A proposed timetable was circulated to members. It allows for opening statements by the Minister and Opposition spokespersons which will be followed by an open discussion on the Vote by way of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials and invite her to make her opening statement.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss with the select committee the Estimate for 2005 for the Department of Education and Science. I would like to begin by referring briefly to some further enhancements we have made to the presentation of the Estimates in the Book of Estimates which continue the theme of amalgamating related subheads to assist with the presentation and examination of the Estimate.
In 2003 we amalgamated the four education Votes into one which provides a simpler, clearer and better presentation of education allocations in the published volume for all concerned. In 2004 we drew the various capital allocations together into one section of the Estimate which makes for a much easier reading and analysis of the capital budget figures. This year I have provided for a small number of further enhancements to the presentation of the Estimate. These include the presentation of student support allocations in one single subhead, subhead E.1, whereas previously it was presented under five separate subheads, and a reduction from nine to seven in the number of individual capital subheads by the amalgamation of some related subheads.
I will now deal with the details of the Estimate. In recent years the Government has prioritised education and the 2005 Estimate is further concrete evidence of that prioritisation. The significant increases provided build on the progress made in recent years. They illustrate clearly the Government's continued long-term commitment to prioritising education and recognising the contribution it makes and will continue to make to the success of this country and the lives of individuals.
The priority that we attach to providing quality education at all levels is evident from the fact that the budget for my Department has doubled since 1997. Historic under-investment in school staffing, school facilities and services for children with special needs has been tackled through dramatic improvements in recent years. The 2005 allocations for education continue the process of making good that under-provision and ensuring the education sector is funded to address the areas of disadvantage that still remain and also to provide the platform for our continued economic success.
I will outline for the select committee some of the significant elements of the 2005 Estimate. Overall, the net allocation will represent a 10% increase on the 2004 allocation, an increase of €627 million. Direct funding to schools is increased significantly. Capitation grants which assist schools with day-to-day running costs are also increased. At first level, the capitation grant is increased by almost 10%, or €12, to €133.58 per pupil with effect from 1 January, with the grants for clerical assistance and caretaking also being increased by almost 6%. At second level, the basic rate of capitation is increased by €12 to €286 per pupil with a €4 increase in the support services grant. Voluntary secondary schools are also receiving an additional €10 per pupil.
We are providing an additional €32 million for educational disadvantage initiatives. These increases will allow for the targeting of measures from pre-school through the school system to third level, including adult education and youth initiatives and are further proof of the Government's commitment to tackling disadvantage.
To illustrate our commitment to reducing class size, in particular in disadvantaged schools, one only has to examine what we have achieved in recent years. Since 1997 more than 4,000 additional teachers, including approximately 2,500 resource teachers, have been appointed to primary schools. In 1996-97 there was one teacher for every 22 pupils in primary schools. By 2003-04 there was one teacher for every 17 pupils. Much smaller classes apply in disadvantaged areas under special schemes involving almost 50,000 pupils where classes can be of 20 or even 15 per class. At second level, the pupil-teacher ratio declined from 16:1 in 1996-97 to 13.5:1 in 2003-04.
As well as a commitment to special needs and disadvantage, the Government is also committed to investment in education to secure the economic future of this country. The schools IT programme is a very good example of the progress made in recent years in preparing all students for the information age. Since 1998 over €150 million has been made available under the programme. Over 100,000 training places in the use of IT in schools have been availed of by teachers. A major €18 million initiative has been agreed with the telecoms industry which will see broadband connectivity delivered to every school in the country by the end of this year.
Capital expenditure will increase by 19% bringing the total now allocated for 2005 to €540 million. When account is taken of the €50 million carried over from 2004, an additional €108 million will be provided for first and second level schools compared to 2004. This capital provision will allow for the continued modernisation of school infrastructure, including, for example, the completion of over 125 large-scale projects under construction; a further 122 large-scale projects proceeding to tender and construction over a 12-15 month period; design work commencing on 43 new large-scale projects and continuing on 124. More than 760 schools have been authorised to undertake small-scale works under the devolved mechanism. Funding will also be provided for the capital element of the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI.
Teachers' pay at first and second level will increase by 9%. This will provide for increases due under Sustaining Progress and benchmarking awards.
I have also recently announced the provision of a further 660 additional special needs teaching posts for September. These posts will ensure children will have access to resource teaching posts as soon as they are needed, without having to wait for an individual application to be processed. This new model involves the provision of resource teaching hours for primary schools based on their enrolment figures and reflects the fact that pupils with more general learning difficulties are distributed throughout the education system. Each primary school will be allocated resource teaching hours, based on their enrolment figures, to cater for pupils with high incidence special educational needs such as dyslexia. Previously resources for these pupils were only considered on an individual application basis, supported by psychological assessments. For many parents this was a lengthy and expensive process.
The model reflects the fact that pupils with more general learning difficulties are distributed throughout the education system, while taking into account the differing needs of the most disadvantaged schools and the evidence that boys have greater difficulties than girls in this regard. Under this system, therefore, schools will have allocations provided to cater for their overall special needs which will do away with the previous, sometimes lengthy, processing arrangements for individual applications.
The 660 additional posts, 340 of which are permanent and 320 are on a transitional basis, brings to 1,100 the number of additional teaching posts for special needs authorised since last June. I should acknowledge the support of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowan, for this most recent significant demonstration of commitment to special needs. I was also very pleased to see how well this announcement was received by the various partners in education.
Excluding increased teacher allocations, over €55 million extra will be provided for other educational services for children with special needs. This additional provision will enable the Department to deliver services in the context of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 and disabilities Acts. It includes provision for the full year cost of 700 additional special needs assistants.
An additional €15.5 million, an increase of29%, is being allocated for third level research. This is further recognition of the Government's commitment to research programmes such as PRTLI and the research councils, and implementation of the Kelly report on third level building.
An additional €5.3 million, an 18% increase, has been provided to meet requirements under the Youth Work Act 2001 and the national youth work development plan. The in-career budget for the professional development of teachers is up 15% to €22.8 million which will facilitate the continuation and enhancement of valuable in-service training. This demonstrates our commitment to and recognition of the importance of investing in teachers.
The provision for the national qualifications framework has been increased by 19% to €11.2 million to allow for important further progress in the area of quality assurance in education. Funding for the Commission on Child Abuse has been increased to €22 million while funding for the redress board has been increased to €38.8 million to address the State's responsibility to those who suffered in State institutions.
