SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Tuesday, 20 Mar 2007

Output Statement for the Department of Education and Science.

Chairman

On 22 February 2007, the Dáil ordered that the Estimates for the following Vote be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 26 - Education and Science (Revised). A proposed timetable for today's meeting was circulated to members. It allows for opening statements by the Minister and the Opposition spokespersons and an open discussion on the Vote, by way of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the members of the Select Committee on Education and Science, I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials. Briefing material provided by the Department has been circulated to members, in line with the expanded budgetary process. The Department's 2007 annual output statement has also been provided and circulated to members.

Minister for Education and Science (Ms Hanafin)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Education and Science Estimates for 2007. I normally begin by outlining any changes in how the Revised Book of Estimates is presented. In recent years we have made a number of changes to consolidate various subheads and, generally, to enhance the presentation and readability of the Estimates. Last year, a number of new subheads were put in place to cater for new services. For 2007, we have made a number of further changes to enhance presentation. While all of these are referred to in the footnotes to the published Estimates, it is worth drawing the attention of the committee to a number of these.

In subhead C4, we have brought together funding for the non-teaching staff in primary schools that previously appeared under three different subheads. We have similarly consolidated some non-teaching staff on the second level side in subhead D3. A further major consolidation involves bringing the funding for the university and institute of technology sector together under subhead E.4, following the designation of the institutes under the Higher Education Authority. Subhead C7 provides funding for the centres for young offenders. As responsibility for these centres is transferring to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Health Service Executive from 1 March 2007, this subhead only contains funding for the period until that date. This Department will, however, continue to fund teaching services in the centres.

I will refer to the introduction of the annual output statement, a copy of which each member has received. The background to the production of output statements lies in the series of significant reforms of the Estimates and budget process announced by the Minister for Finance in budget 2006. The presentation of these statements will improve accountability and provide clearer evidence of the results of public spending. My Department's statement is designed to illustrate the key outputs that will be delivered in 2007 as a result of the investment provided in the Estimates. When considering the outputs in my Department's statement it is important to recognise that the ultimate goal in education is to improve outcomes. So, while the statement makes clear the annual outputs from investment in education, other mechanisms, such as the PISA international studies, provide valuable information on educational outcomes.

The current output statement concerns itself with the use of funding in 2007, with the intention of reporting to this committee in 2008 on the progress made. This is the first year of the output statements and it is anticipated that the statements will improve over time and following engagement with committee members and others. My Department will be happy to consider any suggestions regarding possible improvements.

The year 2007 will be another record year for increased investment in education, with an increase of 9% on last year's outturn. A sum of €8.6 billion is being provided to support improvements across the education sector. This compares with €2.9 billion in 1997 and €5.4 billion in 2002. The sheer scale of the increased investment in education provided in recent years is testament to how central education is to the Government's social and economic agenda.

The results of the investment are clear: thousands of extra teachers working in better school buildings throughout the country; a virtual trebling of day-to-day funding for primary schools; dramatically improved supports for children with special needs and those from disadvantaged areas; significant increases in the number of young people going to college; and the creation of a new tier of fourth level education that will be vital to supporting future economic growth.

The focus of additional spending in 2007 is on making even further improvements in each of these areas, starting with investment in schools, to which programme A of the output statement refers. Teachers are a school's most valuable resource. The Government has shown an unprecedented commitment to increasing the number of teachers and providing better support for them to enable them to do their best for our children. There are now 10,000 more teachers than in 1997. The size of the average primary class has been reduced to 24. Children with special needs and those from disadvantaged areas are getting more support than ever before. Indeed, with all of the resource and other support teachers now working in our schools there is one teacher for every 17 primary school children and for every 13 post-primary children.

Very significant improvements have been made and we are determined to go even further. The Estimates provide for a further 800 extra primary teachers next September including the Government commitment to reduce class sizes. As well as providing additional teachers, I am conscious of the need to ensure an environment in all schools that is conducive to learning. Last year, we provided €2 million towards implementation of the recommendations of the task force on student behaviour. For 2007, we have increased this provision significantly to €8 million. This is in addition to the resources already devoted to guidance counselling, home-school-community liaison and other measures that have a positive effect on student behaviour.

I am also determined to improve the funding allocated to schools to meet their day-to-day running costs. At both primary and second level, the Estimates provide for increases in capitation funding that are way beyond the rate of inflation. At primary level, the basic rate of capitation has been increased by €18 per pupil since January, 50% higher than the increase given last year. This means that every primary school is receiving €163.58 per pupil to cover expenses such as heating, lighting and insurance compared with €57 per pupil in 1997. The ancillary services grant has also been increased by €6.50 to €145.50 per pupil giving primary schools more money to cover the cost of secretaries and caretakers. Taken together these increases mean that primary schools eligible for the full ancillary services grant are receiving €24.50 per pupil this year to cover their day-to-day running costs. For a primary school with 300 pupils, this amounts to €93,000 or approximately €7,400 more than last year.

At second level, capitation has also been increased by €18 to €316 per student and the support services grant has risen by €5 to €112. In addition, voluntary schools are receiving an extra €25 per student to continue the process towards equalisation of funding measures for that sector. This compares with a €10 increase in the equalisation grant last year. With these increases, a typical 500 student voluntary school will receive €293,000 in 2007 to meet its day-to-day costs, outside of teacher pay which is also covered by the Department of Education and Science. These capitation allocations and all of the other funding measures to support schools and the various related outputs are detailed in pages 7 to 11 of the output statement.

I will now deal with special education, an area in which investment has increased dramatically in recent years as a result of the Government's determination to reverse the historical neglect of children with special needs. As the special education sub-programme of programme A in the output statement shows, during 2007 there will be almost 17,000 staff dealing solely with children with special needs in our mainstream and special schools. This is made up of 8,400 teachers and more than 8,550 special needs assistants. Members will be aware that only a few years ago the number of special needs staff was just a fraction of this. More than €820 million will be spent on special education in 2007. The vast majority of this expenditure is accounted for in programme A.

