeat that the charge does not affect anybody whose family income is less than €40,000. As Eamon Dunphy might say, it is not a great income but it is a good income. The student registration fee for those with a family income of over €40,000 is not at all excessive.
I share Deputies' views that the moneys obtained from the student registration charge should be spent on that on which it is intended to be spent, namely, student services, administration and examinations within the universities. The student unions have some say in this matter. They were granted a right under a protocol in 1998 or 1999 such that they have to be consulted by the colleges on how the charge would be divided. If they are being ignored their quarrel is with the administrations of the colleges and not with me. This is because I have provided the funding.
Deputy Crowe questioned whether the moneys obtained from the registration charge go into the coffers of the State. They do not; they go to the colleges. What happens is that the contribution the taxpayer makes to the colleges is reduced by the estimated income from the student registration charge. It is done in this way so the colleges will have a cashflow and control over the money.
I will not deny that funding for capital works in the third level sector is very tight. It is the easiest thing in the world for colleges, institutions, local authorities and others to keep firing in plans to the Department for a series of buildings when somebody else is paying for them. Last March or April, if I recall correctly, we asked the Higher Education Authority to prioritise its building programmes and to have them in keeping with national objectives regarding research and development, etc. This prioritisation has not yet been achieved and, until it is, I will not be doing anything in respect of third level capital. The Higher Education Authority has a committee working on prioritisation.
The current third level budget reflects our existing commitments and priorities. I do not expect that there will be much change in this area until we have had a chance to examine it. It has to come in a prioritised form and this is what the Higher Education Authority is supposed to be about. Its job is to advise me on the priorities, in keeping with Government policy.
On current third level funding, as opposed to capital funding, there is a distinction between the institutes of technology and the universities. We know where the money goes in the institutes of technology and the Department has a greater responsibility to them in terms of oversight than it does to the universities. Quite frankly, I do not know how the universities are spending their money, which they get from the taxpayers. Obviously they have to account for it by auditing. It strikes me that when any kind of constraint is put on the finances of any body, the first thing it does to effect change is target the customer and the most politically sensitive areas. I will not succumb to that kind of approach.
That is not fair. They have to pay the extra wages associated with part-time teachers, benchmarking, etc. They cannot avoid these expenses.
I do not think the librarians, for example, necessarily comprise such an expense on universities that their hours or services to the students must be cut. Universities exist for the students, who are the last people who should be affected by any proposed cuts. I am sure I could make further suggestions if I had accounts of the various universities. If they want me to do so, I will. I have no difficulty doing so, but universities either want to manage their budgets independently or not, in which case I would decide where cuts have to be made. It would not make them in the areas in which they are now making them.
Where could cuts be made?
Universities' foreign travel budgets could be cut a little and this might keep a library open for a few more hours. We are on the public record and I am not saying anything now that I will not say to the heads of the universities when we meet them next week. Maybe I will say a lot more to them.
They may also say more to the Minister
They managed to produce a report, in which I believe they stated what they wanted to state. I do not quite agree with them and find their economics somewhat lacking. They all have economics departments and I am a little surprised they believe the money they receive should automatically increase because the number of students increases in a particular institution. It is a question of the unit cost. If one has more units, this usually means that the unit cost decreases, but the universities believe the opposite. I am not an economics professor but I believe my logic seems to have escaped people.
Why has there been a cut in the disadvantage budget?
I have not cut any budget pertaining to disadvantage, nor do I intend to. I have a certain budget and I must prioritise. I have prioritised disadvantage. I do not have the luxury of the Opposition - I would be the same if I was on the other side - of being able to say I want to spend money everywhere.
The figure pertaining to subhead K has decreased from €23.9 million last year to €8.6 million this year.
It is because of a presentation issue concerning the amalgamation of Votes. In 2002, the outturn under that subhead was €23.9 million. The 2003 allocation was €26 million and the 2004 Abridged Estimates figure is €27.019 million. After this meeting one of my officials will show the Deputy how he arrived at those figures.
