SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 8 Dec 2005

Estimates for Public Services 2005.

Vote 26 — Department of Education and Science (Supplementary).

Chairman

On 29 November 2005, the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 26, Department of Education and Science, was referred to this committee for consideration by order of the Dáil. A proposed timetable for today's meeting was circulated to members. It allows for opening statements by the Minister and the Opposition spokespersons, followed by an open discussion on the Vote by way of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed. The proposed timetable has been brought to the attention of the two conveners and the Department. None have indicated any difficulty with the arrangements.

On behalf of members, I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials. Briefing materials provided by the Department are being circulated to members. I call on the Minister to make her opening statement.

Minister for Education and Science (Ms Hanafin)

The Department of Education and Science requires a Supplementary Estimate of €51 million this year and I welcome this opportunity to meet with the members of the Select Committee on Education and Science to discuss the matter.

The specific subheads involved in the Education and Science Supplementary Estimate for 2005 are as follows: subhead B.26 — occupational health strategy for teachers, €1,000; subhead B.27 — payments under the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act 2005, €510,000; subhead D.7 — payments to local authorities in respect of superannuation charges, €23.308 million; subhead E.4 — An tÚdarás Um Ard Oideachas, general current grants to universities and colleges and designated institutions of higher education, grant-in-aid, €1.29 million; subhead E.8 — Dublin Dental Hospital, dental education grant, grant-in-aid, €90,000; subhead E.15 — Grangegorman Development Agency, €1,000; and subhead G — appropriations-in-aid, deficiency, €25.8 million. That is a total of €51,000,000.

The Supplementary Estimate sought includes two token Supplementary Estimates of €1,000 each to allow expenditure on the new services involved. In the case of two grant-in-aid subheads, small Supplementary Estimates are sought to avoid any possible excess Vote. A technical supplementary sum is sought in regard to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act 2005 to reflect a legislative change. A substantial supplementary sum is sought for the increased cost of certain pensions and a supplementary is also sought to cover a possible shortfall in appropriations-in-aid due to payment timing issues. I will now outline in more detail the basis for the Supplementary Estimate in the case of each subhead involved.

Under subhead B.26, occupational health strategy for teachers, I am seeking a token supplementary sum of €1,000. This will allow expenditure on the agency to commence as soon as necessary rather than it being obliged to wait, as would be required with a new service, until mid-2006, when the 2006 allocation in the Estimates would be expected to have obtained Dáil approval. My Department has agreed with the teacher unions and school management groups that an occupational health strategy incorporating an employee assistance service for teachers should be developed. Accordingly, I have made provision of €2 million in the 2006 Estimates to begin this development.

The aims of an occupational health strategy will be to promote the health and safety of teachers at work with a focus primarily on prevention rather than cure. It is envisaged that such a service would incorporate health promotion in the workplace and counselling in such areas as relationships, bereavement, addiction, stress management and conflict resolution.

Regarding subhead B.27, payments under the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act 2005, Dáil approval is being sought to provide that €510,000 would be paid, from moneys voted by the Oireachtas, as interest deemed to have been earned on an educational fund of €12.7 million for former residents of institutions for children and their families. The fund was provided in 2002 by the religious congregations under the indemnity agreement. When the money was received from the religious congregations in December 2002, it was lodged with the NTMA. When it became clear that there was no legislative basis for the investment of the fund, the NTMA returned the money to the Department of Finance and it was lodged in a sundry account of the Paymaster General, PMG. While this money did not attract overnight interest it, with all PMG accounts with positive balances, is swept overnight by the NTMA to offset borrowing by the State. Therefore, value was obtained, indirectly, for the funds involved.

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act 2005, which was enacted by the Oireachtas in early July this year, regularised the legislative position and provided for a board to administer an education grants scheme using the fund. Section 26 of that Act provides for the financing of the board's expenditure from an investment account to be managed by the NTMA. That section also requires the Minister for Finance to transfer an "appropriate amount" to the NTMA and prescribes that amount as made up of the following: the original €12.7 million provided by the congregations; an amount of €240,000 representing interest earned while the €12.7 million was invested by the NTMA; and an amount of €510,000 representing interest deemed to have been earned while the money was in the sundry account, to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, minus expenditure incurred on an administrative scheme before the passing of the Act, which is a sum of €2.498 million. As the Act requires that the deemed interest of €510,000 be paid from moneys provided by the Oireachtas, I considered it to be appropriate and in the interests of transparency to have this sum of €510,000 voted as a Supplementary Estimate to comply with the stated legislative requirement regarding Oireachtas approval.

Subhead D.7 concerns payments to local authorities in respect of superannuation charges. I am seeking a supplementary sum of just over €23 million in respect of this service. The funding under this subhead is provided for local authorities that pay pensions and retirement gratuities to retired staff of vocational education committees and institutes of technology. A supplementary allocation of €23.308 million is being sought under this subhead to meet the expected additional costs that will arise due to the number of additional pensions and gratuities awarded being greater than provided for in the original Estimate. The level of retirements this year has been considerably higher than anticipated and, accordingly, the original provision was not sufficient to meet the costs of this service in 2005. The total number of staff in receipt of pensions rose by more than 300 to 4,010. This overall increase was greater than that which occurred in 2004, during which significant growth in retirement numbers also occurred as a result of the timing of benchmarking and other increases. The Supplementary Estimate of €23.308 million will enable my Department to meet the increased expenditure under subhead D.7 arising from a significantly higher number of pensions awarded.