Tackling disadvantage is another major priority for the Government. Since I launched the DEIS action plan, extra teachers have been provided to reduce class sizes, more children have gained access to intensive programmes for literacy at an early stage, the school meals programme has been extended and extra guidance counselling hours have been allocated to second level schools. Some 90,000 children at primary level and 60,000 at post-primary level are benefitting from the new schools support programme under DEIS. With a number of non-DEIS schools continuing to have access to previous schemes, more than 200,000 children are benefiting from the home-school-community liaison scheme. This year overall expenditure on measures to tackle disadvantage at all levels will amount to approximately €730 million, an increase of €95 million or 15% on the 2006 Estimates allocation. Approximately €500 million of this is accounted for in programme A of the output statement with the remainder relating to expenditure at third level and in the youth sector. As well as providing for the full-year cost of initiatives, such as the 22% increase in the top-up grant for third level students in the current academic year, this increased investment will also allow further roll-out of the DEIS plan.

I will now deal with investment in higher education which is benefiting from record increases again this year. Members will be aware that support for reform and development at third level and the creation of world class excellence at fourth level are now central Government priorities. In the recent past, new legislation has been enacted to create a unified strategic framework for the sector. The new multi-annual strategic innovation fund for higher education has been launched and the multibillion euro strategy for science, technology and innovation has been published. The extra €117 million in day-to-day spending being provided in 2007 for institutes and universities will allow us to maintain and accelerate this momentum of progress. This represents an increase of 9% on the 2006 Estimates provision. It includes funding for the further expansion of places in medical education, including the commencement of graduate entry programmes and an extra €45 million under the strategic innovation fund. It provides for funding for the further expansion of places in medical education, including the commencement of graduate entry programmes and an extra €45 million under the strategic innovation fund. This year will also see further major research and development funding increases as we set about implementing the Government's ambitious strategy for science, technology and innovation. An additional €12 million in current funding is being provided for the research programmes under the Education Vote, an increase of 15% on 2006. This brings current research funding to €93 million this year.

The pace at which we are expanding our research and development effort can be illustrated by the fact that over the three Estimates packages I have had the honour of introducing, current funding for research has grown by €40 million or 75%. This massive commitment to the enhancement of our fourth level research capacity will gain further impetus in 2007 with the allocation of awards under the fourth cycle of PRTLI and through the implementation of co-ordinated action across the higher education system, public research agencies and enterprise sector in implementing the Government's strategy. Pages 16-18 of the output statement detail the various inputs and associated outputs.

Finally, the capital allocation in the Estimates illustrates the ongoing commitment of the Government to improving the physical infrastructure of our schools and colleges. Over €540 million will be spent on school building projects in 2007, €306 million at primary and €236 million at post-primary levels. The output from this programme is detailed on page 20 of the outputs statement and includes 140 large-scale projects which will deliver almost 15,000 additional permanent places, the extension and modernisation of facilities in existing schools for more than 35,000 pupils and almost €120 million to be invested in 1,100 projects to be delivered under the summer works scheme. In total, more than 1,500 projects will be delivered in 2007. In addition, almost €156 million will be spent on third level capital projects, more than €50 million, or 35%, more than last year.

That is a brief summary of the main elements of my Department's Estimates for 2007. There are so many different areas I could cover, but these are the ones I should like to highlight today. I hope that the new annual output statement will contribute to the committee's deliberations on the Estimates and I repeat the invitation for any suggestions the committee might have for improvement in the presentation of this statement. I commend the Estimates to the committee and will be pleased to respond to any questions.

Ms Enright

I welcome the Minister to the committee and I shall start with the building programme. I acknowledge there is extra money this year for what is a rolling programme with multi-annual funding. When the Minister compares current figures with 1997, however, much more was available for the equivalent of a euro then than now.

As regards specific issues, I welcome and support the idea of the devolved initiative, but I have been alerted to difficulties in schools about the proportion they have to pay in their own right. It is possible, in some instances, that schools are adding on more than was initially agreed, but I have encountered some that are working on the figures which were agreed with the Department, where the funding is not sufficient for them to meet the sums they have to come up with in their own right. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that issue and perhaps indicate the frequency of such occurrences.

A Department of Education and Science official told the committee last year that some 2,300 extra school classes would be needed in the next five years to cater for the growth in numbers. That is in excess of where we are today, if I may put it like that. Obviously more money will have to be allocated to the building programme over the next five years to deal with this issue. Has the Department an Estimates figure for the cost of dealing with the 58,000 to 60,000 extra school children that are anticipated at primary level? In terms of the building programme, there are specific areas that present enormous difficulties, particularly in the growth areas of the Dublin conurbation, in counties Kildare, Meath and so on.

In terms of projections and the Department working with the Commission on School Accommodation, I am not satisfied that enough is being done, particularly from the commission's perspective, to ensure there are sufficient places to deal with the demand. I visited Newbridge recently where it is expected some 70 children will be told they will have to wait until next year. Obviously, the longer this trend continues the bigger the number of children that will have to wait at junior infants level every year. Could there be a timeframe to deal with civic crises such as these? I have another point as regards the building programme, which I shall come back to later.

In terms of the disadvantage scheme and DEIS, I very much welcome the change in format in having an annual output statement. While they are output targets, they represent inputs as the desired number of teachers and classrooms. They are what we are providing in the context of spending, which is what I appreciate the Estimates is about. I would like to see greater emphasis on what we would like to achieve through our investment. It is an approach that is missing with the outputs, apart from the exception where the target number of PhDs is set out. We face a scenario in which 30% of children from disadvantaged backgrounds continue to have serious literacy problems and one in five young people leaves school without the leaving certificate. We continue to have 47,000 schoolchildren who miss more than 20 days of school a year while 110,000 children are in classes of 30 or more. Our outputs should be aimed at reducing these figures year-on-year, which is not necessarily an approach the Department is adopting.

The DEIS issue is related to the Estimates. Under DEIS, the two classifications of disadvantage are concentrated and dispersed. Can the committee be provided with a breakdown of the criteria a school must meet to be designated concentrated disadvantaged and dispersed disadvantaged? I am aware that the criteria examined by the Department include unemployment and numbers of medical card holders. I presume that the decision made by the Department is black or white and that a school is either completely in or completely out based on the criteria.