The funding provided in the 2005 Revised Estimates for public services is proof of the Government's continued commitment to education. Under the Government, schools have benefited from the largest increase in teacher numbers since the expansion of free education and the largest fall in class sizes in the history of the State. Class sizes are now at their lowest level in Irish history.
We are investing in the largest school building programme in the history of the State and have greatly improved the services provided for children with special needs and those who are disadvantaged. The various increases outlined to the select committee illustrate the Government's commitment to education and its continued targeting of resources at the areas of greatest need. These policies enable the education sector to contribute to furthering the economic progress of the country as well as addressing vital social inclusion issues.
I commend the Revised Estimates to the select committee and will be happy to respond to any questions raised.
I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials. I wish to raise a number of points on the Estimates, some of which I prepared some time ago and one of which relates to transport services.
I join my colleague, Deputy English, who spoke on behalf of Fine Gael, in extending our sympathies to those involved in last Monday's bus crash. What happened helps to concentrate our minds when dealing with the Estimates on what we should be concentrating in any case. It behoves us to concentrate our minds on school transport services, an issue the select committee has discussed previously when reviewing the Estimates and at other times with officials from the Department and the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera.
The spend on school transport has doubled since 1997. While acknowledging this, on what has the money been spent, given that approximately 22,000 fewer children have been unable to avail of the service since then?
What happened on Monday is still being investigated and we do not yet know what caused the accident. However, irrespective of what happens in the three investigations being carried out, we must consider other issues. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration, in the context of this discussion of the Estimates, to a reduction of the circumstances where three children are carried on two seats. I am aware from the Minister of State's response yesterday that the issue is being considered and that negotiations are ongoing. An issue often raised with me by parents — I have travelled on school buses — is that many of those required to share seats are adults. They also bring on board PE uniforms, hurley and hockey sticks which add to the weight and volume carried on buses.
I implore the Minister not to wait but to work ahead of the proposed EU directive in this area. I do not believe we should wait for that directive to decide what it is we should do as a nation in terms of safety on school transport. We should deal with this issue, regardless of the directive. The Minister of State said yesterday that there was a difficulty in retrofitting buses with seatbelts. I reiterate what I said yesterday to the Minister of State that given the advances in engineering, I do not accept there is no solution to this problem. If it is possible to carry out a heart transplant, it should be possible to ensure buses are fitted with seatbelts. While I accept many of the older buses may not be suitable for retrofitting, that may be a sign that they are not fit for use as school buses. I ask the Minister to look again at the issue.
There are many options available. I am aware some buses are used for the transport of primary and post-primary pupils and as such, would require different styles of seatbelts to take account of children's size. However, such problems can be surpassed. While it will be expensive to carry out this task, I do not believe we can put a value on it. I would like the clear message to go out to parents that the issue is being taken seriously. I accept the problem cannot be redressed overnight or within a short time. However, parents would like to see a definite plan of action and a clear commitment on how and within what timescale the issue will be tackled.
The allocation for the National Educational Welfare Board has been substantially increased in the Revised Estimate. However, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that more than 80,000 children have been missing more than 20 school days each year. Also, approximately 1,000 children a year fail to transfer from primary to secondary education. This highlights the importance of the board. We must remember that 5% of students, compared to 3.6% in 1996, are leaving school at 15 years of age. We must ensure the board is adequately funded to address what is a growing problem.
The former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, once stated that just because the National Educational Welfare Board stated it needed funding did not mean the Department agreed. I have not heard much comment on that particular point. In my opinion and that of any member of staff with whom I have had contact, it works well. However, it is thin on the ground and encountering difficulties when it must address the issues of an entire county. The board is engaged in fire brigade action rather than taking important preventive action.
The Estimate for the National Educational Psychological Service has been increased by only 5%, slightly above the figure for inflation. Some 46% of the total number of primary schools in the State have not been assigned a NEPS psychologist. The figures for different areas are significant. Approximately 100% of primary schools in County Kerry have been assigned a NEPS psychologist, yet only 30% of schools in Carlow, 27% in Clare, 27% schools in Wexford and 18% in Kilkenny have such a service. I am sure Deputy O'Sullivan will speak about the availability of the service in Limerick where only 11% of schools are covered by NEPS. Many schools have no service.
The Minister may respond by saying the NEPS service can commission private psychological evaluations. However, this national service should be available to all schools. Any other steps are but stop gap measures which are not sufficient to meet children's needs. I ask the Minister to ensure NEPS receives adequate funding in the forthcoming budget to ensure the gaps are filled and that we provide full-time psychologists rather than for private assessments.
The National Council for Curriculum Assessment has received a substantial increase of 38% on last year's figure. Perhaps the Minister will tell the select committee to what the extra expenditure will be devoted. Is it linked to reports on the revision of the leaving certificate? The school completion programme has received only a small increase which barely keeps up with the rate of inflation. Given the ever increasing number of children failing to make the transition from primary to secondary education, a more concerted effort is warranted. I am aware a review of disadvantage is taking place. Is there a connection between the review and the small increase in the allocation for the school completion programme?
The Department of Education and Science spends €55,711,000 on salaries. Why then does it need to spend almost €400,000 on consultancy services? What services are on offer? In reply to a parliamentary question it was stated €218,000 was spent on the YES conferences. What was their outcome and what information was gleaned from them? The sum involved is sizeable.
What percentage of funding for centres for young offenders goes directly to the provision of centres? Is each one operating at full capacity? An issue has arisen in terms of the number of beds being held which has resulted in many teenagers not being accommodated.
On public private partnerships, five months of the year have passed and a substantial sum of money was to be spent in this Estimate. When does the Minister intend to make an announcement? Has she any idea at this stage of the number of schools to be included? The announcement will probably be limited to the post-primary sector.
The task force report on obesity was published two weeks or so ago. I have raised a serious issue with the Minister concerning the operation of vending machines in some of the public private partnership schools. The problem is not exclusive to them but there is a financial incentive for the company and school if such machines are provided. Will this practice be outlawed in the contracts to be negotiated in the future?
A report on the status of physical education will be presented in one or two weeks to the committee. One of its findings is that we have never made a concentrated effort to provide physical education facilities in the history of the State. The report states we must concentrate on physical education in the same way as we did in the past on ICT. Will the Minister give the issue serious consideration?
