I welcome the Minister and call on her to make her opening statement.
Vote 26—Office of the Minister for Education.
I welcome this opportunity of appearing today before the Dáil Select Committee on Social Affairs to discuss the provisions in the 1993 Education Estimates, to hear the views of the Members of the committee on education and to respond to Members' contributions and questions on the Estimates and the issues arising from them.
On taking up office six months ago, I committed myself to bringing about fundamental change in Irish education over a four year period. The agenda set out in the Programme for a Partnership Government forms the basis of my work in education.
There are certain broad principles that form the basis of my agenda. First, I want to increase the resources available right across the primary sector and with additional resources I want to target disadvantage at primary level.
At second level I have set out to provide further resources, particularly in support areas such as career guidance and counselling, and home/school/community liaison. At third level I want to continue the development of this sector. In addition, I want to improve the nature and quality of what takes place in the classroom at all levels by curriculum innovation and change.
These principles have found expression in very practical ways in the Estimates before you today. By way of example, at primary level, the capitation grant was increased from £28 to £33 per pupil and this was available to all schools. In addition to this, there was a further increase for schools classified as disadvantaged.
The primary level building budget provision was increased from £16.5 million to £19.5 million. This is a welcome improvement but I must say that the primary education building programme has been underfunded in the past in relation to other areas of education. An additional 200 teaching posts were made available in the primary sector which has been partly used to provide for a very valuable increase in remedial support in schools right across the country, and particularly in rural areas.
At second level the capital programme has been increased from £17.2 million to £24.5 million. Additional career guidance and counselling service has been provided in a further 100 schools. At third level the provision for higher education grants has been increased from £34 million to almost £43 million. I want to emphasise that these are but some of the measures I have initiated in my first six months and they must be viewed as part of a four-year programme.
The total gross provision for the four Education votes in 1993 is nearly £1.8 billion which includes almost £200 million as Appropriations-in-aid. The comparable gross outturn figure in 1992 was almost £1.65 billion. The amount being provided in 1993 represents an increase of 8.8 per cent over the 1992 outturn.
This financial provision is a very substantial outlay in education. It is the highest ever provided by the State and 6.7 per cent of GNP is one of the highest in the European Community. The overall provision also includes nearly £85 million for capital expenditure, an increase of over £6 million or 8.2 per cent on the 1992 outturn.
The overall provision of nearly £1.8 billion for education in 1993 is distributed over four Votes. The Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education has a gross provision of nearly £88 million, an increase of over £3 million or 3.8 per cent on the 1992 outturn. This Vote accounts for 4.9 per cent of the total education provision.
The gross provision in the Vote for First Level Education is over £620 million, an increase of nearly £34 million or 5.8 per cent on the 1992 outturn. The provision for First Level Education represents 34.7 per cent of the overall education provision.
The Vote for Second Level and Further Education includes a gross provision of over £695 million, an increase of over £81 million or 13.2 per cent on the 1992 outturn. This Vote represents 38.8 per cent of total Education funding in 1993.
The Vote for Third Level and Further Education has a gross provision of almost £388 million, an increase of over £26 million or 7.3 per cent on the 1992 outturn. This provision represents 21.6 per cent of the total provision for Education in 1993.
As I have said relative to the other education sectors primary education has been underfunded. It is particularly difficult to justify this as many of the most disadvantaged and marginalised pupils in our society do not stay long in post-primary education, fewer of them achieve certification and fewer still enter third level.
The Programme for Partnership Government indicates as a policy priority that the pupil-teacher ratio at primary level will be reduced to 22:1 by September 1996. As a first step in implementing this commitment I am retaining in the system some 200 teaching posts which will be surplus in 1993 due to falling enrolments. This will reduce the pupil-teacher ratio from 25:1 to just over 24:1.
In line with my commitment to address problems of disadvantage I intend to use the 200 posts referred to earlier to provide additional remedial teacher posts; to allocate extra posts to facilitate the inclusion of a further 50 schools in the disadvantaged areas scheme; to appoint further co-ordinators to extend the coverage of the home school community liaison scheme; to appoint additional resource teachers for handicapped children attending ordinary schools; to provide extra posts for the visiting teacher service for travellers; and to allocate posts for the introduction of a pilot scheme of pre-schooling for disadvantaged areas.
I have provided over £1.6 million in 1993 for aid towards the cost of school books in primary schools.
I have increased the fund for schools in disadvantaged areas to over £2.6 million, an increase of nearly £800,000 or 42 per cent on the 1992 outturn. This fund meets the costs of supplementary capitation grants in schools designated as disadvantaged as well as costs associated with the home school community liaison scheme. The expansion in the disadvantaged areas scheme in 1993 to include an additional 50 schools will involve some 14,500 pupils.
Increased provision has been made under a number of headings in the Vote for Second-level and Further Education to address problems of disadvantage. Specific allocations include an increase of £208,000 or 8 per cent to bring funding for aid for school books for second-level students to £2.8 million; a provision of £558,000, representing an increase of £221,000 or 66 per cent, for initiatives to improve retention of pupils from disadvantaged areas; an increase of £487,000 or 178 per cent to bring the provision for special initiatives in adult education to £760,000: This provision includes £300,000 for financial support for participants in the Department of Social Welfare schemes whereby the long term unemployed may avail of second and third level education while continuing their social welfare entitlements; an increase of almost 60 per cent in the funding for the adult literacy and community education scheme operated by vocational educational committees to bring the provision up to £1.57 million; an increase of over 100 per cent to bring funding for the vocational training opportunities scheme to over £15 million. The provision includes funding for an extra 900 places from September next, bringing the total number of places on the programme to nearly 3,000
The 1993 Estimates also include provision for improvements in the pupil-teacher ratio at post-primary level. The ratio will be improved to 19 to 1 for appointment purposes in the 1993-94 school year. This will involve an increase of 150 in the number of existing teaching posts.
I will also continue with the phased programme, started in 1992-93, to provide for the recognition of vice-principals and guidance teachers on an ex-quota basis as outlined in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. From September next almost 100 vice-principals will be recognised as ex-quota thereby giving rise to a similar number of new teaching posts.
In excess of £1 million in additional funding is being provided for the continued phasing in of a programme to expand the provision for caretaking and clerical services in the 1993-94 school year. This programme applies to all national schools with 100 pupils upwards and to second-level schools with 200 pupils upwards. The phasing of the programme will be on the basis of school size, with priority being given to the larger schools.
I am committed to development and reform of the curriculum, to ensure a real change in the classroom. To this end I have provided for an increase of 11 per cent for the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) and an increase of 126 per cent for the National Council for Vocational Awards.
I have referred in my opening remarks to the increase in the provision of primary building budget. My experience since taking office has convinced me of the need for an orderly approach to the process by which major building projects are sanctioned.
I intend therefore to have future decisions, from the initial planning up to the signing of the contract, based on objective criteria related to relevant educational, building and financial factors. I also intend to disclose the criteria on which projects are selected and given priority and also to indicate to school authorities in an open and transparent way where individual projects stand in relation to those criteria.
The 1993 capital allocation of £20 million approximately for the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology represents an increase of £4.2 million or 27 per cent on the 1992 outturn. Among the projects to be funded are the extension of information technology facilities at Athlone, Limerick and Cork; hotel training at Galway; staff research facilities at Waterford; finalisation of works at Tallaght; major works at the College of Catering and the Bishop Street site, for further accommodation for the Dublin Institute of Technology.