It seems to be quite difficult to obtain a description of the criteria the Department applies. I do not know if any of the officials present deal with the school in Crossmolina, but the Department in general will be familiar with the example. Looking at the statistics from Crossmolina, it is difficult to understand why the school was not designated disadvantaged. Of the children in the school, 28% live in families in which the main income earner is unemployed while 25% live in families which receive farm assist. To obtain farm assist support, one must have an income level which is practically the same as that of an unemployed person. According to the figures, over 50% of pupils at the school come from families which are in no way well off, but they are not eligible for DEIS. I would like the criteria to be made clear to enable us to understand why this is the case.

According to the output statement, the Minister's aim is to cover 70% of schools through NEPS while the remaining 30% are to be covered by the private assessment service. By what date does the Minister aim to have 100% of schools covered by NEPS? It was my understanding following replies from the Taoiseach that we were working towards 100% coverage by NEPS. I thought that the extra staff being employed under this year's Estimates would ensure coverage of all schools but it is clear this is not the case. I question whether we can reach even the 70% target with the small number of extra staff being employed given that only 49% of primary schools are currently covered. I would also like to know the timeframe for assessment for individual children in schools which are and which are not covered by NEPS. It is not much consolation to have one's local school covered by NEPS if one's child cannot get an assessment.

There is no specific budgetary provision for sports facilities in schools, which should not be the case. While new schools are provided with sports facilities depending on their size, there is no way for existing schools to apply for sports facilities where such facilities are the only extra provision they require. It is an issue which needs to be examined. Sports facilities in our schools are far below the required standard which makes it important to provide proper investment.

When we build new schools, especially post-primary schools for approximately 600 children, why do we not make automatic provision for canteen facilities? We know in our heart and soul that such schools will return within a year or two for additional funding under some other stream to build a canteen. Surely, it would be far more cost-effective to provide necessary facilities while the school is being built. I often come across schools whose needs change after they have begun building work or applied for a building grant. For example, more children may come to live in the area or the need for a car park may arise. Such schools are reluctant to go back to the Department with a change of plan because they fear they will be put to the back of the funding queue. It is cheaper to build exactly what is needed at the outset rather than add to the original plan after a number of years. Does the system have room for flexibility to ensure that problems can be identified and dealt with at an early stage in the interest of cost-effectiveness?

Did the Minister see a newspaper article last weekend on the cost of redress for those abused in residential institutions? The article claimed that the properties given to the State by religious institutions will not be as valuable as was first expected. I ask the Minister to address the issue of the 16 properties transferred to the Department of Education and Science. I cannot say if this matter will affect the Estimates for 2007 but it will have an effect in the future if the expected amount of money is not realised. Does the Minister know how much her Department will have paid out by the time the redress scheme has come to an end?

Students in St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, recently campaigned on the subject of the cost of teacher education. Will the Minister address this matter in the proposed student support Bill? I doubt if this Bill will be introduced before the general election. Although the issue affects all students, trainee teachers have a genuine case. Will the Minister consider the student grant system and take into account the costs faced by trainee teachers?

A number of applied behavioural analysis schools await sanction by the Department of Education and Science. The Estimates do not refer to them specifically. I presume they are included in the general building programme. Will these schools be sanctioned in the near future? Is the Department considering the introduction of any programmes for children with autism? A "one size fits all" model is not sufficient.

The Estimates refer to money for information technology services. How is it intended to spend this money? A previous three-year programme came to an end in December 2002. That programme worked to a certain extent but no funding has been provided since that date. Broadband services to schools have improved but the situation is not yet fully satisfactory. This matter must be addressed in a targeted manner. What are the Minister's plans regarding funding for IT?

Ms O’Sullivan

I welcome the Minister and her officials. I welcome the annual output statement, which helps to give a clear picture of what is happening in the Department. The Minister invited suggestions regarding the output statement. I would like to see a profile of challenges likely to be met over a longer period and of where this year's output fits into projections for the future. Deputy Enright, for example, asked how we should plan for the extra numbers of children who will come into the system. Approximately 100,000 extra children are expected to enter the education system during the next ten years. It would be helpful if current year spending identified the types of challenges ahead. For example, where does it fit into the national development plan? I note the output statement contains references to various aspects of the national development plan. I would like if the Minister could give us an overall picture of the areas in which we are achieving progress and those which require further progress.

On outcomes, I know the Minister is planning to introduce standardised testing this year. Perhaps when replying she could give us some information in that regard in terms of plans and timeframe. Two different levels in primary school will be tested. Who will be tested, for what will they be tested, and when will they be tested? In addition, how will that testing be monitored? I am particularly conscious of the fact that we continue to have serious literacy problems in disadvantaged schools with approximately one third of children in certain disadvantaged areas having severe difficulties with reading and writing.

The budget is poverty-proofed every year. I am interested to know how this affects the Department of Education and Science. Is this done in the budget or specifically within the Department? They are the overall points I wish to make in regard to outcomes. I will follow the format used by Deputy Enright and ask my questions while commenting.

Every year, I ask the Minister if the capital budget has been fully spent and I ask the same for this year. If not, what is the roll-over amount? I hope the Minister will tell us that it has been fully spent. Deputy Enright referred to the summer works programme and the devolved school building programme. A case which comes to mind is that of a playground in a particular school which was basically taken over by a building programme. A priority list exists in terms of what qualifies under the summer works programme and playgrounds are not included on it. Perhaps when replying the Minister might clarify how one issue becomes included or excluded from that list. In the case I mentioned the school was not seeking new playground space but substitute playground space for that which had been taken over by a building project.

I am interested to know how much was spent on the construction and renting of prefabs during the past year. I do not know if the Minister has that information to hand. The documentation before us refers to public private partnerships. I know plans exist for development of PPPs during the lifetime of the next national development plan. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information on how this relates to her Department. When the initial PPPs were evaluated, the suggestion was made that they were not particularly cost-effective. I know that suggestion was being followed through and I am interested to know if there has been any improvement in that regard. What is the current thinking in terms of their cost-effectiveness compared with the State building schools?