Subhead E.4 concerns An tÚdarás Um Ard Oideachas, general current grants to universities and colleges and designated institutions of higher education, grant-in-aid. I am seeking a small supplementary sum of €1.29 million in respect of this subhead, which provides funding for the universities and some other third level institutions. The supplementary sum is sought to cover the cost of a pay award that may be required to be paid before the end of the year. As this is a grant-in-aid subhead, any expenditure in excess of the approved allocation would cause an excess Vote. Therefore, this additional amount is sought for prudential reasons. When the original Estimates were framed, the costs of this pay award were not factored into the sum required and hence the need for a supplementary to avoid a possible excess Vote.

Subhead E.8 concerns the Dublin Dental Hospital's dental education grant, grant-in-aid. As with the previous subhead, I am seeking a small supplementary sum of €90,000 to avoid a possible excess Vote on this grant-in-aid subhead. When the Estimates were originally framed, no amount was provided for a pay award which may be due for payment shortly in this institution and which cannot be met from within the existing allocation.

Subhead E.15 concerns the Grangegorman Development Agency. A Supplementary Estimate of €1,000 is required in 2005 in order to obtain Dáil approval to enable the establishment and work of the Grangegorman Development Agency, which is a new service, to commence in 2006. While the 2006 allocation for this new service is €1 million, approval of a token Supplementary Estimate will allow expenditure on the agency to commence as soon as necessary rather than it being obliged to wait, as would be required with a new service, until mid-2006, when the 2006 allocation in the Estimates would have been expected to obtain Dáil approval. The principal functions of the agency include, inter alia: the promotion of the Grangegorman site as a location for education, health and other facilities; co-ordination of the development or redevelopment of the site; engaging in the planning process; deciding the appropriate procurement strategy; arranging an appropriate communication strategy; and consulting with stakeholders and relevant interested third parties.

Subhead G concerns appropriations-in-aid. A supplementary sum of €25.8 million is required to cover the possibility that certain, mainly ESF, receipts will not be credited to the Department Vote before the end of the current year. The possible shortfall on ESF receipts is due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of payments from the European Commission. The original allocation for the ESF aspect of this subhead in 2005 was €61.5 million. My Department has received payments from the European Commission amounting to €38 million in 2005 to date. Further ESF claims were submitted by my Department to the ESF managing authority — the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment — in September 2005. However, as it is not possible to guarantee with certainty that payment in respect of these claims will be credited to my Department's Vote before the end of the year, it is necessary to seek a decreasing supplementary of €25.8 million under this subhead. Receipts of €2.3 million in respect of repayments of secondments may also not be received before year end and, together with the possible ESF receipt shortfall, these make up the requirement for a supplementary of €25.8 million in appropriations-in-aid. If, as is likely, the ESF receipts actually arrive, the effect will be to increase my Department's surrender to the Exchequer at year end.

I have indicated the areas for which supplementary sums are required. I hope I have explained how most of the subheads are either token or technical Supplementary Estimates. Only that relating to additional pension requirements represents a substantial requirement. The ESF receipt requirement is only to provide cover in the somewhat unlikely event that the receipts fail to arrive in time.

I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the select committee. I will be happy to respond to any questions that members may wish to pose.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome the Minister and her officials. I commend her for getting her sums fairly right this year. There are a couple of small issues to be addressed today.

I do not see anything particularly troublesome in what the Minister has brought before us. I wish to be clear about subhead B.26 on the occupational health strategy for teachers and subhead E.15 on the Grangegorman Development Agency. I presume the reason the Minister is putting in the small token amount is to ensure work can commence. My eyebrows were raised somewhat when the Minister said it would be unlikely that she could commence a new service until mid-2006, when the 2006 allocations would be expected to have obtained Dáil approval, if we did not do this today. It just seems a long time before the 2006 element can roll in. I presume that this is only the case, as in this instance, where a new service is involved. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.

Subhead B.27 concerns payments under the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act 2005. For purposes of clarity, does this interest go back into the fund? I am unclear as to whether it does so. Does it go back to the religious institutions? I wish to be clear on what actually happens to that interest. I was concerned that if it was interest, an argument may be made that these institutions would only be obliged to put in what they put in originally and that they should get the interest back. From the Minister's body language, however, I think that is not the case. I wish to clarify the position. Those are the specific questions I wish to pose on the matters before us.

Last year, there was a roll-over of €50 million on the school building fund. Although I know that it is an envelope and that there are links between one year and the next, how much of the budget that was intended to be spent this year under the school building programme has been spent and how much remains to be spent? Does the Minister expect that there will be a roll-over this year and, if so, will it be under the limit of the amount she can actually roll over? In other words, does it mean that she will not be handing back money to the Department of Finance as regards the school building programme?