There was talk at one stage of a central office to process third level grants. Is this still on the cards? I raised the issue of quicker processing of grant applications. Has the Minister any views on this issue?
I have views on both of those and think they are not far from those held by the Deputy. We should have a centralised grants system and I have had some discussions about this. It was recommended in the review. I cannot say what form this centralised system might take as it will take some time to progress it. It would be a more efficient and effective method of administering the grants system.
We had this discussion on higher education grants last year and I said I wanted to see it being done earlier. A system based on the calendar year, rather than the tax year, should facilitate this. I would like to see movement on this in the next year. There is an argument that if everybody who hopes to go to third level institutions was to apply, lots of administrative time would be used up on those who did not get a third level place.
The adoption of a self-assessment system in allocating grants might be useful. Under this, maximum information will be provided and qualifying candidates will contact us stating they are eligible for the grant and are applying for it. This may be accompanied by a sworn affidavit. A checking system would be carried out over the academic year and those that make a fraudulent claim would be subjected to an automatic fine that is a multiple of the value of the grant. This might streamline the system. People could apply at any time and students would be able to have their grants from almost their first day in college.
Will this board be based in Navan?
We did not get too many civil servants decentralised to Navan and we may have to do this.
Deputies Gogarty and O'Sullivan raised a couple of issues on third level education. I have not given assurances to anyone on what level the student registration charge will be in the future. This is, and will continue to be, decided on an annual basis. If USI's prediction of an increase of up to €1,300 is as accurate as the €1,100 prediction it made earlier this year, I would not put much faith in its sources of information.
I do not regard the report received by the National Educational Welfare Board as independent. The board commissioned the report and decided its terms of reference. The consultant wrote the report on the basis of the parameters he was given. I could give a consultant a brief and tell him what I think is needed and he could come up with a different figure. This board, and the work it does, is extremely important. I am more interested in the outputs of the board than I am in inputs. I am not interested in having 360 people in Portarlington and wondering what we are going to do with them. There are discussions and consultations ongoing with the board about its needs, the work it has to do and prioritisation.
I acknowledge the work the board is doing. I have laid particular emphasis on a partnership approach. There are approximately 500 people working in home-school-community liaison, school completion programmes and visiting teachers schemes. They are also exercised by absenteeism. The board is seeking €25 million and told me I could find it by closing down every other disadvantaged scheme. I am not going to do this and I am not sure the committee would support the board's call in this regard. I do not want this to sound negative about the board. The board has an important job to do and must prioritise and enter partnership and get protocols.
Members know of the huge number of people, some of them outside the education system, who are trying to look after children in breakfast clubs, after school clubs, etc. I do not think the board should try to duplicate this work. A great deal of work is being done and information can be passed to the welfare and education board by simple protocols and agreements showing where the system is breaking down. I know Deputies are committed to the area of disadvantage. Let us not reduce it to soundbites about €25 million or 363 staff. We need to help these young people as much as we can and money is not the only issue.
The board took the unprecedented step of lobbying politicians. This would not be normal practice for such a group and if it did not need money to roll-out programmes, it would not ask for it.
If the Deputy spoke to my good friend and colleague, the Minister for Finance, he would hear about lobbying files from every State and semi-State agency piled from the floor to the ceiling in his office. We are lobbied in this way all the time.
Unfortunately, the Government only listens to certain types.
My concern is that agencies in this area are statutorily liable. I wonder if problems will lie further down the road if the board does not have enough staff.
The board was given a certain remit under the Act. As I understand it, the board takes an holistic approach and does not simply try to force a child back to school, but also to examine why he or she left. The Minister spoke of duplication of work. Does he know of areas where work is being duplicated? I want to see projects like homework clubs expanded rather than ended. Does the Minister feel the board is straying into areas in which it does not have a role rather than concentrating on areas on which it should concentrate? I do not want such schemes to end but to expand. Are the officers straying into areas where they do not have a role rather than concentrating on what they should be doing?