On third level support, we are expecting the student support Bill to come before the House. I have not read in the document anything about the assessment for third level grants to VECs. The Minister might clarify if it is expected that this will happen in the forthcoming year. On special needs, I too am concerned about some of the issues referred to by Deputy Enright. Is the weighted model for the allocation of resource teachers being monitored?

I know of some schools in disadvantaged areas in particular, which had high levels of children with special learning difficulties, that believed they were going to lose rather than gain teachers as a result of the weighted model. Perhaps larger schools with not as many children with special needs might have gained teachers that they did not necessarily need. Is that situation being monitored on an ongoing basis? Some of those schools have difficulty getting sufficient psychological assessments for children with special needs under their care and have approached the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in order to have psychological assessments paid for. As the Minister knows there is a limit to the number that may be psychologically assessed in the private sector. It is in region of two per 100 pupils.

I know the Minister has suggested that schools should not have to go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for funding and I wonder whether she has been able to clarify the position. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is saying that parents and schools are still asking it to pay for such assessments. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

As regards the ABA schools, my questions are similar to those of Deputy Enright. A number of schools are awaiting a decision. In the meantime, however, some parents have been using home tuition grants to pay for the one-to-one support staff in the ABA schools. In some cases they will lose their home tuition grants and I wonder whether the Minister is aware that there is serious concern in schools such as Bluebell in my constituency, which are constantly fund-raising. They are concerned lest they have to close their doors unless a decision is made fairly soon as regards approvals.

As regards the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, it looks as if there was less spent in 2006 than had been expected and the provision has been rolled over for 2007. I presume that is all it is, but perhaps the Minister might clarify that issue.

On the Residential Institutions Redress Board, it is suggested that this will cost a great deal more than had originally been expected. We do not know what the change in outturn will be in 2007, obviously, but perhaps the Minister might clarify the position. Deputy Enright has already asked about the value of the properties that were transferred.

As regards the primary schools database, under subhead C5, the Minister gave a figure of €250,000. Is that initiative proceeding according to plan and what is the current situation as regards having a full primary schools database available? In that context I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions on class sizes. I note that there are still some schools which have not returned the information they should have to the Minister by the end of October. Have they provided the information at this stage, and what is the Department doing in this regard? The same happened last year and it is a recurring problem. I do not know whether it is the same schools all the time, but some appear to be reluctant to give the Minister the information she is looking for. I will certainly support her in getting that information as soon as possible.

On the transfer of the centres for young offenders, this has been taken out of the Minister's Estimates and will come under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Again, there was concern in the media at the cost to the State of these centres. The centre for girls, in particular, at Oberstown was highlighted. Have the Minister or her officials had discussions with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether these centres are being utilised to their maximum capacity? Perhaps changes are needed.

The transfer of responsibility for the centres represents an opportunity to discuss whether or not they are working well and having a positive effect on the young offenders who are sent to them. It is also an opportunity to ask whether they are being used to the maximum capacity. There is a perception in communities that nothing can be done about young offenders due to the lack of places. While the responsibility is moving from the Minister's Department, one presumes there have been discussions on the system as part of the transfer process. Has the Department made recommendations on the way in which the facilities could be run in future? The Department will continue to retain responsibility for the provision of education at the centres. Are changes proposed in that context?

The National Educational Welfare Board has still not been provided with the required number of educational welfare officers. The CEO commented in the context of a report the Minister launched last week. The board finds it difficult to meet its brief under the Education (Welfare) Act which charges it to deal with more than just the crisis children who are missing very significant numbers of school days. In many cases in which children are beginning to miss school, parents are actively seeking intervention which educational welfare officers are not in a position to provide. The officers are also unable to track those who leave school early and ensure they are directed along a positive path. This function was also intended to be among their responsibilities. While we have been told how much extra funding is being provided in this area, can we be provided with an estimate of the time it will take to staff the board fully to meet its legislative obligations?

I welcome the approval by the Minister of a vocational education committee as patron of a primary school. Does the Minister intend to provide for such patronage as a general model nationally? Is the State planning to take greater responsibility for the patronage of schools? It would be a positive step.

Mr. Gogarty

The Minister asked if members had suggestions for improving the presentation of the statement. While the statement and the Minister's deportment are always of the highest standard, I must take issue with the content. We can argue over the way in which figures are presented and what is mentioned or omitted, but the bottom line is what is being spent on education. Stuck in a queue on the M50 on the way to the Oireachtas from my constituency today, I was reminded that projected costs for the motorway were originally €500 million. The projection then crept up to €800 million and, according to a recent statement by the Taoiseach, the M50 is now projected to cost €1 billion by the time it is completed. It will still be congested. While a €500 million overspend is a great deal of money, it represents a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme given the buoyant revenues the Government has enjoyed. Does the Minister agree that one could get a lot of bang for one's buck if that €500 million were directed to educational expenditure?

While the primary capitation increase is welcome, it beggars belief that second level provision is increased so vastly by comparison. I can see no reason primary schools should be less deserving of capitation funding. The Green Party has committed to increasing capitation for primary schools to €325 million and to equalise it with second level funding. It will cost no more than €77 million to make this provision, ignoring the OPW schools which receive lower levels of capitation again. For example, primary and second level school expenditure from voluntary donations is subject to VAT of approximately €17 million per year. The EU Commissioner, Mr. Laszlo Kovaks, said member states were entitled to remove VAT from charities. A school raising money through voluntary donations should be exempt. The money charged in VAT should be spent on schools. The Government should not give money with one hand and take it away with the other.

The national development plan investment of €46 per pupil for IT is welcome. The education partners say €140 per pupil is required but even a grant of €100, as proposed by the Green Party, would cost no more than €44 million. The appointment of 2,400 new primary and second level teachers would cost €92 million, including training costs. To bring the National Educational Welfare Board to its full complement as recommended by the Rochford report, which the Minister says is not necessary, would cost no more than €18.2 million. Expanding Youthreach by a further 400 places would cost only €3.5 million. The provision of some NEPS psychologists to Youthreach and the increase of the number of NEPS psychologists for mainstream schools to the full complement of 200 would cost only €4.5 million.