I know the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse concerns different legislation but it is related. The closing date for applications made under the Residential Institutions Redress Act is next week and I wish to make two points in this regard. First, I understand that no advertising designed to advise people that they can apply has occurred since January 2003. Is that accurate? I know the board is a step removed from the Minister but the information should be conveyed to anyone who needs it that the closing date is imminent.

Will the Minister re-examine the case of institutions that have been excluded? Many of us have raised the Morning Star Mother and Baby Home, in particular, in addition to the Bethany Home, which have not been included because there was no record of inspection. Under section 4 of the Act, however, I would argue that it is only a function of inspection that is required and it is not necessary to have evidence that actual inspection took place. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of making a further order adding institutions. I realise that I am going off on a tangent but this is the last opportunity we will have to raise this issue.

There are other issues that do not strictly come under the Supplementary Estimate but that are of concern in the context of what is being allocated for next year and I wish to outline a number of them. One of these issues relates to the task force on student behaviour for which only €2 million has been allocated. In view of the fact that we will give that report shortly, is there any way of making provision if more money is required for implementing the recommendations of that task force?

The National Educational Welfare Board, which was a recent subject of debate at the committee, received an extra allocation of less than €1 million. It would require at least five or six times that amount to roll out its programme as planned. All members were of the view that the board should be given the funding it needs because of the statistics on truancy, with, for example, over 80,000 children missing more than 20 days of school.

The loss of resource teachers for disadvantaged schools is a major issue in a small number of such schools. I ask the Minister to examine that matter.

The TUI has estimated that €48 million is required for implementation of the McIver report on further education. That estimate was agreed by the Department as necessary to implement the report. I am not suggesting that all of that money should be invested next year but some of it certainly should be made available. That sector feels it is being let down. We all welcome what was announced for higher education but this is a sector which seems to be the Cinderella at present. I apologise for going off on a tangent but this was the opportunity presented to raise these issues.

Ms Enright

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials. I have a few brief comments. The first relates to subhead D.7, which involves a Supplementary Estimate of €23 million for retiring teachers. Given that Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the €2 million allocated next year to help implement the student behaviour task force report, one must ask why so many more teachers than anticipated retired, thereby necessitating the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate. I cannot help wondering whether there is a link. From speaking to teachers and members of the TUI who were outside the Dáil yesterday, the behaviour issue certainly seems to be having a negative impact, both on the teachers and on life in the schools. One cannot help but wonder if there is a correlation between the extra numbers retiring and that issue. If so, it would make much more sense to inject greater investment into the student behaviour issue because it relates to the retention of teachers.

Under the subhead relating to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, I wish to raise the issue of Ms Marie Therese O'Loughlin and the Morning Star institution. I appreciate that the Minister has spoken to Ms O'Loughlin. Although that was important, a mechanism must be found, whether through the Minister or through the Department of Health and Children, to facilitate this woman. I ask the Minister to have discussions with the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children on the matter to see if there is any way that Ms O'Loughlin can be facilitated. If Ms O'Loughlin stays outside the Houses, we will have to find a resolution and it would be better if we could do so sooner rather than later. She and some of her representatives have raised, probably with everyone present, questions on other legislation that should be examined. Perhaps this could be done by the Minister with the Department of Health and Children because the latter may have a role which the Minister for Education and Science does not seem to have in view of the fact that the Morning Star Mother and Baby Home was not an educational institution.

On the Supplementary Estimate in general, I am disappointed that a supplementary sum was not brought before us in respect of the National Educational Psychological Service. The Minister will be aware that fewer people were able to avail of assessments this year and I am seriously concerned, due to the fact that it received only €2,000, which is practically nothing, for next year, that there will be a significant fall in the number of assessments carried out. The service has a new weighted system but I believe that children must be assessed to ensure they get whatever service they require. If they are not assessed, we have no way of knowing whether the correct service is being given to them within the school system. I ask the Minister to consider the operation of the National Educational Psychological Service and the amount of funding being given to it. If we do not invest in it and in children now, it will be far more expensive if they do not get the service they need. There are many who are not getting what they need under the weighed system and many getting probably the wrong type of service because they have not been assessed.

As the Minister will be aware, the TUI protested yesterday about the lack of implementation of the McIver report. Everybody in this sector is asking whey they are being ignored and why is nothing being done. It is a waste of everybody's time to order a report, which was delivered two or three years ago, and take no action on it. There were matters in the McIver report that many of the people to whom I refer would have found difficult to accept. However, they are willing to do so and they want to see the entire report implemented. Nothing has been done. We are not even at stage one. We have not made progress on any part of the report. I am sure the Minister will tell me that she has given money to several further education colleges. No one is denying that. There have been improvements in buildings in some places but it is not only the buildings but the entire operation of the further education sector that needs to be addressed. It has not been addressed and I cannot understand why. It is the most proactive sector. It is active throughout the country. It operates in virtually every county. It takes in far greater numbers of people for adult education than any other sector and it certainly takes in far larger numbers of people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Minister needs to reconsider the approach to the further education sector.

Mr. Gogarty

As we are discussing Supplementary Estimates, I hope it will not come to a vote. If it does, however, I will be supporting it because the explanation given by the Minister on what is needed here is clear.