Bearing in mind the Government's commitment to widening access to higher education I would like to speak briefly about the higher education grants and related schemes of student support. A range of significant improvements was introduced in 1992 in relation to eligibility. I am committed, within the constraints of Exchequer resources, to eliminating inequities and anomalies in the schemes. In that context, I have set up an expert advisory committee to: (a) recommend appropriate means assessment criteria with reference to equity and the financial capacity of parents and applicants to pay: and (b) examine and make recommendations for the most effective and efficient organisational arrangements for the administration of the schemes.
The committee has invited submissions from interested parties and its report will be published shortly.
The initiatives and increased funding I have outlined represent the initial stages in, as I have said, a four-year programme of fundamental change in Irish education. It is my intention to press ahead with the change process in consultation with all the interested parties and with the openness to which we are committed in the Programme for a Partnership Government. I am confident that this approach will yield fruit in a reformed system which will secure wide acceptance and commitment from a broad cross-section of our community.
I join with the Chairman in welcoming the Minister for Education to her first debate on the Education Estimate and thank her for her presentation in relation to the overall landscape of education. One of the basic arguments for the introduction of a Green Paper on Education has been the lack of an adequate opportunity for elected representatives to have an input into debates on education in the House other than by way of a cursory examination of a multiplicity of items and issues under the inadequate heading of Question Time. It is ironic that there is no annual review of the present position or future plans in regard to education considering the Department of Education, together with the Department of Health and Social Welfare, is one of the three big spending Departments. The Green Paper recommended that there should be an annual report presented to the House to enable Deputies on all sides to assess the efficacy of our education system. It is a mark of the frustration felt by Deputies that whenever debates are held on education they tend to cover the whole spectrum. In the recent past when debates were held on the Dublin City University Bill and the University of Limerick Bill many Deputies used the opportunity to voice their concerns about a range of issues in first, second and third level education, further education etc. The same thing happened when debates were held on the improvements in relation to the structuring of the regional technical college and Dublin Institute of Technology college systems. The final determinant in relation to the quality of education is money and that is what we are discussing here. The Department of Education has a large budget but irrespective of how we can laud the various aspects of education there are still major deficiencies.
The Minister has referred to the pupil-teacher ratio of 25:1 and the laudable aspiration of reducing the pupil-teacher ratio during the life of this Government as enshrined in the Programme for a Partnership Government to 22:1. In theory the ratio is 25:1 but in reality this morning there are 6,683 classes with 30 to 39 students. I am referring to one teacher responsible for 30 to 39 students in a class. There are 385 classes which have more than 40 pupils. When a teacher is confronted with 40 pupils aged between 11 and 12 issues of good control and limitations in tuition arise. In those cases proper education is not easy and it is becoming increasingly difficult with the social challenges facing teachers in classrooms today. However, with consecutive grade classes, where one teacher is responsible for teaching fifth and sixth classes, two class groups with two different curricula and different rates of progress, the position is even more difficult. It is an indefensible position. This morning there are 2,688 classes with between 30 and 39 students which, having regard to the pupil-teacher ratio of 25:1, represents five more than the official quota at the bottom end of the scale or 14 more at the top end of the scale. There are 593 teachers coping with teaching first, second and third classes or third, fourth and fifth classes in the one classroom. Invariably in over-crowded class rooms, weak students suffer because the teacher has no option but to teach the majority of student who are at the same standard. Therefore many pupils are consigned to the education scrapheap because the teachers are unable to cope.
The Labour Party document on trust in politics contains a clear and explicit promise that 1,000 additional primary teachers will be appointed. That promise is considerably diluted in provisions in the Programme for a Partnership Government. Only 80 additional remedial teachers have been appointed between schools scattered throughout the country. I welcome the principle of shared remedial teaching. The spreading of resources in respect of remedial teachers has been advocated in this House to ensure that as many pupils as possible are catered for. However the appointment of 80 remedial teachers is inadequate taking account of the demand for such teachers. At present two-thirds of the primary schools and two-thirds of pupils in the country have no access to remedial teaching and that position is indefensible. There are children in every school who are slow learners and cannot cope. Tuition should be appropriate to their needs. They need specialist care and attention but they are not receiving this attention because of over crowded classes. They fall behind, are lost to the system and never recover. Any subsequent clawback measure is very costly and inadequate. These children have a right and that right is set down very clearly in Article 42 of the Constitution which promises that every child without exception is entitled to a level of tuition appropriate to his or her needs. They are being denied this, and that is coming into stark perspective of late because last Wednesday week in the High Court Mr. Justice O'Hanlon handed down a landmark judgment in relation to the rights of a particular child. I am referring to a quadriplegic mentally handicapped child in County Cork whose parents were required to pay for primary education because that child was not being properly educated in the classroom. We talk about integration of the handicapped and we welcome this. The principle is fine provided the resources are made available.
In this case Mr. Justice O'Hanlon awarded £7,000 plus to the child because the State had welched on his constitutional obligations. The failure of the State to make free primary education available to that child has enormous significance because as of now 1,725 children with a mental handicap condition are simply in containment care and are not being educated. As a result of that historic decision the door is now legally open to the parents of each child affected to follow the same course as that of the parents of the Cork child. The courts are now facing a multiplicity of claims unless the Minister takes action in this regard.
During Question Time this week the Minister requested time for her Department to consider the implications of the judgment, as I understand it was an 80-page judgment. However, on the basis of an analysis of the judgment it is clear that the time for deliberation is over and there is now a clear obligation on the Minister, the Department of Education and the State to provide a level of tuition commensurate with the needs of these children.
Another opinion expressed by Mr. Justice O'Hanlon which again has far reaching consequences was that not only is a pupil-teacher ration of 12:1 overburdensome in a special classroom but it is also overburdensome in the orthodox classroom. That to me has repercussions in relation to our pupil-teacher ratio because at some stage a parent may decide that his or her child in the conventional classroom is not getting their constitutional rights to a level of tuition appropriate to their needs and may decide to follow the same course of action as that of the Cork parents.
The Minister would be well advised to examine the reality of this issue, namely, that there is an urgent need for 200 additional specialist teachers between now and next September. Otherwise, the floodgates to litigation by these parents will be opened. The knock-on effects, therefore, will be enormous and we must take heed of them.
The Minister will have to prioritise in relation to the children who cannot cope. Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases, most children can cope but I am referring to those who need remedial teaching. The position is too porous at present, many of them are slipping through the net and are gone beyond redemption by the time they get into secondary school.
I am referring also to the mentally handicapped. I realise that I am over-lapping in this regard but it is the Department of Education who pay the salaries of teachers of the mentally handicapped. I would remind the Minister that the Labour Party director of elections in the general election, Mr. Barry Desmond, gave a clear and specific commitment a mere week before the general election when he said that among the detailed proposals in Labour's programme is the provision of £25 million next year — that is this year — to catch up on the Needs and Abilities report prepared by the last Administration and effectively shelved. A total of £25 million was promised but £8 million has been delivered. As a result, three weeks ago the parents of the mentally handicapped came from every corner of Ireland and paraded in the rain outside the gates of Leinster House lobbying and requesting that their children receive a level of education which would at least give them a dignified existence. Unfortunately, they went home extremely disappointed and dejected. However, many of them said that they noted how Deputies voted on the night.