I attended a public meeting in Skerries last night at which a teacher stated that while the school had a physical education hall, the teachers had been asked to use it for classroom purposes because of a lack of space. The Minister should issue a clear statement to the effect that where a school has physical education facilities such as a general purposes room or a physical education hall, they will not be lost as a result of a lack of classroom space. This is part of the problem. We do not give physical education the attention it deserves if we state it becomes less important when the issues of space arise.
Inevitably, I will also begin with the issue of school buses. Funding should be made available as soon as possible to address some of the issues raised. I preface my remarks by stating I am not suggesting any of the changes might have made a difference to the events in County Meath. There is no evidence to suggest this. The bus was not as full as it might have been if it had been carrying the full complement of children. Nevertheless, these issues have now been raised as a result of the crash.
I raised the possibility of a Supplementary Estimate with the Taoiseach this morning on the Order of Business. Funding should be made available as quickly as possible to address the concerns about the three for two system raised by Deputy Enright, the age of the bus fleet and the issue of seat belts. I understand from the statements made yesterday by the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy de Valera, that it is planned to phase out the three for two system over a three-year period. If I understood her correctly, the cost will be approximately €18 million. Will the Department fight for a Supplementary Estimate this year? I realise it is a decision for the Government in general.
We must address these safety issues as quickly as possible and, in particular, replace the older buses in the school bus fleet. Apparently, school buses are 16 years old on average. If we secured a Supplementary Estimate this year, we could begin to replace the older buses with safer models, which would also give us the opportunity to address the situation whereby three children sit on a seat designed for two. We should start sooner rather than later.
The only reference I can find in the Estimates to school buses is in subhead B.2. I am unsure whether the figure listed is the current one or if there is another for capital spending. However, I assume that it would be necessary for the Department to make funding available to replace buses. Will the Minister clarify this? In any case, while I realise there are lead in times involved in any of these matters, the funding should be made available as quickly as possible to begin the process sooner rather than later.
I take the point made by the Minister concerning the building programme, for which the capital figure is €540 million. Does this include the €50 million not spent last year? Is it included in the overall capital figure for this year? Towards the end of last year it was indicated that it would not be possible to spend a much larger sum from the capital budget. The issue was raised by Deputy Paul McGrath who asked questions regarding the amount of money spent up to November. The Minister has answered this point but I want to confirm that the underspend of €50 million was the only one last year.
I welcome the extra money for research and development under subheads B.5 and E.14. However, the third level sector has other issues apart from research and development such as meeting its day-to-day costs. Has the Minister met the heads of the universities and the institutes of technology or does she intend to in order to address the problems of meeting their running costs?
Subhead B.19 covers the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and provides for a substantial rise. Will the Minister indicate the reason? Presumably, it concerns the issues discussed when Members dealt with the Bill currently before us.
Deputy Enright raised the issue of the National Educational Welfare Board which is covered by subhead B.23. The board's chairperson has indicated that there are only 78 educational welfare officers, while a figure of 330 would be required to cover the country adequately in accordance with the original plans. When does the Minister expect to provide the board with the funding for the required number of educational welfare officers who do excellent work? I strongly believe we should have the required number to ensure children do not miss out on schooling.
Why is the figure for subhead D.2 down? It covers general funding at second level. While it may simply be due to a drop in numbers, I want to know the reason.
I support Deputy Enright's point regarding the issue of physical education. The practice of using physical education halls and general purpose rooms as classrooms is fundamentally wrong. It happened last year. Last week I tabled a parliamentary question on the issue, the answer to which appears to indicate that it might happen again next year if some schools do not acquire extra classrooms as part of the building programme. We must provide more physical education halls rather than taking away their use from schools which need extra classrooms.
Deputy Enright also raised the issue of the National Educational Psychological Service. In my county of Limerick 11% of schools are covered. This is one of the worst rates in the country. I understand the reason usually given is that it is a recruitment problem. Will the Minister clarify this? Can a more concerted effort be made to recruit appropriately trained educational psychologists for the counties which suffer particularly in this respect?
I have concerns about the weighted system in use in the field of special education. I realise many additional teachers are being hired and that the system will work in some, if not most, situations. However, there is still much concern, particularly in small rural schools. This is a major issue in County Limerick, especially in the west of the county. Although it is not in my constituency, some weeks ago I attended a large meeting with approximately 700 people who were concerned about the loss of special education teachers. The Minister should try to address the problems of individual schools which are losing resources. I know she has said no child will lose the resources he or she has but some children were waiting in a queue that never moved for a few years before the introduction of the weighted system. They were told their applications would be dealt with under the system, with the result that they received the NEPS assessment but not approval from the Department. They cannot retain the resource because they do not possess it in the first place, a matter about which schools are particularly concerned.
With regard to subhead B.16 which relates to the teaching of English and the promotion of Ireland as an international education centre, the number has more or less doubled. Concern has been expressed to me that under the subhead, we may be giving money to fee paying schools to provide teachers of English for international students who are already paying fees. Will the Minister clarify the matter? I fully support the teaching of English and the general idea behind the subhead. However, an e-mail I have received suggests a considerable amount of the money might be going to fee paying schools. If that is the case, the matter should be investigated by the Department.
I wish to address subhead B.2, transport services. I feel very uncomfortable talking about this subject because people need time to grieve. While the families affected by the tragedy are trying to come to terms with their loss and those injured in or traumatised by the accident are recovering, it has been debated on the airwaves and there have been calls for immediate responses.
I do not subscribe — I hope neither does the Minister — to the "Liveline" school of legislation. This tragedy which must still be investigated has brought the issue to the forefront once again. Members of this committee have raised it on numerous occasions. Perhaps it did not receive the attention it deserved in the past. We now have an opportunity to readdress and be seen to tackle it in a serious way. At the same time, a knee-jerk reaction is worse than none. In that respect, I ask the Minister for her opinion on whether she should facilitate a Dáil debate on the matter, possibly next week or the following one. It is a nationwide issue that deserves serious debate. Members of the media are understandably asking people for opinions who will make statements in the heat of the moment that are not necessarily based on the findings of sufficient research and analysis.
On the issue of seat belts, I was one of the members of this committee who called for the provision and retrofitting of seat belts on buses a number of years ago. After further study, I understand it is hugely difficult, if not impossible, to retrofit seat belts in buses for a number of reasons, not least from an engineering perspective. Only three states in America make the wearing of seat belts mandatory. It is not mandatory in the rest of the United States or Canada.