I wish to make a couple of observations. It is obvious that, on subhead B.27, the funding for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the money is going back in. Will the money going in as interest be paid out to some of those who have already received payments as an additional interest payment or will it merely go into the fund for future applicants up until the deadline? In that context, I have noted a number of advertisements laying out the deadline but, given the tardy nature of Irish people in general, I hope that there will be an intensive burst of radio advertising, in particular, over the next short period to catch any stragglers.

I reiterate what my two colleagues have stated in respect of the Morning Star Mother and Baby Home and other homes. These might not come within the Department of Education and Science's remit per se but some action is needed in this area.

I obviously support subhead B.26, the occupational health strategy. Deputy Timmins, in introducing the Good Samaritan Bill yesterday, mentioned the issue of defibrillators but I referred to that of teachers, who obviously have their own health concerns. One of the reasons teachers will not treat students who are ill is that they fear litigation. It is not directly related to this but I want to make the observation. Some students are now being treated with cotton swabs and a little water because teachers are afraid to apply plasters. As I stated in the Dáil yesterday, a person who performs a Heimlich manoeuvre and saves a child from choking to death can be sued for breaking the child's ribs or teeth. Has the Minister any observations, from the educational side, that would allow staff who are trained in first aid to actively assist students without fear of litigation? This is similar to the matter at which Deputy Timmins was looking. The Department should include this in any submissions being sent to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell.

I welcome the funding for the Grangegorman Development Agency. I also welcome the €2 million for the discipline issue but it does not nearly match what people are seeking. At the end of the year, I suppose €2 million is sufficient.

I support the McIver recommendations. I concur with the views of my colleagues on the €48 million, to which the Department agreed. I recently attended a press conference organised by the TUI where one observer mentioned that the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, gave a presentation to a number of students at a further education graduation ceremony during which she mentioned the issue of second chance education. The TUI has pointed out that it is not just about second chance education. In some cases, it is the only education people from disadvantaged areas will obtain and they are provided with a good education. Will the Minister undertake a proper review of the further education sector? It is not good enough that its funding is provided from the second level budget. While the pupil-teacher ratio is lower, a separate fund should be in place for the further education sector in order that it can progress and the McIver recommendations can be implemented.

I am unhappy about the failure to reintroduce sports grants, the lack of physical education, the failure to fund the National Educational Psychological Service properly, and the decision of vocational education committees to pass on pay increases. Senior citizens must pay more for adult education because the VEC has passed on the teacher pay rises. I asked the Government Chief Whip to seek further funds from the Minister. Can funding be given to the VECs in order that the cost of adult education does not become prohibitive? The weightings used for senior citizens have changed and the age limit has increased. The threshold for discounted adult education has increased and it is costing senior citizens in two ways. They must be older and they must pay rises that have been passed on to them.

A fourth level of education is welcome but it would be funny if it was not so serious but not a cent was allocated for special primary education projects. That is a mistake for which we will pay in the long term. While the Department needs to be creative regarding third level, investment is needed at every level and not only in capital projects.

Ms Hoctor

I welcome the Minister and her officials. I commend her on her negotiations with the teacher unions, particularly the manner in which she has worked with the unions and school management groups since her appointment last year. I welcome, in particular, the occupational health strategy. When the committee commenced its business following the 2002 general election, we examined the work programme under the former chairman, Deputy Killeen. The only reference to the word "teacher" in the programme was in pupil-teacher ratio. I said at the time that we had to look after the foot soldiers in the classroom and I am pleased the Minister has made great strides in this regard.

The Supplementary Estimate provides €2 million to develop the occupational health service for teachers who operate in loco parentis throughout the day in schools. The strategy contains an impressive agenda, which addresses counselling and other services. Teachers find the workplace increasingly stressful and, for example, anti-social behaviour sometimes manifests itself in the classroom. That must be dealt with in an effective and professional way. The Minister has made positive steps in this direction and the strategy will commence next year. I am delighted teachers will be looked after in this regard, which is important.

Mr. Crowe

I also welcome the Minister and her officials. Yesterday's budget was substantial and a sum of €1.2 billion was allocated to third level infrastructure for the next five years. Will the amount be divided equally over the five years? What colleges will benefit? What projects are planned? The third level sector will spend as much money as it is allocated. Has the Minster conducted a value for money analysis on how and where the money should be best spent? Will public private partnerships be undertaken or will the State provide all the funding?

I refer to access to third level. The Higher Education Authority report in March highlighted continuing significant disparities in access for lower income groups and people from disadvantaged areas, particularly in Dublin. Why has additional funding not been provided to address this issue? Only €1 million was spent on third level scholarships while only €14 million was allocated to alleviate disadvantage. Spending increases substantially in the education system per capita as one graduates from first level to second level and third level, in which the State makes its greatest investment. However, if one is from a disadvantaged area or a low income home, the opportunities to make to it third level are seriously constrained.

In Tallaght, 41% of those aged over 15 left the education system at 15 or before it while the national average is 35%. The proportion of the Tallaght population in full-time education after the age of 20 is 6.8% while the national average is 14.7%. In addition, 11.3% of men and 10.3% of women have a third level education while the national averages are 19.5% and 19.9%, respectively. A number of areas, particularly high income areas in Dublin, are doing extremely well. If one looks around the country, it is the usual suspects with many of the students coming from a legal or farming background. However, the budget was not geared to alleviate disadvantage, although the Minister for Finance stated it was geared towards equality and opportunity. Is the Minister for Education and Science concerned that her Estimate is not aimed at those the system has clearly failed?