I have in my possession a letter from a desperate mother of a Down's syndrome child. This child wants to get into Schoil Mhuire's Iosaf in Bayside which is an ordinary standard school. The school is reluctant to accept the child. For the past year this application has been on hold and that Down's syndrome child is still waiting and wondering whether she will be admitted to the school next September. There are 200 Down's syndrome children who cannot receive education and who are being denied education because the Down's syndrome education system is based entirely on a very meritorious pilot project set up by the parents' association but which operates only in Dublin, Kildare, Cavan-Monaghan and Donegal with a total of five teachers. That is totally inadequate because these children have exactly the same constitutional rights as the young Cork boy in whose favour Mr. Justice O'Hanlon ruled last week.
I appeal to the Minister to move away from pilot projects. This Down's syndrome project is a proven success and it is time to extend it on a countrywide basis. I notice from the Minister's opening statement a rather ominous reference to another pilot project for pre-school children. There is a clear commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to establish a nationwide pre-school service, not a pilot project. We have sufficient examples of pilot projects. We are aware that pre-schooling, if properly structured, monitored and supervised, is excellent and extremely desirable, particularly in areas of proven social disadvantage.
It is fortunate that people have access to the courts to assert their rights. Four weeks ago the Minister for Education assured me that dyslexic children, for example, were incapable of being taught and detected by the ordinary primary school teacher. I have made inquiries of 25 teachers in the intervening period and found that the word "dyslexia" does not even feature in their teacher training vocabulary. As far as I can detect, if cost is involved in the need of a particular sector there is an official policy of indifference to it. Dyslexia is one of the major untackled areas in education. A recent survey of the prison population in Britain indicated that 45 per cent suffer from dyslexia. I do not wish to link dyslexia with criminality but it proves the point that dyslexic children are bright, creative, have ability and have untapped talents but simply do not have the literacy or numeracy release valves and, as a result, there is much pent-up frustration, anger and anguish. Yet, dyslexia is ignored totally in our primary school system at present.
I would remind the Deputy he has exceeded his allotted time of 15 minutes.
I noted a reply given this week to a question put down by Deputy Deasy on the condition known as scotopic sensitivity syndrome. Deputy Deasy was told that there is now major doubt whether this condition exists. Anybody who examines a page of writing by someone suffering from this syndrome will doubt the validity of that statement. This is what a page of writing looks like to a child suffering from scotopic sensitivity syndrome. The initial screening for appropriate lenses to alleviate this condition cost £35; there is a charge of £75 if one attends one of the directors, and of £250 for the lenses.
It is too bad if one has not got the money. One cannot read and one will certainly never write. We should recognise this condition and provide funding in the Department's budget.
I draw the attention of some Deputies who have come into the meeting that they are not entitled to participate unless they are members of the committee or are substituting for members. If they are substituting for members they must indicate in a note to the Chair for whom they are substituting before they can be recognised to speak. Some Members have not done that.
On a point of order, my understanding of these select committees is that all Members are entitled to attend at the sittings and participate but cannot vote unless they are substitute members.
The question of a vote does not arise. They cannot participate unless they indicate for whom they are substituting.
My understanding, from discussions with the Whips, is that all Members are entitled to attend at all committee sessions and can participate but cannot vote.
It is not in the Standing Orders.
The terms of reference are——
That is the position as laid down in Standing Orders. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for Deputies who are not members of the committee and who are not substituting for members of the committee.
With respect, other chairpersons interpret these terms of reference differently. It would discriminate against other Deputies if they were not allowed to participate in the debate.
At the moment there is no problem because a small number of members of the Deputy's party are not present today and people can be accommodated as substitutes.
That is not the point. The point is that the select committees of the Dáil were to give the members of the committee an opportunity to debate matters and to allow others with an interest to participate but not to vote unless they were named substitutes.
That is not covered in Standing Orders.
It has been interpreted that way by other chairmen.
You might be right, Chairman, but you are the only one.
There are three official substitutes listed for Fine Gael.
The official substitutes are Deputy Austin Currie for Deputy Theresa Ahearn, Deputy Jim Mitchell for Deputy Paul Bradford and Deputy McGrath for Deputy Creed. I now call Deputy Quill.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire agus an chéad Mheastachán á chur aici os comhair an chruinnithe seo. Tá súil agam go bhfaighidh an tAire an tacaíocht atá tuilte aici ón Roinn Oideachais sa mhéid atá beartaithe aici sa bhliain atá romhainn agus thairis sin, go bhfaighidh sí an cúnamh airgid cuíón Rialtas chun a moltái a thabhairt chun críche.
These are testing times for our schools and for our system of education with a huge growth in the range of youth employment and with a direct connection between youth qualification and job prospects. Increasingly society is looking to the schools and colleges to remedy at least some of the unemployment problems and some of the very ugly social side effects of unemployment. These side effects are family breakdown with resultant child abuse, child neglect, substance abuse, vandalism, petty crime and juvenile crime. Society is making enormous demands on our schools and teachers, on our colleges and on our system of education. As these institutions are currently funded and structured the demands being put on them are unfair and cannot and will not be met unless adequate relevant resources are put in place as a matter of urgency and unless the system gets a good shake-up from top to bottom.
Deputies have asked questions about what schools are doing in relation to substance abuse and so on. There is only so much that schools can do. Schools deserve the backing of the Department and additional funding but they also need the support of parents in a structured and sustained way. They need the support of the adult community, the media and the other opinion-making groups in society. On current resources they cannot meet the demands we now make.
If we cannot look confidently to our schools to give us leadership at this crucial time in our history we are heading for chaos. It is up to us to ensure that the necessary changes that will enable the schools to fulfil the role they are capable of fulfilling are brought about and the resources put in place.
I know the Minister has the courage to dig in her heels in an effort to get adequate funding for education. The Minister should insist that she gets for education the 25 per cent of the £12 billion Structural/Exchequer funding under the 1993-1999 National Development Plan. The money will not be spent in any better way. Some people will see greater electoral advantages in building bridges, roads and interpretative centres. While they are crucially important, not on bridges alone doth man live. We must put into education the kind of money badly needed to make up for the huge gap in attainment between the brightest and best students who can hold their own among their peers in Europe or anywhere else and those who are leaving school without the basic tools of reading and writing. There is too much of a deficit in Irish education and that deficit must be made up. We cannot spend a fair proportion of that Structural Funding any better than by addressing and repairing that deficit. As well as having industrial and commercial infrastructure on the periphery we have children, the children who were spoken about with great feeling by Deputy Higgins a moment ago. Some of the Structural Funds will have to be used to assist those children to reach a proper standard.
There is a direct link between educational qualifications and job prospects. I would argue for the just entitlement of all our young people whatever the socio-economic circumstances of their parents. I would argue for their right to the fullest, broadest education possible in accordance with their inherent abilities, aptitudes and interests. It was Parnell who said that no man has the right to put a stop to the march of a nation. No system should truncate the life expectancy of young people. Children from middle class, business class and upper class homes are 18 times more likely to go on to third level education than are children from low income families. That is the deficit I am talking about. If we are to put that matter right we must begin with the primary school which is the cornerstone of our education system. Young people who do well in primary school tend, without exception, to do well in post-primary and in life. Therefore it is at primary school we must identify students who are not benefiting to the full. We must ensure early intervention, a system that will help to put these students on a par with other school children and give them a fair start in life.