Opinion on the merits of making the wearing of seat belts mandatory is mixed. If seat belts are to be introduced, will they include lap belts which probably cause more internal injuries than save lives? The time is not right to have a complex debate on the issue but I will write to the Minister soon. Will she facilitate a proper debate in the Dáil? We could then come to an agreed consensus on the issue. The onus is on the Government to be seen to tackle it but we need to do so in an appropriate way. I ask the Minister to facilitate such a Dáil debate as soon as possible. I will not address funding or other specific issues relating to transport.
Research and development is another issue close to my heart. Strategically, Ireland is very dependent on energy imports. I have told successive Ministers that with oil prices rising and oil production peaking, we will witness a combination of shortages and spiking — rise, pause, rise, pause — within the next eight to ten years. Even energy experts have admitted that this will be the case. The issue was debated on RTE.
We need to be self-sufficient in electricity and energy production. To ensure security — this is a national issue — we need to invest in research and development. That is why I ask the Minister to consider from a strategic perspective whether the Department of Education and Science should examine the question of an injection of funding in conjunction with other Ministers. This will become a national crisis. I do not wish to return in ten years time when people are experiencing problems to say, "I told you so".
Obesity is again in the headlines. A few years ago the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, abolished the physical education sports maintenance grant. Although it was small — I think it affected 1,200 disadvantaged schools and 600 mainstream schools — it contributed to the promotion of physical education. In the context of the increases in investment the Government is flagging today, I cannot see why this relatively small grant cannot be reintroduced, particularly as many schools do not have the space and equipment to provide proper physical education classes. Anything that gets children active and involved in exercise at an early age will have knock-on health benefits which, in Progressive Democrats-speak, will save the health care system money in ten years time.
The issue of class sizes has come to the forefront. In the programme for Government a promise was made to reduce class sizes for children under nine years of age to 20 students or less. I wish to reiterate this as it was cited as a broken promise on the part of the Government. One in seven children leaves primary school with reading or writing difficulties.
Educate Together is seeking funding. It has the same right to funding, through whatever form is appropriate, as Gaelscoileanna and religious schools. Given that it is the fastest growing school model, it needs State funding to survive.
The National Educational Welfare Board released a timely press release in advance of this meeting asking for more funding. It asked for far less in 2004 and 2003 when it sought €25 million. It is attempting to roll out the full complement as quickly as possible. I hope the Minister agrees and that additional funding also needs to be found for the board.
I maintain that, despite record levels of investment, education is still underfunded. I ask the Minister to carry out a survey of the cost of not funding education in terms of the cost of keeping people in prison, social welfare payments, lost taxation revenues, as opposed to examining international evidence which I was given in response to Dáil questions. The Green Party has done its own calculations which show that a 1 cent increase in income tax would raise €540 million for education and that an eco-tax would raise €460 million. Whether funding comes from borrowing, an increase in tax or other revenue streams, does the Minister agree education needs more funding? If she cannot get this point across forcefully enough to the Cabinet, will she carry out a survey of the real costs of not investing in education in order that within 12 to 18 months we will know that a €500 million investment in education will save the State €2 billion or €3 billion. These are the facts and figures we need to have and which would give the Minister enormous leverage in secure additional funding for education.
I welcome the Minister. Everyone has begun by talking about the transport issue. Many of the questions have been asked. The first question people ask is whether there will be changes in the school transport system. Does the Minister have any proposals for a new response? Will there be a Supplementary Estimate to cover the cost of new buses?
A report entitled, Literacy and Numeracy in Disadvantaged Schools, leaked from the Minister's Department in March, indicated that more than 50% of students in disadvantaged areas had severe literacy and numeracy problems. The report of the Department's chief inspector, Eamon Stack, argues for a more coherent approach to tackling disadvantage. It suggests substantial reform to change the way Estimates are drawn up. This is not evident. The Government intends to spend €34 million in tackling special needs out of a total budget of €6 billion.
An internal departmental report on disadvantage, leaked last October, showed that there was poor co-ordination in Department run schemes, insufficient evaluation and not enough research was being carried out. It proposed a five year action plan. Where is the evidence of this new thinking in the Estimate?
The NESC report on the welfare state issued last week found that, even though spending on education had increased significantly in recent years, it was still lower as a percentage of GNP than in the mid-1980s. In a time of wealth the Government is spending less, in percentage terms, than it did 20 years ago.
Last year the OECD report on education spending found that spending had failed to keep pace with economic growth, particularly in the amount invested in crucial primary and secondary education. It has fallen behind that in other countries. When it came to spending on primary and second level education, Ireland ranked lowest of 30 countries. Spending on third level education doubled between 1995 and 2001 compared to an increase of just one third in respect of primary and second level education. Why is the Minister allowing this imbalance to continue?
A report launched by the Minister entitled, Achieving Equity of Access to Higher Education in Ireland, set out a three year action plan to improve participation by disadvantaged groups. It proposed linking every disadvantaged school, community and region to at least one third level institution. It was also critical of how resources were allocated to improve access to third level. Where is this issue referred to in the Estimate? There is no change in the way third level funds are being distributed. Funding to deal with the alleviation of disadvantage at third level has decreased. In December it was revealed that 106,000 pupils — one in four primary school students — were being taught in classes of between 30 and 39 students. Where is the funding to tackle this issue?
On subhead F.3, which deals with the allocation of capital funding to institutes of technology, the decision to decrease the level of funding provided last year when it stood at €76.5 million to just under €52 million will be met with disbelief in the sector, particularly in the context of the Kelly report published by HEA late last year. The report called for serious investment in capital projects. Does the Minister intend to implement the recommendations made in the report or is the decrease indicative of her response to them?
The report also states student numbers are set to rise by 500 in Tallaght Institute of Technology in my constituency in the next three years. Given that IT accommodation has the lowest square metre measurement per student, how can these students be accommodated? Will they simply be denied a place in third level college because there is nowhere to put them? The report recommended that money be spent on capital projects in Tallaght — there was mention of a figure of €45 million. Will this funding be made available?
Subhead E.13 deals with the amount being spent on the alleviation of disadvantage. It will decrease this year, despite the fact that educational disadvantage continues to be the biggest contributory factor to poverty. Will the Minister explain why funding has been reduced? While I welcome the setting up of the committee some years ago, there should be an increase in funding rather than a decrease. If this reduction is an indication of the Government's commitment to tackling the problem, can we look forward to witnessing disadvantage in third level education for some time?