Due to the number of personnel, they are prioritising and staying out of areas where they may duplicate. I will ask my officials to make a note on this for the committee. If one were to read the remits of a home-school liaison co-ordinator and a educational welfare officer, one might see the differences. One is statutorily based and the other is not. Officials are in discussions with the welfare officers. In those areas where the home-school liaison project is in operation, there is no need for educational welfare officers to check schools. There should be a protocol in place stating what the home-school liaison co-ordinator does. When the absences come to attention, they must be reported and the home-school liaison officer can inform the parents that the best efforts have failed and broken the law. The school then has the responsibility to inform the National Educational Welfare Board.
The first visit from the educational welfare officer could involve explaining the sanctions. However, as the Deputy said, welfare is the wider issue and, instead, it is more likely that a meeting with the home-school liaison officer will be held to work out a programme to rectify the problem. The educational welfare officer has the legal power to take parents to court in certain cases. A significant amount of that work can de done by home-school liaison co-ordinators. The educational welfare officers can liaise with them and work in areas where there are no home-school liaison projects. It is worth spending the time to get the process right
Deputies asked about an underspend of €50 million to €60 million. I was allocated €5.2 billion to run the Department of Education and Science and to keep it within that budget. In the course of the year, a number of matters, such as school transport, special needs and the payroll, cost the Department more than we had projected. I had to balance the money within the Vote. Unfortunately, the only area where I had discretion was in the capital fund. The capital budget was used this year to ensure that there was no overspend in other areas. A shortfall of up to €60 million in capital expenditure went to cover special needs, payrolls and disadvantaged schemes. I do not anticipate returning any of the Vote to the Exchequer. It is a matter of balancing and keeping a contingency. There will be no underspend in the Department this year. It may not all have been spent on its initial allocation but it will be spent on education.
There is movement in EUROSTAT on how public private partnerships will be treated on the balance sheet. If that happens it will be of great assistance. I understand that, by the end of January, a new position may be clarified. This will help the Department. We have €50 million marked for PPPs next year and this will increase to €100 million, €125 million, €150 million and €175 million over the next five years in the multi-annual programme. The programme gives the Department the opportunity to plan ahead and make allowances. The most important aspect of the budget is that we have a multi-annual programme. These technical points may not make an impact in the public, but I will be able to carry over up to 10% of the Department's budget from one year to the other. Perhaps instead of an annual school building programme, we might have a two year one. This would allow the Department to give the go-ahead to schools that wish to start building work in 2005. The schools, in turn, can deal with planning permission and other matters involved.
Preliminary discussions have taken place between myself, the Ministers for Finance and Health and Children on the Cork School of Music, which is a PPP project. They took place prior to the news on the EUROSTAT move. We will have more discussions in the new context.
When EUROSTAT makes these changes, will the Minister send a briefing group to the committee? It would be helpful to US in understanding the multi-annual programme and also the model the Minister proposes for the future.
What happens to schools like Ennis national school which were to be built by PPP but have not been included in the building programme as a result?
I was not aware of a published list of any kind of schools. I understand that there were five and some other schools with potential. There was no final draft list. What will happen with Ennis——
Ennis was asked by the Department would it go the PPP route and agreed. It was not its fault that it was not included in the programme.
Ennis and other schools will not lose out as a result of this change. They will either go through the building programme or the PPP. In the next few years, I hope there will be no time discrepancy between schools going through the programme and the PPP, if we keep control of the capital programme.
The technical difficulties that have arisen with the European Social Fund are EU related, as has happened before. Last year, the goalposts were moved to the point that we were playing on a different pitch. This happened across the ESF. There are some technical issues and it is more a "contra-entry". If the Department receives the funding this year, we will have to hand back what we nominally received from the Exchequer.