In that respect I call this morning once again for a nine-year cycle for primary education. Primary schools are some of the brightest and best places in Ireland and primary school teachers are some of the most committed and creative people in education. For a number of young people, some of whom come from indifferent home and social environments, the experience of primary school is one of the best experiences they will have in life. Pupils should spend a longer time in primary education. I spent a greater number of years than I care to admit at post-primary and young people start post-primary school at too young an age. Maybe they can handle the subjects but we are teaching children, not subjects. Because children start primary school at such a young age a great many of them are incapable of personal and social development and the acquisition of social skills that ought to be a fundamental and integral part of their education. If children were kept for a longer period in primary school they would benefit greatly. A number of problems would be eliminated at a much earlier stage and it would be much cheaper to do so at primary level.
There is need for extra funds for primary schools, smaller classes, a comprehensive remedial service and, above all, an extention of the highly successful home-school liaison. That scheme should be extended without delay to all areas indentified as disadvantaged. This measure more than any other will help eliminate disadvantage. Schools that do well are those where there is a good ongoing active relationship between parents and teachers. When children do badly at school very often it is not due to an inherent lack of ability — they are as intelligent as anyone else given the chance — but to a lack of contact between home and school. Any measure that helps to close that gap and build better ongoing practical relationships between parents, teachers and children is welcome. A home-school liaison scheme is the best scheme for this purpose and I would like to see an extension of that scheme to all schools in areas designated as disadvantaged.
In a number of cases the cost of school books is a factor — I welcome the Minister's reference to this fact. School books should be zero-rated for VAT — I mentioned that matter to our spokesperson on education. Parents who provide school books, uniforms and necessary moneys have to make voluntary contributions to buy essential school equipment like computers. Such equipment should be zero-rated for VAT and I ask the Minister, together with her colleague in the Department of Finance, to consider that matter.
All steps should be taken to ensure that by the time young people leave primary school they are well fitted out to deal with the extraordinary demands put on them at second level. The transition from primary to post-primary education is a difficult time for students and it is very often a bridge which many students do not cross satisfactorily. We should ensure that this position is improved in the future.
On second level education, the plan to put in place a six year cycle is very welcome, but the plan must be refined and school principals reassured that the resources are available to enable them to plan properly for the orderly introduction of the six-year cycle. The time has come for a radical change in the content and methodology of senior cycle education, to enable senior cycle to respond to the varying needs, aptitudes and interests of our young people. We need to incorporate into the senior cycle more technical, vocational, civic and social education. To respond to the variety of gifts, aptitudes and interests of students there must be variety. We must fully recognise that the content of many of the existing pass courses has little to offer young people and in many cases serves only to dull their brains, bore them and give them such a bad school experience that given a second chance at a later stage to re-enter education they are not prepared to do so.
In my teaching days — I did not teach Irish — young girls were confronted with Peig which was standard in schools.
It is a great book.
It is a great book and I wish it had been presented to me for the first time when I was about 35, not 15 because at that age young girls have a range of experiences and interests and burgeoning emotions and the last thing they want rammed down their throats is the bleak, barren and joyless experience of poor Peig back in my favourite Oileán — it is the favourite of many people. I do not wish to denigrate Peig. It is a brilliant piece of social history which I have read ten times in the last ten years. However, I pity young girls in city schools, for some of whom the only landscape they have ever seen is a window box, who are confronted with this book which lacks emotional content. The distance between their life experiences and the contents of this book which they have to struggle to master is such that it is a miracle they survived it without further damage being done. The Chairman should not allow me to tell my experiences——
The Deputy has exceeded 15 minutes.
I ask for the speedy introduction of variety in senior cycle education, leading to a leaving certificate for all. I also ask for the use of television in the teaching of modern European languages. TV5 is a fine example. That is important. There needs to be a huge upgrading of the schools career services, sustained in-service training programmes for teachers but, more than anything else, I ask the Minister to look at some school buildings in which teachers are struggling to teach and young people struggling to learn. I am thinking in particular of St. Patrick's School in Gardiner's Hill in my own area, of the position obtaining in Riverstown, Glanmire also in my area where teenagers get up in the morning, go from bed to bus, to school, to bus, to homework, to bed and do that throughout their six formative years. That is how their youth is spent, there being no school in their area. This means that so much of their time that ought be spent on recreation, personal development, in reading, listening to or playing music, is spent travelling on buses. I urge the Minister to examine the needs of Riverstown, Glanmire, and have a third level school located there.
I could say very many things about third level education. I have quotations here from all sorts of sources but I had better restrain myself. I plead with the Minister to resist the demand for an eight per cent increase in third-level fees. Rather she should talk to the universities; bring them into line with the realities of people's incomes; face them down; indeed face down the NUI in their demand for a £70 fee for matriculation which is now a ghost experience only since the matriculation examination has been abolished.
Our third level institutions, particularly the traditional universities, need a rare old shake-up. I would ask the Minister to do so. Some of them behave as though we were still living in the first decade of this century. In that context I would call on the Minister to spearhead a rapid expansion of the developing network of European student exchange programmes such as ERASMUS, TEMPUS or LINGUA. I recommend that similar programmes could and must be extended into South-East Asia and the Pacific regions.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire anseo ar ocáid a chead Mheastachán. Os rud é gur comhleacaithe sinn ón dáilcheantar céanna, tá súil agam go n-éireoidh léi sa mhéid atá beartaithe aici sa Roinn.
The Estimate before us accounts for a very large sum of money. Indeed education spending already accounts for almost one-fifth of total public expenditure. Given the high proportion of our population who are in their education years and the high value most parents place on education it is inevitable that spending on education will be high and that demand for increased spending will continue. Yet we all recognise that the resources available for education are not infinite. That is why I believe we need to examine ways and means of conserving and renewing the educational resources we have already and which have been provided by public funds.
Throughout this country there are many school buildings lying idle and/or falling into disrepair which could be used for new educational purposes. For example, there are schools whose gates are locked at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, whose facilities, including halls and recreational assets, are often denied the local community. There are even schools and their surroundings which are being sold off for private development at a time when there are increasing demands for educational resources. These practices make no educational or economic sense and should be brought to a halt.
Let me give an example of a multi-denominational community in this city whose school was burned down, who are now conducting classes in a disused hospital ward a number of miles away, having been denied the rental use of a Church-owned empty school block just down the road from them.
South City School Project is a growing, multi-denominational primary school and is part of the national school system under the Department of Education. In the early hours of 17 March the school's accommodation at St. Mary's Road, Crumlin, was destroyed in a malicious attack leaving the school's 109 children and four teachers homeless. The parents and members of the project immediately mobilised in search of temporary premises for the school. Despite the fact that there were empty classrooms in Church-owned schools in the immediate vicinity and in the Crumlin area generally, all requests by the school for access to these facilities, on a rental basis, have been turned down. Fortunately, temporary accommodation for the current term was found in Stewart's Hospital in Palmerstown. Despite the logistical difficulties involved, the school is now fully operational again, but the sad fact remains that, as of July 1993, the school will once more be homeless. With a new school year approaching the position is one of increasing desperation.
South City School Project is one of Ireland's ten multi-denominational national schools. In common with the other schools in the Educate Together Group it offers co-educational, democratically-run, child-centred education. In common with the other schools it has experienced great difficulty in acquiring classroom space. Opened in September 1990, the school grew to over 100 pupils for the 1992-93 school year. A measure of the demand for places in the school was the planned expansion to 250 pupils by 1996. The South City School Project rented classrooms in St. Mary's Church of Ireland National School in Crumlin, occupying four of the school's five classrooms. The school was given permanent status by the Department of Education in February 1993. Acquisition of the entire school premises was planned as a result of the proposed closure of the Church of Ireland school in June 1993.