The Government must spend more on school buildings. The Minister should force the Government to introduce legislation requiring the provision of a school building as a condition for the granting of planning permission for any development. Alternatively, the Department should buy agricultural land before a planning process begins so that a school site is preserved before development takes place. Such a site could be swapped if development does not take place. That would save money.

Educate Together has proposed that the patron body of new schools be given a fee of €77,000 in the year of opening and €17,000 per annum for the first five years of operation. The proposal is that the Department would enter into a service level agreement with a patron body to provide a dedicated team of experts to bring the school up to a proper operational level. This would create a level playing field for all schools. It would end the debate about religion in schools as choice would be the issue. This proposal would cost €1.5 million per year and would save money in the long run.

These suggestions would cost €500 million or less and would make a significant and radical change to the education sector. I am not interested in window dressing. Why is this investment not being made in our education system? The Government has wasted money in many ways, such as the purchase of e-voting machines. Why can the Minister not encourage the Cabinet to spend more on education? Not enough is being spent and a small amount of targeted funding could make a great improvement to the system.

Mr. Crowe

The priority must be the child. The education system often does not suit the child. There must be greater flexibility for the children the system does not suit. The child should not have to change to suit the system.

Lifelong learning must be more than a mere slogan. Supports must be put in place for many students if lifelong learning is to be a reality for them. Issues such as class size, accommodation, special needs and early school leavers have not gone away. I accept there have been improvements in this area. It is unusual for us to speak about what is working, we normally speak about where the system is failing.

The most important issue is the figure provided in the Estimates. It is important the amount provided is based on a percentage of GDP. Currently our spend on education in terms of GDP is one of the lowest among the so-called developed countries. I am of the view that the spend should be 6% of GDP as is the case in the Nordic countries. The spend on education, health and so on in other relatively poor countries such as Cuba is 11%. There is no reason, given the wealth of our economy, we cannot do the same.

On primary education, I share the views of other speakers on under-investment in this area. We spend approximately 7% of the EU average on primary education. It is unacceptable that the Government spends the least amount on early education where it is most needed in order to ensure equality and a level playing field. If we want children to progress we must create equality in the education system at preschool and primary level.

ICT provision was mentioned. Due to a lack of investment Ireland is on the wrong side of the divide when it comes to the provision of communications technology in our schools. Teachers have pointed out that one in five of school computers are six years old. The bulk of fund-raising in that regard comes from parents. The roll-out of broadband was also mentioned. Many schools in the digital hub area state that broadband has not worked for them. They do not have the funds necessary to employ experts to service the equipment and so on. ICT equipment is supplied by parents and falls short of the recommended €130 per student. We spend approximately €46 per student in this area.

I welcome the €8 million provided to tackle student discipline although it falls short given only 50 of the schools seeking help and assistance will receive it. This issue needs to be addressed. I am concerned about our ever-increasing obsession with public private partnerships. It is estimated there will be a 63% increase this year in public private partnership costs in education. My information is that they have proven to be expensive and inefficient. I cannot understand why an economy with a surplus budget opts for the PPP system rather than State investment. This makes no sense.

In 2004, the Comptroller and Auditor General published a value for money report on the construction of five second level schools and for the maintenance and running of the school buildings over a 25-year public private partnership contract. The report estimated the projected cost of the PPP deal was 8% to 13% higher than the projected cost of procuring and running schools using the conventional approach. The Government is now telling us education is one of the main areas in which the State will use PPPs.

I welcome the provision of €250,000 for a primary schools pupil database. Perhaps the Minister might elaborate on the 1,000 students who failed to make the transition from primary to second level education. It is important we have this tracking mechanism in the system. It is important that outcomes can be tracked within the system and perhaps the Minister might elaborate on that issue. She might also elaborate on the €50,000 provided for the National Adult Learning Council and whether this is sufficient. The area of special needs is where we, as public representatives, encounter so many parents with problems as regards their children. We hear about the failures of the system, the lack of resources for psychological services in education and the fact that there are simply not enough psychologists. Those we have are overworked and the waiting lists are too long. As a result, the system is failing both children and parents, as early intervention in most cases is impossible.

Perhaps the Minister might also elaborate on the details of legal costs, most notably as regards fighting cases where parents are forced to take the Department of Education and Science to court, to ensure they get an adequate education for their children with special needs. This is a scandal and it upsets parents who are forced into this position. How much do we spend on legal costs per year in contesting these types of cases?

Ms Hoctor

I welcome the Minister and her officials and compliment her on her achievements in her short two-year period in the Department.

I have two brief questions. I understand a report is due shortly on adult literacy and the provision of additional teachers to conduct classes in this area across the country. When I inquired last, the Department was awaiting the outcome of a report which I understand was under way. I would welcome whatever comments the Minister or her officials may have in that regard.

I am also interested to know whether the Minister intends to give a second allocation to the summer works scheme this year. I am not sure about last year, but two years ago there was a second allocation for schools that had been unsuccessful in the first round. Does the Minister intend to reallocate any further funds? I am aware a small number of schools appealed the outcome of the summer works scheme for this year. They were disappointed that their particular projects had not been approved. I wonder when the Minister may make a decision on the appeals by those schools.

Ms Hanafin

I thank the Deputies for their interest and questions, as well as for the suggestions they want taken on board for future years. I shall try to group a number of issues together if I can. I shall take the buildings issue first, because there is always a good deal of interest in it.

The criteria for the summer works scheme run from about one to nine, and are made clear on the application form to every school. I may not be exactly right on the first and second, but matters such as electrical and mechanical issues, windows, heating, toilets, access for the disabled, etc., are very high on the list. The last criterion listed was external environment. Curriculum needs were also quite high on the list.

We allocated €120 million this year for the summer works scheme and we reached every application under every heading except external environment. The only people who might not have been successful in any of the first eight criteria were those who may have been applying for something which was part of a major project, a member of a design team for a school, say, which was getting a new extension, but was applying for a science laboratory now which would be part of the greater project. One school made an application for toilets estimated to cost almost €1 million. Naturally that was queried as to what exactly was being installed. Any application which could have been fulfilled was granted, other than external environment projects. Subsequently, a couple claimed that external environment could have been considered under health and safety provisions. They are appealing the decision. There is no announcement date for appeals, which are simply being dealt with one by one by the section. There will not be a further announcement on summer works as their nature means notice must be provided now to ensure that the builders can be ready to start by the summer. The timeframe is too tight now and there is very little people can do outside summer works. There will, therefore, be no further money under that heading.