The allocation for consultancy services has increased by 6% to €400,000. It is not a large sum but on what is it being spent? Previous speakers referred to the McIver report while previous Ministers ignored the Skilbeck and other third level reform reports on inequality and disadvantage. The perception among teaching professionals is that consultants are hired to help the Minister avoid taking action on recommendations. Will the Minister comment on that? Many reports commissioned by the Department have not been acted on. Funding for special needs assistants has increased by 10% to €158 million at primary level and has reduced by 35% to €80 million at second level.

Ms Hanafin

There is additional information at the end.

Mr. Crowe

I can see that and it will increase by 36%. Subhead C6, other grants and services at primary level, has been increased by 16% to €79 million. Will the Minister explain where the money is being invested?

The INTO pre-budget submission called for the equality in the per capita funding of both primary and second level and a new national system of funding early education for children with intellectual disabilities, as promised in the programme for Government. Is this addressed in the Supplementary Estimate? With regard to tackling educational disadvantage, the INTO also called for a hot meals service in all disadvantaged schools as well as the extension of the Breaking the Cycle and Early Start programmes to all schools designated disadvantaged. The Minister has increased spending on educational disadvantage by €36 million to €636 million, a 6% increase, out of a budget of €7.5 billion. This means that spending in this area is relatively small in the context of overall education spending. To put this in context, 24% of adults have literacy problems, the drop-out rate at second level is 20% and a tiny proportion of children from low income homes attend third level. The budget should be used to tackle disadvantage.

I refer to capital works. The allocation for national schools building projects is unchanged at €240 million. Again, I realise it is a roll-out budget. The INTO recommended that €350 million be spent in 2006 with immediate commencement of refurbishment works in all schools with substandard facilities. It was referring to the amount of money provided.

On 22 November the Minister announced new school projects being built by PPPs. Last year the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted major flaws in how the Department calculated the figures for PPPs. The Department argued that using PPPs would result in a saving of 5%, but it involved an increase of 13%. What assurance do we have that this will not happen again? Are we wasting money in going down the PPP route?

I have referred to the level of disadvantage in my area. The Taoiseach launched the Tallaght west childhood development initiative's ten year strategy to address disadvantage, particularly educational disadvantage. Has money been provided in the budget for this plan? Some €2 million has been provided to address bullying. It is increasingly recognised that schools have difficulties at all levels, particularly one-teacher schools. Does the budget make any proposals to alleviate the problem?

On secondary school class sizes, 20% of classes have more than 30 pupils, while 31% have more than 25. Is any solution proposed in this regard? I note that the budget makes provision for 400 new primary schoolteachers.

Other speakers referred to Marie Therese O'Loughlin. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response. I believe the State had a responsibility under the Children Act 1908. The lack of an oversight role or information in that regard raises more questions. I have raised this matter previously and the woman in question has now spent more than 70 days on protest. We must be able to do something. We should provide a mediator to try to resolve the matter. I do not believe it is about money. She wants her rights upheld. She was seriously scarred in more ways than one in an institution. The matter can be resolved.

I note that an increase of 3% has been given to the youth sector. While that sector received an increase of 16% last year, this year it is standing still. Why has it been ignored during the years?

Ms Hanafin

We could be here until tomorrow if I am to answer all the questions about all the elements contained in the Estimates generally, as opposed to what we were meant to be discussing today. I will start with the issues on the agenda for discussion today.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked about the Grangegorman site and school discipline. As it is a new service and a new subhead, we will not be able to use moneys from elsewhere. We have done this to get it started before the final Estimate is passed by the House.

To answer some of the technical questions, the interest goes back into the fund. I have now established the Education Finance Board, chaired by Mr. Dick Langford. It contains four former residents of residential institutions and four people from the education sector broadly, including adult literacy, VEC etc. It is a substantial amount of money and I hope it will be of some benefit to the people concerned and their families.

While I will come back to address the other issues, on the technical question of the capital involved, every penny in the school building fund will be spent this year. We will be paying bills right up to the end of the year. There will be no carryover into next year.

The Residential Institutions Redress Board has placed a considerable number of advertisements recently to ensure people know the closing date is approaching quickly. Last week it placed advertisements in newspapers in the United Kingdom. It is not my intention to add other institutions as we believe we have exhausted all those which would qualify, nor is it the intention to extend the date. However, the message has been received as the number of applications has increased substantially each week.

Ms O’Sullivan

Does the Minister accept that just because certain institutions were not inspected it does not mean there was not an inspection function? That could offer the means by which the case of Marie Therese O'Loughlin could be solved.

Ms Hanafin

In the case of Marie Therese O'Loughlin, the lady outside is very distressed, which I can understand as she suffered some horrific burns in a private institution. The problem is that it was a private institution at the time and the State did not have a role in either placing people in or inspecting such facilities. I have explained to her that it is not technically possible under the legislation to add the institution in question to the list. I understand she was subsequently a resident of another institution in respect of which she is entitled to go to the board. However, that is not the case for the first one. While she has accepted what I said, obviously she is quite distressed about it but I am not in a position under the legislation to add it to the list as it is a private home which does not qualify under the scheme. I hope she has been able to get some redress from the board in respect of the other institution she attended.