On the morning of St. Patrick's Day the entire school was destroyed in a malicious attack. The board of management immediately set about trying to find alternative accommodation for the school. Although there is a large number of empty classrooms in the general area it proved impossible to arrange the temporary rental of space. They eventually found space in Stewart's Hospital in Palmerstown. The school reopened after the Easter break and, despite the inconvenience of having to bus the entire school from Crumlin, the school is now flourishing in its new surroundings.
They have been offered a number of alternatives for the new school year: space in a nurses' home attached to Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in Crumlin, which the school found to be inadequate; a disused national school in Nutgrove, Rathfarnham, involving an hour's travelling in the morning away from the present school base and found to be unsatisfactory by the parents; and St. Catherine's National School in the inner city area, which the school did not find satisfactory.
The Department of Education has attempted to negotiate for space with Armagh Road Christian Brothers Schools close to the original site of St. Mary's School in Crumnlin, where a wing of ten classrooms is currently unoccupied and falling into disrepair. The board of management of the school has stated its unwillingness to allow the South City School Project any space even temporarily. In my view this is an absolute disgrace. It is a waste of an educational resource to have, cheek by jowl, ten classrooms lying idle, falling into disrepair, beside a flourishing new school which may now have to uproot and relocate an hour's journey away from its base.
In this case nobody has been asking the Church authorities to surrender their disused school building but simply to let it even temporarily. I see no other reason for their refusal than downright bigotry and sectarian hostility to the multi-denominational school. It is a denial of the parent's constitutional right to select the schooling of their choice for their children. Indeed in her failure to date to bring the Church authorities to heel over this matter, the Minister is presiding over a waste of educational facilities while, in this House, pleading a shortage of resources.
Unfortunately, the Crumlin case is not the exception. Virtually every one of the ten multi-denominational schools in this country have faced the same difficulties — Sligo, Galway and Limerick — where school projects were refused the rental of Church-owned school buildings no longer in use. These cases have direct relevance to State spending on education generally and to the debate on the Green Paper on Education.
Last April the Catholic Hierarchy made a submission on the Green Paper on Education in which they rightly acknowledged the primary right of parents' to choose their children's schooling, and in which they also asserted their absolute right to the ownership of the schools in their control, many of which have been provided by taxpayers' money. Schools provided mainly by taxpayers' money and entrusted to Church authorities should not be regarded as the Church's absolute property with which to do as they please.
To point this out, as I have done in the past, is not, as I have been accused of, being anti-clerical or trying to drive the Church out of education. As this issue has been put at the centre of the education debate by the Church itself and is likely to run for some time, I should like to make my case absolutely clear. The Churches have played a valued role in education, with priests, nuns and brothers over the years having given selfless service to the education of generations of Irish students. While, unlike Deputy Quill, I do not intend to regale the House with my emotional experiences as a 15-year-old, I do want to state that I am the grateful beneficiary of a good education in Church-run schools.
Far from wishing to drive the Church out of education it would be a tragedy if education was to lose the services and experience of some of this country's best educators who belong to the religious but no church can ever be permitted to abuse its position or dominate the education service.
It is an abuse and a waste of educational resources to refuse to make empty classrooms available for other educational uses be it a multi-denominational school, adult education or community education. It is an abuse to lock up educational resources during the summer recess and evenings and to deny access to those resources to local groups. It is an abuse to sell off school property which is no longer used for educational purposes. The minister and I share the same constituency and she will be aware that during the past few years we have witnessed the sale of Carysfort College; the Christian Brothers School, Eblana Avenue; the Dominican Convent and a primary school in Ballybrack for private development at a time when there is a crying need for additional educational resources.
It is also an abuse that in selecting, for example, lay principal and vice-principals in schools which are run by the churches more attention appears to be paid to the religious fervour of the applicants than to their educational or managerial capabilities. In the debate that is now taking place about education the churches must play a role as partners and we must ensure, particularly at a time when we are being told that limited resources are available for education, that the available resources, including those under church control, continue to remain in the education service and are not alienated from education either because of a wish to deny access to other educational interests or to sell them out of education.
I would like to refer to a number of matters raised by the Minister. She mentioned that the capitation grant for primary schools has been increased. This is welcome but the one phrase that was not used in her contribution was "free education". There is a constitutional right to free primary education but it appears that the State is not vindicating that right for the vast majority of pupils in the State. Welcome though the increase may be for most schools the capitation grant accounts for only one-third of what it costs to run a school. The National Parents Council has carried out a survey and produced a report which shows that there are hidden costs, even at primary level which is supposed to be free, which amount to approximately £250 per pupil per year in order to keep a pupil at school. This does not amount to free education. Before some parent decides to use the courts to vindicate their constitutional right to free education the Minister needs to make a statement on how she intends to provide free education.
Reference has been made to the need to tackle disadvantage. I agree that this is a central objective which has to be pursued in education but it is not enough to talk about it; one cannot talk about the need to tackle disadvantage on the one hand while another Minister introduces schemes which perpetuate it on the other. The shabby workfare scheme introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare for third-level students is an attack on the disadvantaged because it represents a discouragement to students to pursue third level education. I cannot understand how we can have two 18 year olds, one of whom decides not to pursue education and may qualify for a social welfare payment, while the other decides, at considerable personal and family cost, to pursue third level education and, having completed 30 to 35 weeks of the academic year, is told that in order to qualify for a payment during the summer holidays he has to participate in a workfare scheme. We seem to be imposing a penalty on young people who wish to improve themselves while at the same time being prepared to pay money to young people who are not pursuing third level education. I do not understand the logic behind this.
I would now like to refer to the VTOS which is a very worthwhile scheme. First, I am concerned about reports which appeared in newspapers last Sunday that this scheme may no longer be financed. Perhaps the Minister will avail of the opportunity today to clarify the matter for us. Second, I am concerned that access is confined to those who have been in insured employment and built up contributions to qualify for it. However a range of people, particularly women who have worked in the home for years, who have not been in insured employment but who would like to return to education and for whom there is no scheme available, are excluded. If a woman who has worked in the home for 20 years wants to return to education to pursue a course leading to the leaving certificate, for example, she has to pay a fee to pursue that course and is not provided with any State assistance. A way should be found to allow women who have been working in the home and who wish to pursue a course in education access to the VTOS and other schemes.
Finally I would like to refer to the leaving certificate which is now underway. We are conscious of the need to conserve resources. It does not make sense that a student who, for a variety of reasons, does not do himself justice in the leaving certificate has to repeat the entire year. There should be a simple system whereby that student could do a repeat examination. I appreciate that this may cause difficulties in relation to the various mechanisms which govern entry into third level education but at the least it could be used to enable young people gain entry to third level education the following year. It is nonsense that a student who was ill on the day of the examination, suffered a family bereavement, failed to get to the examination on time or, for a variety of reasons, did not do himself justice in the examination has to repeat the entire year. It is a waste of educational resources when some way could be found to enable those students to resit the examination perhaps in the autumn.