To meet the requirements projected for the next five years, €4.5 billion has been set aside in the national development plan. It will be enough to cater for what we need. The emphasis will be on fast-growing areas when that money is spent, especially as a great deal of money has been spent in recent years on smaller schools and refurbishments. It is not lack of money which represents an obstacle now, but planning or site difficulties. We work very closely with local authorities to remove any obstacles, a good example of which is our partnership model with Fingal County Council. We provide better facilities than we normally would which can be availed of by the community as a whole in return for better value and co-operation on sites from local authorities. Such models are very much part of our approach and in that context we are quite conscious of growing areas.

The specifications for ordinary schools and those provided through public private partnerships are now the very same. It was an issue raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General as Deputy Crowe said. In fairness, one cannot give to one school what one does not give to others. New procedures have been put in place for public sector benchmarking in the context of public private partnerships. The National Development Finance Agency now has responsibility for procurement, but the process continues to operate well. Quite a number of buildings are anticipated to proceed as public private partnerships, but their size and bundling with new benchmarking procedures means we have to be careful.

On local contributions, I believe schools have to pay only one year in three to a maximum of €31,000. I will get the exact figures for the committee. If summer works or devolved grants are provided every year, a school will not have to pay the local contribution every time. There is a maximum figure.

Sports facilities are important. All new buildings and refurbishments involve improved sports facilities while established schools may still apply for funding. Irrespective of how much money is available, the priority must continue to be the provision of classrooms and schools in developing areas. We have started to address the needs of some schools which have been waiting for PE halls for a couple of years and which have large student bodies. For example, Castleknock Community College, a very large school, has recently received approval to proceed with a sports hall, as has Davitt College in Mayo. The Loreto secondary school in Bray which has 800 girls did not have a hall either, but has now been given the go-ahead to provide facilities. While the needs of these schools are being addressed, the budget priority remains the provision of schools and classrooms.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked the key question of whether the money provided to the Department was spent. I am delighted to say that the Department's budget was €629 million last year whereas we spent €645 million.

Ms O’Sullivan

Excellent.

Ms Hanafin

In fact, we overspent. There was no roll-over this year.

Standardised testing and DEIS were raised by a number of members. I addressed at the beginning of the meeting the issue of outcomes and outputs. It is difficult in an output statement which deals with numbers, to discuss how to assess outcomes for people through, for example, international tests. Standardised testing will support children and parents in schools. DEIS schools were required to make their information available so that the success of the scheme could be monitored. Information on the progress of targeted initiatives, such as the reading recovery and mathematics recovery programmes, will be of use to the Educational Research Centre.

Ms Enright

Will information be available from other schools when standardised testing has been introduced?

Ms Hanafin

There is no agreement to collate information nationwide. The Educational Research Centre is working in a way which will enable it to do a study to determine the national standard.

Ms Enright

The point of standardised testing is to provide information.

Ms Hanafin

There is no requirement on an individual school to send its information to a central body. That would give rise to a concern in schools that they were under pressure to teach to the test and that they would be judged on it. However, the Educational Research Centre will do a study to ensure that we have a national picture. Testing will begin in September 2007. It will be piloted in the last term of this academic year. The first test will be done at the end of first class or the beginning of second class; the school may choose which. The second test will be done at the end of fourth or the beginning of fifth class.

There is a national programme of teacher development in connection with the new test and all schools received a grant to buy the test materials, teachers' manuals, test scoring services and test-related software. The NCCA has issued guidelines on how to develop the test. A reporting card, which is very user-friendly, will be given to parents so they will understand what the results of the tests mean for their children. In the next couple of years we will be developing a national professional development programme in assessment for learning for all teachers. Standardised testing is an important new initiative.

Ms O’Sullivan

Will it be in all schools by September?

Ms Hanafin

Yes. It will be in all schools from the beginning of the next academic year.

The DEIS programme was entirely based on the information provided by schools, under the various headings which have been made publicly available. Approximately 600 primary schools were included in the scheme. Schools below that cut-off point had a more dispersed and less concentrated level of disadvantage. The schools which were included had large concentrations of families who qualified for medical card, lived in local authority housing, had a large number of children or were members of the Traveller community. Schools with a lesser concentration of disadvantage have continued to benefit from services, including the home school liaison service.

Ms Enright

What level of concentration was required for a school to qualify?

Ms Hanafin

Qualification depended on an aggregation of all the criteria. Points were awarded for each heading. The schools with the most points were included in the programme. A school might have a large number of families with medical cards but not living in local authority housing or belonging to the Traveller community. It might have a high score under one heading but not overall. The process was carried out by the Educational Research Centre, based on the criteria made publicly available. It was a very open process. At second level the programme was based on raw statistics. They were not supplied by the schools.

An extra 31 psychologists will be appointed this year to the National Educational Psychological Service and a further 35 over the next two years. This will bring the total number of psychologists dealing with schools to 209, including those employed by City of Dublin VEC. The total number of psychologists dealing with our schools is 209 although 193 was the figure mentioned as being necessary for the National Educational Psychological Service. If one includes the CDVEC the number is higher. There should be no reason every school in the country is not covered.

On private psychological assessments, it is interesting to note that the budget for the scheme has remained the same or increased during the past couple of years despite the fact that the number of psychologists has also increased. There has been no reduction in the number of privately commissioned assessments. Where schools have indicated to officials that they need extra additional private assessments, they have been granted. This is an important part of the process and NEPS strongly believes it must be dealt with in a staged manner. The problem must in the first instance be identified by the class teacher in the classroom situation. NEPS engages in a staged approach with the school prior to sending a student for assessment. Assessment should not be a first resort. I would be anxious that any parent approaching an organisation requesting an assessment be supported by the school system.