On subhead B.23, does the Minister believe the increase in funding for the National Educational Welfare Board will allow it to fulfil fully its statutory requirements in the coming year? I am conscious that the chairperson, Dr. Anne Louise Gilligan, said on Monday the board needed resource investment and fast-tracking of manpower requirements to fulfil its statutory requirements. She also stated a fully resourced national educational welfare service would go a long way towards meeting the needs of the children children and their families. Will the Minister ensure such investment is made in order that the board can do a proper job and bring to an end chronic disadvantage in many areas? She said last year that an increase had been granted but the board cannot fulfil its statutory requirements.
Subhead C.6 refers to the increase in funding for such matters as the provision of books for needy students. Funding for equipment for special schools is increased by a minuscule amount. Will the Minister state all children who need funding for books and materials in order to progress will have such resources made available to them?
While there is an increase in funding for NEPS, the big question is whether the levels are adequate to deal with the serious waiting times some children face before being assessed. This problem affects children in rural areas, in particular. In its submission to the NEPS strategic review in June 2004 the INTO which welcomed the achievements in the service highlighted areas in the SERC report of 1994 which remained to be addressed. One of its main worries was the failure of the Government to provide sufficient funding to enable the service to be rolled out in schools. Will the Minister say if funding will be made available to allow for the total roll out of the service to all schools? Does she intend to make funding available in the short term to meet the concerns expressed by the INTO?
I note the small increase in funding in subhead B.8A compared to the large increase in the incidence of solvent and drug abuse among young people in areas of disadvantage. This is disappointing. Many groups do brilliant work in this area but they have serious funding problems. Will the Minister ensure they are given extra resources?
On teachers' salaries, how many new teachers will the budget cover and how many new schools will the capital allocation cover? I realise part of the difficulty relates to planning because many of us come from a local authority background. We are all aware of areas in our constituencies where the local authority allocates land but the difficulty for the Department lies in trying to buy land from developers. Given the crisis in respect of the provision of new school buildings and so on, did the Minister have meetings with other Ministers to try to bring about changes?
There is the new devolved scheme and the old departmental scheme for the refurbishment or extension of primary schools. Is the old scheme being phased out? What percentage of primary school refurbishment or extension projects come within the devolved scheme?
I thank the Deputies for their questions and the sensitivity with which they asked questions relating to school transport, recognising that it is important to separate the issue from the tragedy. I appreciate the manner in which they want to deal with the issues involved.
I will begin by dealing with school transport, for which the budget has doubled since 1997. Deputy Enright asked where it had been expended. A portion has been used to reduce the age of the fleet but the bulk is expended on children with special needs to provide harnesses and employ 600 escorts. A number of children are transported in taxis, which can be expensive. Approximately 30% of the budget is devoted to 6% of the children involved. A total of 8,000 children have special needs, which represents a costly portion of the transport budget. Much of it is new, given the increasing demands of children with special needs.
There is absolutely no evidence that the issues of three for two seating and seat belts are related to the tragedy. Three for two seating is a 30 year old policy which dates back to a time when the majority of children were in primary education and, therefore, physically smaller. I agree it is important that the policy should be abolished. A total of 14% of children are transported in buses. We have been working with Bus Éireann to see how it can be phased out in the most efficient and speedy manner. We are quickly working towards this.
The EU directive is due to take effect on 9 May 2006. It states seat belts must be used on buses where they are available. Many conflicting recommendations have been made by experts. The international evidence, as Deputy Gogarty stated, conflicts regarding the use of seat belts. It must be ensured everybody is safe. Equally, if a bus catches fire or crashes into a stream or river, people should be able to get out. The effectiveness of lap belts is also the subject of argument, as is the question of whether the same belt will suffice for a 17 year old and a seven year old. We must receive expert advice on all these issues.
Most buses, including school buses, in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe do not have seat belts. This has been the practice internationally, as has three for two seating. It is not as if our children are being given anything less than anybody else, although I accept our thinking on seat belts has developed in recent years. Stronger enforcement of seat belt wearing by both drivers and passengers has become the norm. We only began to realise in recent years the importance of wearing them in the back of a car. Thinking has progressed on the issue.
We are seeking expert advice but it will cause serious logistical problems if it is agreed to implement a seat belt policy on buses by September, for example, as has been sought by a number of people. Older buses cannot be fitted with seat belts. It is not a simple case of putting a belt on a seat. They must withstand an impact and, therefore, must be properly anchored in the bus. All of these issues must be examined. It is not just a case of allocating additional funding.
The safety of children on school buses is paramount and our primary concern. Approximately 140,000 children are transported daily in 3,000 vehicles to school by Bus Éireann. Notwithstanding this week's terrible tragedy, the company has a good safety record. While it is difficult in this emotional week to step back and examine the issue reasonably, it is important that we should do so and continue to move forward, make funding available and do the right thing. We await the recommendations of the three inquiries which will be implemented to improve the security of children.
Can the Minister not immediately move to replace older buses? No study needs to be conducted.
According to Bus Éireann, the average age of its buses is 16 years. The average age has reduced considerably. When I was a member of the committee, this issue was examined and at that time buses were 20 and 25 years old. The age of buses continues to reduce, which is important. If a seat belt policy is implemented, it will have implications for the types of bus purchased or manufactured. More immediate progress can be made on the three for two seating issue, on which we have begun work.
Buses should be replaced as quickly as possible. That is the reason I raised the question of a Supplementary Estimate. Will this be considered?
Old does not mean unsafe. All buses must pass an annual roadworthiness test to ensure they are safe. As they are fitted with speed limiters, they cannot travel faster than 100 kph. They are subject to strict speed limits. I would not like to give the impression that because they are old they are unsafe. It is necessary to reassure those who use them all the time. While 140,000 children use school buses, many stand on the DART or the 46A bus in Dublin as they travel to school. While standards should be applied for everybody, do we want to apply the same standard to the elderly and school children? There are wider issues which I will discuss further with my colleague, the Minister for Transport, because road safety affects society as a whole. However, I assure members that this issue is paramount.
I refer to the National Educational Welfare Board. The high profile nature of its work highlights the importance of school attendance for parents. However, the carrot is more important than the stick. The work done through home-school liaison officers, the school completion programme, resource teachers and investment in extracurricular activities is as important as funding the board. If students can be encouraged to stay in school in the first place by working with their parents, a tradition of wanting to stay in school can be built and the stick approach of the board will not be needed. Notwithstanding this, the board which employs 94 staff is doing good work. An additional ten posts were sanctioned this year. A few years ago only cities were covered by approximately 20 people. Therefore, a significant investment has been made which is making a major difference.