On subhead A.2, I do not want the Minister to think I am being niggardly or begrudging but I have in front of me a copy of a document entitled Amandla issued by the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement. One paragraph in that document reads: “IAAM wishes to thank the Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach, T.D., for supplying envelopes for Amandla circulation”. We all have our pet charities and the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement is a worthy cause but, in regard to Oireachtas envelopes, it is a hanging offence in this House if a member of the staff decide to use those envelopes. I sound a note of caution or warning on that matter.
On subhead A.1, I wish to refer to the staffing level in the Department of Education. This Department has a huge budget and a very large workload. During my short time as a Member of this House I have experienced much difficulty in getting replies to various letters I have sent to the Department and concrete information on progress on school building projects, the provision of additional teachers, etc. How does the staffing level budget and workload of the Department of Education compare with those in other Departments? From my dealings with it, I do not think there is adequate staff in the Department of Education. I ask the Minister to say whether she believes she has enough staff.
The increase in salaries, wages and allowances to £18 million is due to the increases under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I should like the Minister to say whether the staffing level in the Department has increased over the past few years and whether the present level is adequate. A figure of £147,000 is provided for the training of staff. This figure seems very small in the context of a Department which has such a huge budget.
On subhead A.3, there was a substantial amount of expenditure last year on the Green Paper on Education. Obviously, the Green Paper is a welcome development and we welcome the debate on education. However, I am surprised that there was no reference by the Minister to the Green Paper and whether there will be any expenditure implications this year as a result of this discussion document, which we hope will move into its final phase as soon as possible. The Minister anticipates a substantial reduction in expenditure in her Department under the subhead this year. Does she think there will be any expenditure in this area this year and will there be any further activity on the Green Paper.
On the question of staff, it is appropriate that we should welcome the very large retinue accompanying the Minister this morning. It is just as well that the Committee is not meeting in a committee room as we would have difficulty accommodating all the Minister's advisers.
I wish to follow on from a point made by Deputy Shortall, which is relevant in the context of commitments to open government. I have to take issue with the staff of the Minister for Education on the number of complaints I have received from my constituents about the Department's failure to reply to correspondence from chairpersons of boards of management and interested parties in the area of primary school education on the subject of badly needed extensions to schools. I am referring in particular to a file somewhere in the Department of Education on a proposed extension to Clonmacnoise national school in County Offaly. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, there was a university in Clonmacnoise as far back as the sixth century. It is outrageous to see the state of the national school in that former university site.
Members of the board of management and interested parents in the community have been kept in the dark about progress in this matter. If the Minister's sanction for an extension to a school is not forthcoming then the people who write into the Department should be told this. I find it extraordinary that the staff of the Minister for Education have neither replied to nor acknowledged the submissions from these people. This flies in the face of open government and commitments to open government. I am not asking for a commitment that this extension will be built — I should say that I would like this extension to be built — but I am asking for an acknowledgement by the Department of the receipt of correspondence from people in the area.
Are there any questions on subhead A.4 or Subhead A.5?
On Machinery and Other Office Supplies, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a recent High Court decision on the failure of the Department of Education to meet its responsibilities in regard to Council Directive 89/665/EC concerning the coordination of regulations and remedies relating to public procurement contracts. This is the first time that an agency of this State has been brought before its own High Court in order to discharge its obligations under EC regulations on tendering.
I understand that the court found against the State and that the Department of Education withdrew the tender procedures and readvertised the requirements in a revised form. I also understand that the Department of Education will bear the cost of the plaintiff. I believe the contract was for the supply of computers — CAD and CAM software, CNC machines, robots, electronics, pneumatic kits for engineering, etc. I ask the Minister to clarify this point, to tell us the cost involved and the cost of the legal fees now being borne by the Department of Education. Can she give us an assurance that proper tendering and advertising arrangements will be put in place in future for any equipment being bought by the Department of Education?
Are there any questions on Subhead A.6?
Can the Minister give us details of the development of the Department of Education site in Marlborough Street? I am afraid that fairly sophisticated and modern facilities could be provided for the Minister and her top staff while the conditions in some schools remain primitive. This point has been made by previous speakers. The level of secondary school services in some areas, including Glanmire in my constituency, is inadequate. I am afraid that moneys may be spent in the administration and management areas at a time when even the most basic facilities are unavailable to students in some schools. I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that money is not being spent on designer curtains for offices in her Department at a time when conditions in some schools are primitive.
Are there any questions on Subhead A.7? Are there any questions on Subhead B.1 or Subhead B.2?
On Subhead B.2, Deputy Gilmore spoke very eloquently about the use of empty classrooms and schools after school hours. I should like to hear the Minister's proposals for the use of school buses after school hours and between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Are there any proposals to change the long-standing regulation that a minimum of ten children in an area between the ages of four and ten years have to be living two or three miles from a school in order to qualify for transport? Does the Department have any proposals to replace existing buses, as they come up for replacement, with smaller buses which would be more suitable in rural areas?
I would like to hear the Minister's explanation of transport services under Subhead B.2. Will the Minister give an assurance that school transport is not being used as a means to avoid building second level schools. In Cork — I am not going to be parochial all day — students are being bused at 8 a.m. from Glanmire and Riverstown to four or five different schools, some as far as 15 miles away and they do not return home until as late as 6 o'clock in the evening. This is a result of the Department's failure to provide a second level school in the Riverstown-Glanmire area. It seems that money is being spent on school transport in order to avoid expenditure on the provision of a badly needed school and this has a severe impact on the social development and educational attainment of children. The parents are worried that their children are spending hours upon hours on the school bus every day and are angry at the Department's failure to provide adequate second level school buildings. In the area I mentioned, 400 children are being lost to the community every day because they leave early in the morning and come home late in the evening.
Will the Minister outline the Department's proposals for the future of school transport? A large number of children are being bussed in from Dublin west to schools in my constituency. There are 14 school buses transporting children to schools in the north city. Dublin Bus is proposing to establish a central point in the Cabra area where children will be transferred from the 14 buses and some will go to school in Cabra, and others will be transported to schools in the inner city and to schools in Glasnevin. What control has the Department over the way in which Dublin Bus organises the school bus service? Is the Department in a position to direct Dublin bus on the way it organises the school transport system? The present situation is very unsatisfactory.
I welcome the increase, however slight, in the moneys provided for the transport service in the coming year. Minority communities, particularly the Church of Ireland community, have experienced difficulties because many small Protestant schools have closed down. On the closure of such schools commitments were given that arrangements would be made to allow these children attend the nearest Church of Ireland school which could on occasions be eight to ten miles away. Commitments that were given to these communities from the mid sixties to date have been rarely honoured. Will the Minister seriously consider relaxing the strict regulations on the operation of the school transport service, with particular reference to Church of Ireland schools? There are numerous cases of hardship because the school transport service does not allow children access to Church of Ireland schools in rural areas. The regulations as presently constituted discriminate against minority communities. Will she allow certain exemptions for children in rural areas who wish to attend Church of Ireland schools?
Sir, I seek permission to raise a matter under subhead B.1.
A very brief point, Deputy.
On expenditure for adult education, will the Minister provide a list of the groups who will get a grant-in-aid? I think it is time to switch the allocation of resources for adult education. Too often in the past the people who benefited from adult education courses already had a very good innings from first, second and third level education and added adult education offered them further embellishment. In the times in which we live the resources for adult education must be switched to provide education for groups in the community, for parenting skills in the community and for courses to help parents to beneift from the school liaison links scheme. I pin my hopes on the family support centres in the community. Will the Minister tell us the groups that are currently benefiting from this Vote?