I will deal with the specific questions before coming back to the more general ones.

Mr. Crowe

Is the Minister saying the woman will continue on hunger strike? Will any attempt be made to try to resolve the matter?

Ms Hanafin

I understand she is not on hunger strike. She is obviously staying outside.

Mr. Crowe

I understand she is not on solid food.

Ms Hanafin

I have asked her not to and I know others have also. She also met officials from the Department who explained the situation to her. It was just not possible to do it. It is not that anybody is being awkward or difficult. That private baby home was not covered. It was not inspected and the State had no role in it. It was a private home. There were and still are hundreds of private institutions in which the State would have had no role. The scheme was designed to ensure that where the State had a role in placing or inspecting, some responsibility would be taken.

Ms Enright

Can we not find some means to address the matter? She was three and a half years old when she was placed in that institution. The State certainly had a responsibility to her as a child to ensure she was adequately cared for, which did not happen. While it may not be possible to deal with the matter through the redress board, there must be some State mechanism to address the fact that she was not cared for properly, regardless of whether it was a private institution. We failed in our responsibility to her. This must be addressed in some way. It is not about money for her. I understand she later attended Goldenbridge and can go to the board in respect of the time she spent there but that is irrelevant as she suffered some serious abuse in the first institution. She must have a mechanism, although I do not know what it should be. I understand her friend has written to the Minister pointing out legislation that could be used. That avenue needs to be explored.

Ms Hanafin

The question she asked was about inclusion for redress, which is not possible, as we have explained to her. It is very distressing on wet and cold days to see a woman sitting on the footpath outside this building. I can understand why she is distressed, but her problems cannot be solved in the manner she is suggesting. I do not think it is appropriate to continue to speak about an individual case.

Ms O’Sullivan

Many of the other institutions included in the scheme were private. The difference is they received some State funding, but the institution in this instance did not. I would not have thought that would be an obstacle.

Chairman

To be fair, the Minister has clarified her position on the matter. Every member of the committee has tried in various ways to discuss the matter with Ms Marie Therese O'Loughlin to try to find a solution. The Minister has outlined the definitive position of the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Gogarty

May I ask a general question on the matter?

Chairman

The Minister will be allowed to conclude her points before any supplementary questions are asked.

Ms Hanafin

Reference was made to the task force on classroom behaviour and the consultants' reports. I established an in-house group of educationists, as opposed to consultants, to examine the issue of behaviour in schools. The group was concerned with good practice, as well as the more problematic areas. It would be wrong of the union representatives or anyone else, including me, to give the impression that there was mayhem in our schools. The issue of discipline has to be faced by some teachers and schools. It is not fair to suggest every teacher in every school is experiencing a breakdown in discipline. Certain behavioural issues can be addressed by putting in place an all-school policy, good support systems, high levels of teamwork and best practice. As Dr. Maeve Martin indicated in her interim report, student councils can be established to assist in this regard.

Many of the steps which can be taken to facilitate best practice in schools do not cost any money. I have referred to some of the recommendations highlighted in the interim report. It is obvious that the final report will suggest ways of disseminating ideas of best practice, superb examples of which can be found throughout the country. Many good principals have put in place appropriate mechanisms, procedures, policies and systems. The solution to disciplinary problems in our schools does not always involve spending millions of euro. While I have not yet received the task force's final report, it is obvious that I will need to ensure I have some money to commence implementation of its recommendations. I have allocated a sum of €2 million for next year, under a new heading, to allow us to start that work. Individual classroom teachers can do a great deal to ensure behavioural problems are tackled in a positive school environment. Those involved in the education sector will accept that it does not have to involve providing extra money and additional teachers. I look forward to receiving the final report of the task force which has done a great deal of work. Dr. Martin has made a significant commitment to this process. The task force has taken oral and written submissions from education interests across the board, including practitioners, unions, parents and all the education partners. Dr. Martin is finalising the report which I genuinely look forward to reading.

It is worth noting that the number of psychologists employed by the National Educational Psychological Service which is doing some tremendous work has trebled to 123. The Public Appointments Service recently established new recruitment panels for the service. Vacancies will be filled on a regional basis, with priority being given to those regions in which there are gaps in the service. It is obvious that any further increase in numbers will have to be considered in an overall context. The Government intends to fill the gaps in the regions as such needs are identified. If a school cannot directly avail of the services of the National Educational Psychological Service, it can participate in a purchase fund system to meet its students' needs.

Given that every school is benefiting from an allocation of resource teachers, there should be no need for the same number of individual psychological assessments. A significant tranche of children will automatically avail of the psychological service when their teachers identify that they need it. They will not need to be the subject of psychological reports to get extra attention in school. It is natural that the children with the most serious needs will be given priority from now on. The workload will be shared in a manner that will be quite different from the National Educational Psychological Service's approach to date. When a teacher identifies that a child needs a psychological assessment, he or she will be able to contact the resource teacher, at least one of whom is to be found in every school.