We have 3,200 primary schools but we should not have schools for the sake of having them. There is a certain critical mass. Approximately 56% of primary schools have four teachers or lower. That is a huge proportion. The criterion for a primary school is to start with 17 pupils and to have 51 in three years. I am not sure if the criteria for gaelscoileanna are the same. This area is now independent with a commission on school accommodation which makes a recommendation to me on which I sign off. That is what I intend to continue to do. A report was compiled on school accommodation, Three Praxes, which the Department will move on in the New Year. I am not sure if it was given to the committee.
Gaelscoileanna are not directly within the Minister's remit, but in Northern Ireland there is a lower threshold and a differential between rural and urban locations. In an all-Ireland context and given that Irish is the first official language in this State and not in Northern Ireland, we should have the same playing field. If the UK Government sees fit to allow that ratio in Northern Ireland, will the Minister lower it in this State? Representatives of gaelscoileanna claim that they have no problem with sharing schools. There are ways that tradition of education could be accommodated without necessarily closing rural schools within a ten mile radius.
A balance must be kept between having a gaelscoil in every location and the educational needs of children. Small schools at primary level, which are necessary in rural areas, and too few schools at second level do not serve the educational needs of children. We have a fixation about buildings, whether they are schools or hospitals. I apologise to the Chairman and Deputy Hoctor on this. There is a fixation about buildings rather than the quality of services provided. The main complaints about gaelscoileanna from other schools and responsible organisations relate to the preferential treatment on capitation grants and staffing levels. A generous approach was taken. There is significant growth in the number of gaelscoileanna. The school building programme can only do so much I am in favour of the gaelscoileanna but the issue must be tempered by reality.
It is an area that needs to be examined. When will the Minister be able to announce the next tranche of school building projects on foot of the extra moneys from the budget? Will it be prioritised on the basis of the list on the Department's website in order of schools?
It will be published no later than January minus €30 million. The format will be more user-friendly and done for the convenience of the schools concerned, Oireachtas Members and members of the public on a county basis, except Dublin.
I now have the problem of deciding to proceed with the programme we had already drafted with a Supplementary Estimate for the extra €30 million from the budget or otherwise. I do not want the allocation of the extra €30 million to delay getting the programme. I was asked recently to approve Griffeen Valley school applying for planning permission. However, the longer the programme is delayed, the less chance schools have of progressing to the construction phase. Mr. Martin Hanevy, assistant secretary, is in charge of the Griffeen Valley project and has spoken to the building unit. It is hoped that it will be done sooner rather than later. I will not delay that project to fit in the extra €30 million in the programme.
The Minister referred to a two year building programme, which is a good idea. However, there are local elections next year and, if it is announced then, it will undermine the credibility of the Minister and politicians. Will the Minister announce the programme before or after the elections?
It will not undermine the credibility of politics for those who will get new schools. However, I take the Deputy's point and that is one of the arguments for completing the draft programme quickly.
The same argument about levels of comfort was used during the previous elections.
I accept the Deputy's comment in the spirit it is given. However, people will see if next year's programme includes the extra €30 million. The way this programme is being drafted is transparent and people will see their schools moving up the list. They now will have better access to the information to give better estimates.
Youghal, County Cork, is a designate town for the decentralisation programme and needs a new secondary school. We should discuss the issue of the Youth Work Act.
Will the Minister brief us on the state of the Middletown project in County Armagh? I have major reservations about this. The task force on autism, for example, was not briefed on it. It got some indication but it was not in favour of it. Many of the people in that expert group had major reservations as well. At a time when funding for special schools for children with autism is under review, to say the least, I wonder about the benefits of this. Perhaps the Minister will explain them.
The outstanding questions relate to youth funding, the NEPS, payment for tuition in primary schools and insurance, the substitution and supervision payments, the dormant accounts, the crèche/child care question and the ICT grants.
It sounds as if about five minutes will be required.