I welcome the increase in funding for special initiatives in adult education. I would like some information on special initiatives. I agree completely with Deputy Quill's views on where the emphasis should be put in adult education. That needs to be emphasised even more. Given the economic and social circumstances that so many people find themselves in, the role of adult education is critical.
Has the Minister made any provision for créche or child care facilities for those attending adult education courses because this back-up support is essential for many families if they are to avail of such courses.
I welcome the increase in the provision for school transport. There is very strong evidence that the general condition of the buses is deteriorating. I honestly believe that a number of school buses would not stand up to a rigid MOT test. There is gross over-crowding on some school buses and this has been brought to the attention of the Department of Education and Bus Éireann. This has all sorts of implications for insurance cover. There has been a scaling down in the level of school transport and school buses are expected to make two or three runs with the result that some children arrive at school at 8.30 a.m., where they are unsupervised until 9.15 a.m., and they do not get home until 6 or 7 in the evening. Some children in the eight to ten age bracket have the longest working day in the country.
The Minister's immediate predecessor, Deputy Brennan, seemed to be hell bent, on the advice of someone, on privatising school transport completely. Two studies were carried out for the Department of Education: the first showed quite clearly that the most cost effective way of providing the service was to give the work to Bus Éireann, but that was not the result the Minister wanted. A second report was commissioned from a much smaller agency, dare I say with not the same reputation as the body who conducted the first study, and from the information I have, that report seems to be in the direction of privatisation. Will the Minister give me a categorical assurance that Bus Éireann will remain the major provider of school transport?
I do not think you will find a worse example of gender equity than in the employment of school bus drivers. Only one school bus driver in counties Mayo, Galway, Sligo, Roscommon and Donegal is a woman. There are plenty of female applicants but when it comes to taking them on board, and hiring them, they simply do not figure. That is not good enough. Will the Minister address this matter.
On subhead B.1, I imagine that Aontas is one of the organisations that is being funded. Recently I attended an Aontas presentation on the launch of the NOW Programme, new opportunities for women at European level. There is concern among women's groups that this programme will not be ongoing and I ask the Minister to do everything in her power at Cabinet and EC levels to ensure that the NOW Programme is continued because it has been extremely successful in providing new opportunities for women aimed at making them economically independent. Aontas has been actively involved in a number of projects throughout the country. At the launch they expressed concern that the future of this project, which has had a dramatic effect throughout the country, is not assured. I appeal to the Minister and her colleagues, at Cabinet and EC level, for support for the continuation of this scheme.
Can we proceed to paragraph B.3 and B.4?
Under B.4, this House must once and for all come to grips with the manner in which national lottery funds are exploited by Government Departments and especially by Ministers and Government politicians. The national lottery funds are the biggest and most effectively used political slush funds and people's pounds and shillings are being used for political activity. There have been numerous examples of this recently. Clubs, organisations and voluntary groups have now to bow and scrape to their local politicians — usually Government politicians — in order to get access to lottery funds. The manner in which lottery funds are being used is an absolute disgrace. I would ask that this House ensure that the findings of the Commission which examined the use of lottery funds some years ago are implemented and that the allocation of funds is undertaken in a fair and equitable manner rather than because of political leanings or political affiliations.
Recently an organisation had to approach a senior Minister, a second senior Minister and a Taoiseach to plead their case before they could get an assurance that funding would be forthcoming. Why are Government Departments reluctant to allow the distribution of funding to go outside their control. I would add that the Labour Party were very loud in their call to have the allocation of funds taken out of the political system. I hope their views have not changed from the time they were in Opposition.
They are still the same.
Deputy Michael Bell is speaking from the Taoiseach's seat.
Some groups are refusing, on moral grounds, to get involved in the process that is a commentary on how Some groups view the manner in which these funds are allocated at present. I look forward to the Minister's response on that issue.
Two years ago local authorities were given the right to allocate funds for amenity purposes, but then the money ran out. It is now two years since local authorities have been given funds to distribute to recreational and sporting organisations in their jurisdiction. Can the Minister say when local authorities will receive funding to support groups in their jurisdiction. I would ask her to discuss this important issue with the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Finance, both of whom appear to have their hands in the till.
In regard to the Labour Party and how national lottery funds are to be distributed my views on this issue have not changed. Quite simply my view is that it should be distributed by some independent group of people who are away from political interference. That has been my view for a long time and I would welcome some progress along those lines. I would also welcome developments which would simplify the national lottery. I wish there was one agency to which application could be made rather than having to go through a minefield or a maze. The lottery has become a political crutch which politicians from all parties — including myself — lean on when somebody seeks funding for a "no hope" case. I would welcome it being removed from the political process to some independent commission.
How much of the funds originally provided by way of direct State funding to Departments has been taken over by the lottery and what is the total figure allocated by the Department of Education from national lottery funding?
I welcome the substantial increase in funds for exchanges under cultural agreements. The what degree is the Department involved? Are these exchanges largely confined to middle class areas? Are they occurring throughout the socio-economic range? Are the disadvantaged areas in a position to get a share in this and will they be able to fund the additional costs? What element of funding is provided and what element has to be provided by the applicants? I should like some more information on the number of projects being approved. What type of schools do they come from?
On the eve of a £3 million lotto bonanza will the Minister of State with specific responsibility for recreation and sport have an opportunity to reply to these questions later in the day? Under the heading of the national lottery I would ask what is the precise relationship between the Department of Education and local authorities. My understanding from local authorities throughout the country is that the Minister for the Environment has stated explicitly that no funding will be made available from the national lottery in 1993. How does that impact on the Department of Education? Does the Minister of State see any role for a positive relationship between his Department and the local authorities on the basis of the restructuring a few years ago which allowed a local authority to present a priority list in the environmental-amenity area. Under the heading of Sport and Recreation local authorities should have a role in prioritising lists for the Department of Education. That may have the effect of reducing the high level of secrecy surrounding lottery funding which has given rise to a feeling among the general community of total dissatisfaction and disenchantment and that the lottery has become a political giveout on the eve of an election or whatever.
On a point of order, when does the Minister propose to reply to these queries? A variety of questions have been asked. I presume her reply will not be left to the summary statements at the end.
As the Deputy will appreciate, we are falling behind in the timetable we set for ourselves. As I said at the beginning it was not a rigid timetable. After the Minister has had an opportunity to reply to Vote 26 we will adjourn for a short break and resume on Vote 27.
It has taken us a long time to deal with Vote 26. As Vote 27 is one of the main Votes it will take an hour or an hour and a half at a minimum to deal with it. I thought we would deal with Vote 26 in approximately five minutes.
Perhaps we will.
We should break according to our schedule, following the conclusion of Vote 26.
That is my intention.
On subhead B.5, dealing with the programme to promote equality in education for boys and girls will the Minister outline the projects to which that relates? That is a small sum of money for the area of research and development surrounding the question of equality, particularly having regard to the present emphasis on co-education at primary and post-primary schools. It has not yet been decided whether that is a good idea but as we are promoting that type of education positive strategies should be put in place to reverse any possible slippage by girls in regard to equality. From my experience as a parent, girls begin to compromise at approximately nine years of age. As someone who is interested in education and equality in general, I believe much more intellectual investment should be made in this area of our education system. Has the Department any plans to introduce leadership training for young girls, particularly those in adolescence? There should be more emphasis on the programme to promote equality in education for boys and girls.
Are sufficient funds being set aside for science subjects and laboratory facilities especially in girls' schools?