Some 5,000 primary school teachers — one in every five such teachers — are dealing with children with special needs and learning difficulties. Over 6,000 special needs assistants are also employed to assist such children. I firmly believe the needs of such children are being met by the automatic response available in primary schools. It is obvious that additional services are available to the children who need it most. The Department of Education and Science has asked those schools which have indicated that they have particular difficulties to indicate where such problems are found. It should be noted that some of the schools which claim they need additional services have pupil-teacher ratios of 11:1 or 15:1 and other extra services. The problems experienced by such schools should be considered in the context of the overall picture. I refer, for example, to the teams working in such schools.

Ms Enright

If the number of National Educational Psychological Service staff has trebled, why are fewer assessments taking place? I refer to the figures up to this year, before the weighted system came into operation. The Minister has claimed that an automatic response is available, but that was not the case at the time to which I refer. If the service has three times more staff, why are fewer children being assessed? The Minister referred to the possibility of private assessments which sounds lovely, but the reality is that just two children in each school, on average, will benefit from such assessments. I am aware of schools in which there are up to 15 children waiting for assessments. If just two children are being assessed each year, some children will have completed a significant portion of their school lives by the time they are assessed. The provision of private assessment is not an adequate solution. I disagree with the Minister's comments about automatic response, which is fine in one sense, because children need to be assessed in order that they can receive the targeted help they need. The Minister has said some form of service is available in every school, but that may not be sufficient to meet the needs of an individual child. The Minister is placing all children in the same category by saying it is fine as long as some form of response is available. I am more concerned with ensuring an appropriate response is available to meet the individual needs of each child.

Ms Hanafin

It is not the case that every child needs to be the subject of a psychological assessment.

Ms Enright

Many children need such an assessment.

Ms Hanafin

No. It cannot be argued that the number of children in need of such an assessment will be same as it was in the past. It has been decided that children do not have to be assessed to qualify for extra help from resource teachers, thereby reducing substantially the number of assessments required. That children can be given the services they require if a direct service is not available at the school means they should not lose out. The number of assessments has not decreased. It should be borne in mind that the National Educational Psychological Service provides a good service in cases of crises or tragedies. A team from the service was available to the schools in Navan, County Meath, after the bus crash earlier this year. The service also works with teachers to ensure they are familiar with the appropriate responses in certain circumstances. Given that there are 4,000 schools, it is natural that we cannot place a National Educational Psychological Service psychologist in every school. The staff of the service do a great deal of work other than making assessments; they provide services for schools in order that they can respond to the needs of their pupils. I genuinely believe the service is making a real difference. If I am in a position to allocate more resources to it, I will be happy to do so because I accept it offers a very good service.

I sanctioned 30,188 places in the further education sector this year. The number of places has increased every year since 1997, when 18,700 places were sanctioned. Some good work is done in the further education sector which is meeting a specific need. It is important to note that the Government has ensured students in the sector do not have to pay tuition fees and that those on post-leaving certificate courses are paid maintenance grants. Substantial progress has been made. Additional funding, for example, in the form of non-paid grants, is given to institutions to help them do their work. The McIver report recommends expenditure of €48 million. I placed an emphasis last year on the provision of more places. I took a deliberate decision in this regard and allocated 100 extra posts to the sector, some of which are built into the Estimate for this year. It is not possible to prioritise reducing class sizes, discipline and third and fourth level education all at once. The commitment is clear as demonstrated by the action taken on places, the number of which has increased every year.

Deputies Gogarty and Crowe asked why primary level did not feature in the Budget Statement yesterday. The reason was it had featured in the Estimates.

Mr. Gogarty

What about projects?

Ms Hanafin

The specific projects are the reduction in class sizes; the reduction in the teacher appointment schedule this year and next; the increase in the primary capitation grant of €12 per head and €6 per head for caretaker-clerical services; the specific targeting of an additional 25% in funding for school book grants; and funding of €3 million for the introduction of standardised testing in primary schools to ensure we know what children's needs are and to guarantee quality. More specifically, funding for educational disadvantage, an issue raised by several Deputies, has increased considerably and been targeted again for next year, specifically under the new DEIS programme to tackle educational disadvantage which will receive funding of approximately €40 million and result in the creation of approximately 300 additional posts. The programme will target a series of areas, ranging from early childhood education through to class sizes and school meals, an issue raised by Deputy Crowe.

In addition, the budget included an extra sum of €2 million in funding under the social welfare budget for the provision of school meals. We will see school meal services roll out during the next school term. It is targeted money which will support teachers and principals in the schools in question. The Department will also work with families on literacy and home-school liaison programmes. We believe we can make a real difference by taking a family-community-school approach.

Ms O’Sullivan

Will the funding of €40 million be spent and the 300 additional teachers recruited in the next two years?

Ms Hanafin

The funding has been made available for the period of the plan which will commence from next term.

Ms O’Sullivan

Will the €40 million be spent on the programme next year?

Ms Hanafin

No, but funding to tackle educational disadvantage will increase overall next year by €36 million. The DEIS programme is included in this regard.

On early education, 50,000 extra places for early care in education were announced yesterday. While there will be a degree of flexibility within this figure, we are targeting early educational disadvantage and special needs in the first instance. We will expand provision for young children, particularly those with special needs.