Youth funding has been substantially increased over the last six or seven years. This year's increase will be approximately 5.5%. That is all we could get within our Vote. Deputy Stanton also asked me about this in the House. I believe this money is well spent. The Youth Work Act should be implemented as quickly as possible. We have made a start and the Minister of State will try to advance implementation of other parts of the Act in the near future.
With regard to the NEPS, we decided what the number of psychologists should be. The figure we gave was 200 and we said we would try to reach that target by the end of the 2004/2005 academic year. There are 127 psychologists in their posts at present and we are near the end of the panel, possibly at the last five or six people. The NEPS, the Education Welfare Board and guidance counsellors are the areas on which we should concentrate because they can do so much within the schools. They were seen for some time as peripheral but that is not the case. They are extremely important. If I have posts, they will be my priorities.
Deputy Hoctor raised a point and referred to a case which she previously raised privately with me. Following her intervention we are seeking to overcome this by trying to pay it by imprest, although we have to work out the technical details. That would ensure the money is available and people will account for it later rather than what is happening at present. The same problem arises with visiting teachers and various others. I am not aware of any substitution and supervision payments problem. As far as we are concerned we have paid that. I do not know what the problem is but if the Deputy explains the matter to me after this meeting I will try to deal with it.
We are expecting to get a reasonable level of funding from the dormant accounts funds. That money must be spent on specific disadvantage projects and I look forward to doing that. We have increased the capitation grant as much as possible for the coming year. The issue of schools being forced to fundraise arises on a regular basis. We should give as much as possible in the capitation grants but it is good and healthy that a local community supports its local school. Some contribution, not compulsory, should be made and parents should think enough of the school their children attend that they will organise a few fundraising events in the course of the year for it. That happens throughout Ireland. We will be much poorer the day it stops. It will mean there is total——
The schools will close when it stops happening.
I do not agree. It is not that serious.
It is for essentials like insurance. Lucan Educate Together is trying to raise €30,000 for insurance.
I do not agree with that. The schools get capitation grants. If they choose to spend it on other things they can say they are spending it on insurance——
Not in this case.
Take a simple example such as the increase in refuse charges. Members should go to various schools, as I have done, and encourage them to join the green school scheme, reduce the amount of refuse produced and reduce their bills accordingly. Simple things such as that can be done.
The capitation grants at second level have been increased substantially since 1997. I am aware of the insurance problem. I asked a question a few days ago to which I have not yet received an answer. How many schools have sought insurance quotes from a company other than the company that currently insures all the schools? That is a responsibility for the boards of management. I am aware of at least one insurance company that is offering reasonable quotes for employer's and public liability. It is not Church and General. If a few schools looked somewhere other than the company they deal with every year, they might save some money on insurance. I am not in favour of giving a special grant for insurance. That will only encourage the insurance companies to continue increasing the premiums each year. It would be a disaster to do that.
The other question was about the State paying the insurance or giving State indemnity to schools. If I have ownership of the schools and the school property, I will provide State indemnity. I will not insure private property.
There is a chance of that through the redress deal made by the Minister's predecessor.
Does the Minister have figures outlining the claims experience of the schools owned by the Department? There are a number of such schools. The Minister cannot provide figures for the other schools.
I will check with the Department and contact the Deputy. I do not have the figure. Six or 12 months ago I asked officials in the Department to consult with the insurance companies on this matter. It is not our business where private schools are concerned but it is a cost and I prefer to see the money being spent on education than going to multinational insurance companies. I asked the officials to find out if certain things that are or are not being done in schools are affecting insurance costs. We could then advise the schools that they can reduce their insurance costs by doing X, Y and Z. Those talks are ongoing.
The crèche-child care issue and the vocational education committees was dealt with last Friday when the announcements were made. It was supposed to be done last Friday. With regard to ICT and schools, as Deputy O'Sullivan stated, we are approaching the end of the programme. We are engaged in a policy review with the NCTE and others. Until that review is completed and has been presented to me, we will not decide what to in respect of ICT.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.