The issue of the National Educational Psychological Service was raised. I pay tribute to the work its staff has done this week. Yesterday morning 12 psychologists attended the schools in Navan and two were floating between them. They have done a great deal of work in traumatic circumstances throughout the State. They travelled to Mitchelstown following a tragic shooting and have visited classes of people who committed suicide. They do tremendous work.
The educational psychology service is new. It began as a pilot project in Tallaght and south Tipperary in the mid-1990s. We have now reached a point where a service is available nationwide. Unfortunately, recruitment was a problem in places such as Limerick. Despite the appointment of 128 psychologists, NEPS found it difficult to recruit staff for certain areas. However, it has been decided in more recent advertising to recruit for specific places so that now when one applies to join the service, it is to join the service in Limerick or Kildare or wherever. That should help to redress the imbalance and ensure all areas are covered.
Deputy Enright asked about the NCCA. The increase in its allocation is directly related to its work programme. Last week I launched its guidelines for intercultural learning and integration of children into schools. There has been a huge amount of work on the senior cycle and on standardised testing in primary schools. Equality, languages and language courses, and early childhood education have been examined. There have been some changes in the senior cycle review as well. All of that type of work is being done, which is feeding into the process and is very good.
The amount of money spent in the Department on consultancy services is minuscule. The two major feed-offs from that were the YES process and IT regarding which we would not have in-house expertise. Regarding the YES process, the public survey on attitudes to education was published and the final reports are being drawn up and will feed into policy making. A number of meetings were held around the country. I am not sure they were as objective as was the original intention because at the time there was a lot of strong feeling about special needs. Nevertheless it was an important exercise for the public and the suggestions that came out of it will feed into policy.
We have taken on board what has been said on PPPs and it is still our intention to proceed with an overall programme of PPPs, working with the Minister for Finance, the Department of Health and Children and so on. We hope, over the next couple of months, to make further announcements on that. We are looking seriously at management issues, to which Deputy Enright referred, the issue of vending machines and so on. Obviously we need to ensure we do not take power away from principals, which is important in this context.
That links in neatly with something a few members mentioned, the obesity task force. It is important to state that children spend less than 20% of their waking hours in school and, therefore, there is only so much the school can do. Having said that, I know physical education is an important and core part of the curriculum. All teachers received in-service training in the various modules of the new PE curriculum last year and this year. It is a very flexible one and allows schools to take account of the facilities they have. Some schools are very good about using community facilities that are close by. Under our system community and sports clubs are closed during the week and school facilities are closed at the weekend, after school and for half the year. There is a real need, therefore, to knit together the facilities that exist. PE halls are a central part of major new buildings and big extensions. General purpose rooms are provided in all new schools. Where a school is growing, where it is getting an extra class, where it has extra numbers and is unable to meet that demand with space, in the short term, it may have to use its general purpose room. It certainly will not permanently lose its general purpose room and we are trying to cut down the length of time for which it is lost. However, if we are unable to provide a prefabricated building in a particular year and a school has an extra class or is getting an extra teacher, it might lose the space temporarily. I appreciate that is undesirable. We have heard principals on the radio speaking about how they get the children to jog outside or to walk to school. However, the loss of a general purpose room is not meant to be for the long term and it is a central part of the school building programme and the design of the school buildings.
The Minister spoke about knitting together facilities. Somebody must drive that. The Minister is right when she says it is not happening. If a school has an application with the Department of Education and Science for school buildings with a PE hall or GP room and a nearby sports facility in the same town has a similar application with the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, is there any communication between the two Departments or any effort to ensure there is no duplication? It is important that be done. Some Department must decide to investigate this and drive it.
A couple of recent initiatives worked well. One was between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs regarding grants for playgrounds in schools in CLÁR and RAPID areas. That ensured there was no overlap in our building programme and we were able to target directly. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, last week announced money for playgrounds and skateboard parks. When we were developing the ones in Loughlinstown and Shankill we consulted the children in the same way as we did in Cabinteely Park to ensure school children were part of the process. It linked directly into a community playground but it gave them ownership of it. That is a really important way of working.
Equally we have a very good relationship with an imaginative county manager in Fingal who works very closely with us. This also links in with Deputy Crowe's point regarding the planning and building of schools in new areas and the provision of facilities, which should be available not just to the school but also to the community. We are able to work well with the Fingal county manager and strike the best deal for everybody. There is very good co-operation.
In addition, there was an initiative with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism a couple of years ago on the building of sports facilities in some of the disadvantaged areas, the drugs task force areas. Building them is one thing; the issue of who will be responsible for managing them then arises. That requires a co-ordinated approach and, more than ever, we are seeing real progress and real co-operation across Departments on such matters.
The examples the Minister gave are very good, but they are not widespread. It should be somebody's job to ensure there is co-ordination right around the country.
We are hoping to use the relationship between ourselves and Fingal County Council as a model for working with other county managers around the country.
Another issue that was raised recently, which I thought was interesting, was the "no running" policy in school playgrounds. A survey showed that in 40% of schools in Cork and Kerry children are told not to run. There is no evidence from a legal point of view that running in playgrounds is giving rise to increased claims. The pressure is not coming from the insurance companies. All teachers are required to do is to show adequate supervision, which they are doing. I hope that will be the end of that policy because if children are not allowed to run in the playground where can they be allowed to run?
It depends on the condition of the playground. Some have less good surfaces than others. That cannot be ignored.
That is true. That is where grants such the ones administered by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs can make a difference.
There was no underspend on the building programme last year. There was a €50 million carry-over which is why we have quite a substantial building programme this year. Deputy Crowe asked about the number of new schools. At the outset I gave the number of projects we have. There are 125 large-scale projects under construction and 122 that will be going to construction. Obviously not all of those are brand new schools in new areas. Some are new school buildings as opposed to new schools. Deputy Crowe will be probably aware of Griffeen valley, which was built in nine months. Deputy Gogarty would know it particularly well. New build and design and generic design initiatives are being taken by the building and planning units in the Department. This means we are able to deliver on projects much more quickly than we could in the past, and it is working very well. Equally, the devolved scheme is working well. It is hugely popular in local areas. We are getting good value for money and, again, it gives the community a sense of ownership of what is being done.
The key instrument for the small and rural schools is the new devolved scheme. In the larger schools, we use the generic design, where possible. I am very reluctant to give them a significant sum of money as I do not think it would be appropriate for the Department to hand out €1 million or more to a school and put a burden on the board of management to manage it. We are getting the very best value for money.