The issue of second level class sizes was raised. The average pupil-teacher ratio at second level is less than 14:1. While an English or other class may be particularly large, the school's physics class may have only eight pupils or its chemistry class just nine. One must balance the figures over the range of school subjects. For this reason, class sizes at second level will not be a focus of the Department which will concentrate on class sizes at primary level.

On public-private partnerships, the NDFA has been given responsibility for the first bundle of schools under the second level programme I announced recently. The NDFA will be responsible for implementing the programme which will involve putting projects out to tender and dealing with project specifics from that point onwards. I will announce specific details of the third level programme, including the breakdown of expenditure, in the next few days.

It is significant that expenditure in the youth sector has increased by 19% in the past two years. Funding for Youthreach increased by 8% this year, while funding for VTOS centres increased by 19%. In addition, funding for non-pay Youthreach costs has been increased for the first time since around 1988. These increases in direct funding have been welcomed.

I was asked what items were covered by subhead C.6. This category covers a large number of miscellaneous items, including, for example, aid for school books, standardised testing, payments to management bodies, special education equipment and activities, language tuition for non-nationals and a substance abuse prevention programme. Clearly, it is a diverse heading.

On adult literacy, the national development plan set a target of reaching 113,000 clients through the adult literacy programme and this target will be met. All concerned are deeply satisfied with the significant improvements made. Funding for adult literacy has increased from €1 million in 1997 to €22 million this year. It is important that people take the initiative and attend adult literacy classes. It quickly clicks that a constituent is not literate when he or she approaches a Deputy at a clinic, perhaps to ask about a medical card. It is gratifying to be able to persuade such persons to take the next step. I always take great satisfaction from a case involving a man who came to my clinic about a medical card and ended up with an individual tutor in the Sallynoggin literacy service. He will benefit greatly from taking that step and I took great pleasure from persuading him to take it. Tremendous work is being done in the area of literacy and it is worth noting that the NDP target will be met.

Mr. Gogarty

My comments on the Estimates related to issues I would like to have seen included in the Estimates. My only comment on the budget related to a major project, namely, the development of a fourth PhD tier of education and the provision of additional funding for the redevelopment of the third level sector. In terms of the message being sent, we needed the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, to announce yesterday a major project initiative on access to education, with a view to ensuring children have proper literacy skills when they move from primary to secondary school and do not drop out of the system and to give the many children who do not have a choice to attend third level an option to do so, notwithstanding cultural issues.

With regard to cultural issues and the tendency of certain students from disadvantaged backgrounds to gravitate towards PLCs, the Minister referred to investment being made in the further education sector. Will this sector ever be properly restructured? By this I mean removing from FÁS which should not be involved in further education in the first instance some training elements and creating a proper practically based vocational sector which would complement the third level sector. The current approach is piecemeal. It is possible, for example, to use some of the Department's funding for FÁS to start to deliver on the McIver report. What are the Minister's views on whether the roles played by FÁS and the Department are in conflict? Is there potential for amalgamation?

On class sizes, while funding has increased everywhere else, it does not appear as if the target set in An Agreed Programme for Government will be reached before the next general election.

On the issue of mother and baby homes, without referring to individuals, who was responsible for placing infants and young children in private care? Were parents responsible or was it the State or a benefactor? Given that children were placed in these private institutions, what is the duty of care of the State? Should we wait until an individual takes a legal action against it? Is it acceptable that one Department has apparently washed its hands of the matter because the claimants do not meet the strict criteria set down? Rather than being proactive in trying to come to some form of arrangement to suit the individuals who were abused in private institutions and who need to be given recognition and compensation in that regard, can the State not take a proactive role in ensuring that whoever was responsible, be it the State, an institution or individual benefactors, will be pursued for the rightful cost of damages?

Ms Hanafin

The State cannot take responsibility for private institutions.

Mr. Gogarty

It is indirectly responsible for the abuse that took place.

Ms Hanafin

A private institution is similar to a private home and the State has no responsibility for what happens in those circumstances.

Mr. Gogarty

It should ensure that children are all right.

Ms Hanafin

It is just not possible, for all the reasons outlined, to include any other homes that have been brought to our attention. We have investigated fully what would have been the role of the State at the time. Just before the summer recess, we brought a substantial list of the homes that had been fully investigated and found to comply with the rules and regulations as set out for the redress board.

Mr. Gogarty

Is there no duty of care for a minor at all in a private institution?

Ms Hanafin

Unfortunately, it is not possible to add any further names to the list.

To return to class sizes at primary level, the priorities in recent years were special needs and the disadvantaged, followed by class sizes. I make no apology for the fact that we prioritised children with special needs. As a result, over 4,000 extra teachers have been employed in schools in recent years. We also prioritised lower class sizes in disadvantaged areas. We are now making substantial moves on the reduction in class sizes in the other mainstream schools. During the term of the Government, we have focused on three different targets and I make no apology for taking this direction.

On the question of further education and training, there is constant and much greater co-operation now between FÁS and the Department of Education and Science to ensure that the needs relating to training and education at all levels are being met. I envisage that this will continue and strengthen.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and her officials for attending.