Given the allocation of special needs assistants and resource teachers to every school, not every child requires a psychological assessment. There was a time, and not too long ago, when one could not get any extra support without a psychological assessment. Now every school in the country has a resource teacher. This, if anything, should have cut down on the number of people seeking assessments. However, despite the allocation of additional teachers and NEPS psychologists, we are spending the same amount on private schemes. It is important to note that schools which have sought additional private assessments have obtained them.

On the National Educational Welfare Board, there was never any agreement with anybody as to what would be the ideal number of education welfare officers. It is critically important to point out that over and above the numbers employed by the education and welfare office, there are 490 other staff directly employed in our schools who are supporting school attendance, namely, home-community liaison officers, school completion officers and others. That is a large number of people involved in ensuring students attend school every day. Co-ordination and co-operation between these groups is also important. The number of educational welfare officers will increase this year by 15 and will increase again next year and the year after. I have already announced the actual numbers.

Ms Enright

How are they counted? I spoke earlier this week to a person who is a home-school liaison co-ordinator at second level, a DEIS co-ordinator and a giving children in need a break co-ordinator. Is his service counted as the work of three people or of one person?

Ms Hanafin

No, I doubt it is counted as the work of three people.

Ms Enright

He works in five different rural schools.

Ms Hanafin

He receives only one salary.

Ms Enright

Yes.

Ms Hanafin

I suspect he is counted as one person on the payroll.

We recently commenced the recruitment of an additional 80 home-school liaison officers. These are real posts. We may end up employing many more people doing largely the same job.

It is costly to keep people in incarceration and that is why the money spent on disadvantage and literacy at an early stage is very useful. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is taking some of the centres and the only one going to the HSE is Clonmel. I do not know whether the Deputy ever visited Clonmel, but that was a centre for very young children. They were largely under the care of the health board and that is why it was decided it should go to the HSE. However, the teachers will continue to be employed by the Department of Education and Science in providing an education service. I am not sure—

Ms O’Sullivan

Will it be the same staff, broadly speaking?

Ms Hanafin

Yes, I believe so.

Ms O’Sullivan

I mean the regular staff, as originally employed by the Department of Education and Science.

Ms Hanafin

The whole system will shift to the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Education and Science. I do not believe there will be any difficulty with transfer in that regard.

I am not sure whether all the returns are in on class size since my reply to the last parliamentary question tabled by the Deputy.

Ms O’Sullivan

I believe I have another question down for Thursday, in any event, when the Minister will probably tell me.

Ms Hanafin

One would have thought that since October they should have been in. Hopefully we can get them all in.

The specification has been completed as regards the primary schools database. However, a new online claims system has been introduced within the last couple of years and is now being rolled out for all schools. I am anxious to ensure that this is completely up and running and works properly before we move onto the next phase, namely, the database. Obviously, when one is dealing with major computer systems covering 4,000 schools, etc., one must ensure that the system is working. That project has been piloted, it is working well and is being extended to everybody, so this will be the first step towards the database.

As regards children with special needs, this area obviously remains a priority. Despite all the money that has gone into this area, it will continue to need considerable funding over the coming years. I again emphasise that the preferred educational provision type must not be one size fits all, as Deputy Enright said, because every child has a range of needs.

My priority in the last couple of months, working with the National Council for Special Education, has been to try to get schools to take an autistic unit as part of their mainstream activities. We have extended that to 182 special classes for children with autism, which are attached to special or mainstream schools. Up to about 20 or so have come into being in the last academic year.

By way of encouragement, to try to get schools to be willing to take on these special units, we have offered a preferential rate for appointing administrative principals. If, for example, a small country school with four or five mainstream classes is willing to take on an autism class, it will get an administrative principal on a more generous basis than it would normally. The National Council for Special Education has been working closely with those schools, and my priority continues to be to expand the number of special classes attached to mainstream schools. Of course a number of children are integrated well into mainstream classes. What I am referring to is a unit attached to the mainstream, while obviously ensuring that the children with special needs have their own learning environment as well. Normally, there are six children, one teacher and a minimum of two special needs assistants. Such a unit would have the ability to link in with the other children in a school. The home tuition grants—

Mr. Crowe

A group called PAPA from the North recently appeared before the Joint Committee on Education and Science on the issue of autism. It made the point that a new CEO had been appointed for Middleton, but it was never officially informed. PAPA is one of the main autism groups in the North. I wonder whether any of the groups in the South were informed. It is a matter of just a phone call or a letter, but I thought it was very bad. It struck all the members as very odd that a group working in this field was not informed by anyone.

Ms Hanafin

Deputy Crowe has reminded me of a very exciting development. The Middletown Centre for Autism is important for autism, generally, and also involves North-South co-operation. Mr. Laurence Crowley has agreed to be chairman of the board of the centre, which was appointed on a North-South basis and represents both sides of the Northern community. I do not know who was informed about the establishment of the centre. A press statement was issued. Work on the actual school will begin immediately but it will be some time before the residential element will open. The Middletown centre will be a wonderful centre of excellence for autism. The fact that it is to be established on a North-South basis is all the better.

The special education section of my Department recently notified parents of the recommended qualifications for home tutors. A home tuition grant is an education grant and we must ensure that quality people are giving home tuition. An initial list was issued and, following consultation with Irish Autism Alliance and various groups, the list was extended to include people who were not formally qualified primary or Montessori teachers. Other qualifications are also recognised.

The timescale for grant applications was extended to the beginning of the next academic year. There is no question of people losing their home tuition grant. However, they must conform and a suitably qualified person must be available to give the home tuition. A child retains home tuition until he or she goes to school. If a school place is available for a child, home tuition will not be provided. Home tuition is in lieu of a school place. A child aged two and a half years receives ten hours tuition which rises to 20 hours at three years of age. The grant can be valuable for pre-school tutoring and parents have the flexibility to use it however they wish.

Ms O’Sullivan

The difficulty arises for children with autism. The guidelines are suitable for children with other learning difficulties. In some cases, people who are already working with children with autism may not have the specified qualifications. Attempts have been made to provide courses to bring such people up to the necessary standard. Has the Minister discussed this issue with autism groups? There are concerns that a system which is working very well for some children could be jeopardised because tutors do not have a recognised qualification.