Deputy Crowe raised the issue of the Kelly report and the third level Tallaght campus. The Kelly report makes three or four recommendations on the Tallaght campus but the reason the money allocated under the Kelly report appears small is that there had been a pause in building projects at third level. I lifted that pause in November and sanctioned a number of projects, but the payment for those projects will not be made until next year. The building has started but the money will be required in the Estimates for next year and the year after. Deputy O'Sullivan asked about running costs in third level institutions and they received a 6% increase in their current funding for this year but the Deputy may be aware that I have launched a strategic innovation fund for third level to try to encourage, reform and modernisation, and over and above the running costs, there additional money will be made available to reward this reform and modernisation to try to bring our third level colleges to the arena where we will be able to compete on the international stage.
I was also asked about the promotion of Ireland as an international centre. This has become a very important area for the economy. Deputies will be aware that earlier in the year, the Taoiseach, four Ministers and 200 business people went to China in the largest ever deputation to leave the country on a trade mission. I have to admit that I had never thought of education as a commodity to be sold until I went to China and realised there is an interest in coming to Ireland and paying for the service of being educated. The quality of the education must be such as to attract quality students so that we are giving them a quality education and a high standard of pastoral care. In light of the internationalisation of education report, we will set up a board called Education Ireland which will attract people coming to the country. There is no question of any fee paying school getting money directly from the Department under this scheme, but some of the promotional or co-ordinating bodies will get funding to market Ireland abroad. I think it could be a very successful initiative for the country generally.
The funding of schools, in particular the additional capitation funding to voluntary secondary schools, is to help bring their level of funding up to that for community and comprehensive schools, which is an age old argument. Deputy Gogarty asked that Educate Together should get the same level of funding as gaelscoileanna, but that is already the case.
The gaelscoileanna have other sources of funding.
The funding from the Department of Education and Science is the very same for gaelscoileanna and Educate Together.
The point is that Educate Together schools are losing out.
The Irish language groups get funding from the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív's Department, but the Department of Education and Science allocates the same amount — I think the figure is €39,000 — to gaelscoileanna, Educate Together and the Church of Ireland, and we allocate €106,000 to the Catholic bodies, which run approximately 3,000 schools. The Educate Together group has 35 schools.
Deputy Crowe questioned the allocation for disadvantaged schools. The allocation appears to be less than it is due to a technical realignment of the subheads. A real increase has been given and I will send the Deputy a written note explaining it.
One must look at the whole picture for capitation grants. We paid some of the 2005 capitation grants in late 2004, so members need to look at the figures for 2004 as well as for 2005 to get the complete picture.
That relates to my question on capitation grants
Deputy Crowe asked about the higher education access office. A sum of €596.8 million is being spent across the spectrum of disadvantage in 2005. That covers everything from early education right through to third level access. Costs relating to the higher education access office, top-up grants, the access fund and maintenance grants come from that €596.8, which is a very substantial sum and I believe it is making a real difference. Next week, I will launch the education disadvantage programme which I have flagged with the additional 340 posts and an extra €40 million. This is targeted investment in co-ordinated schemes. It will start towards the end of the next school year and continue into the next calendar year.
A recent phenomenon in schools in Dublin's inner city and in rural areas is that where parents perceive that a school attracts disadvantaged pupils, they will avail of the choice enshrined in the Constitution to send their children to alternative nearby schools. I visited a school that has a capacity for 285 students but only 67 students attend now. Social issues in the community were not tackled and this impacted on the school. Five schools within a three or four mile radius of that school have an extension because the children who would normally go to it now go to other schools. Parents have a choice under the Constitution but I wonder whether an expert unit could be established that would respond to schools, when they see this trend developing, to ensure that steps are taken to arrest it. The trend was seen in the school I visited, but it was not classified as disadvantaged so it did not get the extra supports that were needed.
Deputy Enright has put her finger on a grave problem, which goes right across the board. If one looks at Dublin north city — I am not talking about the inner city — one will see very well established, good schools closing, leaving us with large empty buildings, yet they are screaming for space in Counties Meath and Kildare. People from the north Dublin area are moving to south Meath, to Ashbourne, Rathoath and Dunboyne, to a better life in the country. People are moving from Tallaght to south Kildare. That is causing two problems, it is leaving the Department with vacant space in certain areas and a significant demand for space in other areas.
Unlike newer areas, such as Lucan, where young couples set up home and the school will be needed in three to five years' time, in counties Meath and Kildare whole families are moving out so that one needs classroom space now for ten year olds and upwards. That type of migration is causing a problem that nobody could have anticipated. The designation of schools as disadvantaged is not just done on the basis of where they are situated. Already we have started, as part of the new disadvantaged plan, to do a survey of the schools to try to get a better profile of the school.
In the absence of the primary school database — I would like to see work on it speeded up — we are dependent on schools to supply the information. Irrespective of where the school is located, if their information is such that the profile of the school is disadvantaged, they can benefit from the extras. If people believe they will enjoy a better quality of life by moving from an area, we can do nothing to stop it, but it is causing us problems.
People in rural areas live predominantly in towns and drive their children five, six or seven miles to school.
I was highly amused when during the by-election a woman raised with me that a local school was to lose a teacher. She told me she had moved her son to a school in a more rural area though it had accommodation problems. She could not see she was responsible for creating two problems. Had she allowed her son to remain in the first school it would not have lost a teacher and had she not sent her son to the school in the country it would not have required more accommodation. Country schools are becoming popular and people are leaving the towns thereby creating a catchment problem. The Deputy has raised many genuine issues.
Some €596.8 million has been allocated to tackle disadvantage and to improve access to education. Mr. John Carr attended the recent Green Party Ard-Fheis at which he reiterated the need to tackle class size for younger children. Has consideration been given to access to third level education? A person from Foxrock is ten times more likely to go on to third level than is a person from Ballyfermot, in spite of the availability of relatively free third level education. The jury is still out in terms of whether free fees increase access. The reason that is so is that if a person does not complete the leaving certificate, regardless of from where he or she comes, he or she will not go on to third level.
Children are falling through the net in areas which are not designated disadvantaged and do not come within the RAPID scheme. These children who do not complete the junior or leaving certificate will not have an opportunity to go on to third level because the system failed them at as early as seven or eight years old. Is there a means by which we can tackle class size in areas not designated as disadvantaged?