Ms Hanafin

The Department sets out the qualifications. There was a level of concern that some tutors had only done short courses. Given the nature of the grant and the needs of the children, it was felt that tutors should have more formal qualifications. It is my understanding that very few people will be affected by the new requirement. Parents were given notice last December to enable them to find suitably qualified tutors. I discussed the matter at length with autism groups.

I await legal advice regarding one section of the student support services Bill. I cannot see it being passed by this Dáil. The Bill may be published but I cannot see it being enacted.

Mr. Gogarty

Could it not be taken in June?

Ms Hanafin

Judging by the amount of legislation already published, it will not be possible. It could be introduced before 4 July, as the Taoiseach says. One never knows.

It is not fair to say there was no movement on information technology. Not only was hardware and software provided but broadband and networking were installed, at a cost of €50 million. The national development plan provides €252 million for information technology. While I recently established a strategy group involving industry representatives to provide the best advice, in a nutshell the money will be spent on hardware, software, teacher training and technical support, the items identified. I see absolutely no reason the industries which stand to gain most should not make a substantial contribution to ICT provision in schools. Some industries are very generous to the localities in which they employ people, including Intel, HP, Dell and Microsoft. Top quality ICT facilities in schools will create a greater demand at home, among parents and in wider society, which means industry stands to gain a great deal. Industry representatives are involved in the strategy group, the task of which is not to set out a complex plan but to indicate that €250 million is available to be spent immediately and in certain ways.

The National Adult Learning Council was an ad hoc body which, it was considered, was not properly focused and given too wide-ranging a remit. A review of functions was undertaken, the findings of which are being considered by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey. I expect a decision on the best way forward shortly.

Deputies Enright and O'Sullivan raised the matter of the redress board. Expenditure relating to the board to the end of 2006 was approximately €564 million. Some 7,290 applications of the 14,540 received were processed. The average award to date has been €70,000 but awards have ranged up to €300,000. It is estimated that a provision of €600 million may be required to meet the remaining awards, as well as the administration and legal costs of the board. It is very easy for us to talk about—

Ms O’Sullivan

I did not catch what the Minister said about the number of applications which had been dealt with.

Ms Hanafin

There are 7,250 applications outstanding. There was a view that the more severe cases would be the ones which would come forward in the first instance.

Ms O’Sullivan

How many applications have been dealt with so far?

Ms Hanafin

Approximately the same number, 7,290.

Ms O’Sullivan

If €564 million has been spent to process 7,290 applications, how can the Minister expect to process all applications for approximately €600 million?

Ms Hanafin

The most serious cases have been dealt with. The trend with the latter applications has been substantially smaller awards.

Ms O’Sullivan

The estimated outturn of €600 million does not sound very likely if there are as many cases to be dealt with again.

Ms Hanafin

No matter what the final cost is, it must be placed in the context of the Government's apology to victims. The costs would have been incurred, even if no scheme had been established. If all the cases had gone through the courts, the party with the deepest pockets would have had to pay if the plaintiffs had sued the religious orders and the State together. While the State is still liable, the scheme means victims do not have to experience the trauma of the courts process. Everything is done confidentially and in a humane manner. Irrespective of the costs involved which are substantial, the process deals with a part of our history we wish to ensure remains in the past for people.

Ms Enright

Does the Minister think the Government will consider applying the same humanity to the victims who attended day schools? They suffered the same abuse.

Ms Hanafin

The responsibility of the State for those in day schools was not the same as towards those in residential care.

Ms Enright

I disagree.

Ms Hanafin

Those in residential homes were placed in care by the State and did not have a voice to speak for them.

Ms O’Sullivan

The deep pockets of the State to which the Minister refers are actually the pockets of taxpayers. This is something we need to remember.

Ms Hanafin

Exactly. The Department and the State only defend legal cases where there is a matter of significant importance to be defended. The number of such cases has reduced substantially in recent years. For example, in 2003 there were 17 cases; in 2004, there were 17 cases; in 2005, there were nine cases and there were even fewer in 2006. We do not take cases but we do defend the interests of the taxpayer. I appreciate some of these cases are extraordinarily sensitive.

We are continuing to improve services for children with special needs. It should not go without notice that 15,000 people in our schools are dealing specifically with children with special needs. I accept there is a great deal more to be done in terms of dealing with special needs, for which some €820 million has been allocated this year.

Ms Enright

Are there any cases currently being taken against the Department in respect of children who attended day schools?

Ms Hanafin

I am not sure I have that information.

Ms Enright

If an allegation is made at this point about abuse in a day school, how does the Department respond and with whom does responsibility in this regard lie? If a board of management is not seen to be dealing satisfactorily with an allegation what can the Department do to ensure abuse is not taking place within a school?

Ms Hanafin

I will get advice on the matter and communicate with the Deputy.

Mr. Crowe

How much is spent on lawyers in such cases? What are the legal costs involved in defending such cases?

Ms Hanafin

The contributions made to the legal costs for each of the years, 2003, 2004 and 2005 were, €3.8 million, €5.2 million and €1.2 million, respectively. Obviously there would be additional costs attached to the Chief State Solicitor's office.

Ms O’Sullivan

The Minister's statement that the estimate is €600 million must be wrong when half of the cases—

Ms Hanafin

It is €600 million on top of the €540 million mentioned.

Ms O’Sullivan

I am sorry, I thought the Minister said the total cost was €600 million.

Ms Hanafin

I was wondering why the Deputy felt it would not be enough.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked about the school patronage scheme. This is a new initiative which is ground-breaking compared with what was available up to now. I have commenced work on the scheme with the County Dublin VEC which is an area of very significant demand. No other VEC in the country is to be a patron of a school pending the outcome of this scheme given the legalities attached to it and the structures to be put in place. This has the potential to run alongside existing patronage models and is not designed to replace them.

Chairman

I thank the Minister, her officials and members for attending. In view of the expanded Estimates process, as specified in the December budget, I propose to send a transcript of the proceedings to the Minister for Finance and to the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service.