The Minister spoke earlier of the work the Department is doing with the county manager of Fingal County Council. A pet project of mine first raised in 2002 is, integrated public partnership which involves a local authority and community groups working with the Department of Education and Science to produce multi-use school buildings, particularly new school buildings. Given the debate on public private partnerships perhaps it is time to set up a pilot scheme of five integrated public partnership type schools around the country and to monitor their cost effectiveness in terms of their being open all day, costing less for insurance and electricity and being of greater use to communities. Could such a pilot scheme be established as opposed to the Jarvis-type project which requires communities to pay for the use of facilities?
Capitation grants have also been increased. St. Andrew's national school in Lucan is again this week rightly complaining about the problems it is encountering though I will raise that matter with the Minister by way of parliamentary question. Is there scope for the Department to provide schools with unused space with an incentive, by way of increased capitation grant, which would allow that facility to be used by the community? Would that be possible?
The Minister said the primary school database will shortly come on stream. Would it be prudent, when primary and second level information has been collated, to tie that in with the promised nationwide audit of sports facilities by the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, under the programme for Government. A nationwide audit of all sports facilities in schools and communities would allow them to be knitted and mixed and matched a lot better. Has the Minister received any formal communications in that regard? Will it be possible to knit the primary and second level databases and to share that information as part of the nationwide audit so as to provide us with a good picture of available facilities? If so, it will no longer be the case that because of boards of management or a lack of knowledge, overall community wealth is not being used effectively.
I apologise for being late. I welcome the Minister and her staff to the meeting. My question which may already have been answered in part relates to the equalisation of funding for voluntary secondary schools which we all admit have been the poor relations for some time in terms of capitation grants allocated to comprehensive and vocational schools. I am aware of some improvements in that regard but perhaps the Minister will inform the committee if significant funding has been provided in the Revised Estimates for voluntary secondary schools?
The Minister's remarks about what is happening in County Meath is a prime example of what I referred to earlier. I do not know the cost of an acre of land in that area. It is probably approximately €1.25 million. Houses are being built without proper provision for facilities and so on. The Department is often required to pay €4 million or €5 million for land on which to build a school. There is a clear need for change of the planning laws to prevent this happening.
The Jarvis project was mentioned. The Comptroller and Auditor General in his report on the Jarvis project in Cork referred to a predicted saving of 5% by the Department and he predicted that costs would be 13% higher. We are opting for public private partnerships based on costs and so on, yet the cost for the Jarvis project were way above what had been projected. I wonder whether we are going the same route again in terms of the projects mentioned.
The Minister mentioned parents opting to send their children to smaller schools in rural areas and the problems that is creating for catchment areas. As I understand it, catchment areas remain even though smaller rural schools were closed and central schools were built in parishes. Does the Department plan to review catchment areas in terms of school transport, given the change in demographics since their development?
There is no correlation between class size and access to third level education. Deputies spoke about the poor levels of literacy and numeracy identified in areas of disadvantage. Some of the children identified in the report were in classes of 15:1 while others were in classes of 11:1. The problem is more than a simple case of class size and is related to teaching methods and extra supports, including family support, literacy levels in the family, parents reading to their children at home and children who come to school not even knowing nursery rhymes. There are family and societal elements involved.
And community involvement.
Yes. More than 4,000 new teachers have been appointed to our schools during the past few years. One principal said that were he to put all the extra teachers in his school into the classroom he would have class sizes of 11:1. Yet, no recognition or credit is given in that regard. Principals are doing important work while supporting classroom teachers. The availability of resource teachers is taking away some of the difficulties and frustrations being experienced by children. The home-school liaison scheme assists in supporting families and so on. We will be providing smaller classes for the disadvantaged in light of the forthcoming plan. Those who are disadvantaged and who have special needs must be our priority.
It is unfair to say that a promise made in this area has been broken. Priorities and needs have changed during the past couple of years, even since the last election, particularly in the area of special needs. Those issues had to be tackled first. Given our reports are illustrating that even with smaller classes literacy and numeracy levels are not improving, we have a long way to go in terms of changing how we do things, particularly in the area of standardised testing and so on. The INTO has recognised this and has written about it in its newsletter, which I am sure members have seen, and is willing to work with us to see what changes can be made, given we all have children's best interests at heart.
I have some interesting facts regarding third level access. A total of 30% of university students and 40% of students in institutes of technology are in receipt of maintenance grants. The access office uses funding to help students get into college and to stay there. This is a particular issue because some students find college life very difficult. For example, in Tallaght Institute of Technology, I met a group of students who were in receipt of access funds. Some funding went on one-to-one tutoring and on other supports during the academic year. It was also spent on provision of money for transport as well as crèche funding. This funding can be just as important as the maintenance grant because it recognises the importance of these wider supports.
In Tallaght Institute of Technology alone, 40% of students come from the three postal districts surrounding it. All the institutes of technology around the country have a strong affinity with local areas, which has proved to be one of the real benefits of the regional colleges. Deputy Gogarty mentioned that the jury is out on whether free fees have made a difference to participation rates at third level. The important thing is to ensure that through top-up grants, maintenance and targeted access, we support students who wish to go to college.
Last night I made a presentation to leaving certificate students. One should always take the opportunity to be encouraging and make students aware that education and all its attendant opportunities are there for them. As I stated, it is not simply a question of money, much depends on an area's culture and a student's family as well as familial and societal supports. Many students are mould-breakers and as a result need more encouragement.
Questions were asked about catchment areas. As the Deputies are aware, any attempt to change a catchment area or even a bus stop always attracts major controversy. However, the Department is developing area plans for a number of districts and the catchments must be examined in that context. Questions arise concerning freedom of choice and access to a particular type of education. The issue comes up in the context of school buses and in the wider issue of educational access.
Deputy Hoctor asked about voluntary schools. She is correct in that voluntary schools lived on the strength of religious orders for years and the State benefited from this. In recent years, including this year, extra funding has been given to voluntary secondary schools, over and above the regular capitation grant. Hence they received an extra €10 per student this year. I aim to do the same next year to try to equalise the position because they do not receive the same amount of money.
As far as PPPs are concerned, the costing and benefit of PPPs must be examined over their 20-year lifetime. The specification for the first PPPs was particularly high and included everything — large buildings, wide corridors and light spaces — which added to the cost. All these aspects are being examined as we prepare for other PPPs. The model undoubtedly works very well. We must ensure that it is cost effective as well as being attractive and speedy. The Department will address all these issues in any future PPPs that are recommended.
I believe that I have tried to address all the questions from the committee. I thank members for their interest.
I thank the Minister and her officials for a comprehensive briefing on developments in the Department of Education and Science