The figure of £81,000 for research and development activities represents £1 per £1,000, a small fraction of the total Vote. Is there scope for increasing the expenditure on research and development which, in turn, might generate a worthwhile spin-off in two or three years' time.
The Department of Education has approximately 1,000 staff which I consider to be a substantial number. How much thought is given to value for money audits and research into the structures in the Department? Are there any proposals for decentralising the Department? The establishment of regional authorities is the way forward in education.
The facilities in our primary schools are minimal compared to those in other European countries. Arts and culture and sporting facilities simply do not exist compared to primary schools in Eastern Europe. Schools in Great Britain are a poor example and the reason so many of our facilities are inadequate might be because we base them on British models. I share the general view of members that the allocation of resources for research and development is inadequate. While I welcome the commitment to equality, there are many other areas we should be examining, starting at the top.
I realise that subhead B.6 deals with the question of the allocation of funds to teacher training centres at primary and post-primary level and that the reduction of £136,000 in the amount this year is due to the exchange rate. In view of the commitment in the Programme for Government, what provision is contained in this subhead or under some other heading for the provision of additional teachers? If the teacher-pupil ratio is to be raised to the level indicated in the Programmme for Government it logically follows that additional teachers will have to be provided.
I am disappointed that, in effect, there has been a reduction of £136,000 in that area. I appreciate that there has been a change in the form of financing but this figure represents a real decrease in a fundamental area whereas under FLE F.1 in the primary sector there has been a marginal increase from £276,000 to £299,000 for special courses for teachers. A clear commitment is given in the Programme for Government to the establishment of a proper in-service regime of courses for teachers, but the figure given here will not address that. Many teachers are burnt out or suffering from jet lag, as it were, and the present level of in-service courses is inadequate. Teachers cannot gain ready access to the necessary upgrading skills by way of in-service courses. Teacher centres should be used as regional and provincial bases for providing a range of adequate courses. I ask the Minister to consider seriously providing an enhanced allocation for this area in next year's budget. At present teachers are theoretically trained for life and are supposed to carry all the wisdom from what they learn in St. Patrick's Training College or Mary Immaculate College in Limerick in their pedagogic hump. Because of curriculum choices, classroom developments, the exhausting demands on teachers and the multiplicity of factors that are brought to bear on the personality of the teachers there is an urgent need for major resources under this subhead.
There are 24 teacher centres grant-aided. Is it intended to establish and grant-aid any further such centres?
On subhead B.7, this Committee should send its congratulations to the members of the National Council for Curriculum Development and Assessment for the great work it has done recently on behalf of Irish education. This group recommended a number of changes it believes are necessary to make post junior certificate second level education meaningful and relevant to young people. It is incumbent on the Minister to decide the route she considers appropriate for certain courses. I appeal to her to make her choices now and communicate to school principals. If school principals are to plan, not just for next year but for the year after, to provide laboratories for language teaching, prepare for the new type of technological education that is recommended and make the changes that are needed in senior cycle education, they need to know now. Students also need to know. We are told that more than 90 per cent of all students will be taking their leaving certificate before the end of this decade. It is important that the kind of education we offer them should benefit them not alone during their school years but in their search for jobs and in the kind of life they want to lead after school. There is great need to make a decision now as to what course they will be following.
In view of the success of the senior cycle course, does the Minister see that as a prescription that could be applied to many other cases?
I want to join with Deputy Quill in complimenting the NCCA. Everything about the junior certificate is good. It develops the critical faculties and analytical skills of the children, and they enjoy it. I was in a school recently where one could easily have thought the bedlam in the classroom was due to lack of discipline when it was simply that the children were acting out the drama and being taught about positioning, body language, costume and all the elements that make drama a live art rather than the dead art it was when one learned off monologues and soliloquys. I want to compliment everybody involved. I am just sorry that the assessment has not been taken on board. I look forward to the recommendations on the leaving certificate at senior cycle.
On subhead B.9, there is disturbing evidence, in the context of gender equity, that many organisations involved in sports and youth activities, women are not getting the sort of management and committee experience they need to move into leadership positions. Has the Minister of State developed criteria for the funding of organisations which take this into account? I hope he has.
On the wider point of young girls' participation in schools sport, I am concerned about the imbalance that exist between girls and boys. I am also concerned about the different value that is placed on the games activities of girls and boys within particular schools. This is a critical and important area in terms of women's opportunity to participate in team sports and the skills they can get from being involved in sport. Imbalances remain in this area. Is the Department addressing this issue?
On subhead B.9, there is a minor increase here in the funding for next year over that for last year. This is an area that has been neglected greatly in recent years and the Minister will have to fight to get a lot more funding than is allowed in the Estimates for this year. As chairman of the committee dealing with juvenile justice and crime I received submissions from a number of bodies dealing with young people on a day-to-day basis, and more than anything else they demanded better provision of recreational outlets for young people. They said that there is only one certain way of breaking the habit of young people caught up in petty crime and vandalism and giving them a more constructive outlook on life, and that is to introduce them to sports and to constructive recreational outlets at an early stage. That point was made again and again. There is a clear connection between doing badly in the classroom and having no access to sports or recreation of any kind outside the classroom. This should be an integral part of education for which greater funding will have to be provided.
Much has been said about the national lottery. I will say no more about it now because I have already had my say on how prize money ought to be pared back and more money disbursed to groups like this. The percentage for sport envisaged when the national lottery was set up has never been reached. The Minister has a battle to fight on this score also, but this is worth fighting for and I hope the Minister fights and succeeds.
On subhead B.10, will the Minister indicate the criteria for dealing with this substantial increase in the allocation of national lottery funds under recreational facilities for youth? Is there an existing list of schools that have applied, and is the increased allocation to take care of that? What are the criteria for the allocation of this £700,000?
I would like the Minister of State to clarify the mechanisms open to organisations to apply for funding. I have on file a letter from the Department of Education in response to representation made by an organisation to the effect that their application should not be directed to the Department of Education but to the local authority, and that letter is only four weeks old. In fact local authorities do not have any funds from the national lottery to deal with those applications and now we see that there is £700,000 available for such grants. The Department should sort out the confusion so that applications from sporting, community and youth organisations are dealt with by the Department and not passed back to the local authorities who have not had funding for two years.
On subheads B.10 and B.11, this House should be given full information as to the terms of reference used by the Department in dealing with applications. As I said earlier money seems to be given out on the basis of political considerations rather than of need. This House is entitled to full details about the allocations made and the terms of reference for such allocations.
There is widespread dissatisfaction among the public about how lottery funds are disbursed. The perception, and in my view the reality, is that it is a political slush fund. I totally agree that it must be taken out of the hands of politicians and given over to an independent body who will allocate those funds on the basis of need and priority.
The whole question is very interesting. Recently I tried to get some information from the Minister for Finance on exactly where the £82 million that the Government received from the national lottery last year had gone. Basically we do not have the information. We do not know where that money has gone and we do not know the criteria for allocating those vast sums of public money. We have no choice then but to go to individual Departments and ask them for details of the allocation they received. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of State exactly what are the criteria for allocating this quite considerable sum of £.7 million. Is the Minister prepared to supply me and other Deputies with a full list of all applications and also of all successful applicants and the criteria used for allocating funds in each of those cases. This is essential if we are to have high standards in Government. Will the Minister of State agree to provide me with that information?
My experience is that people are running around from one Department to another trying to clarify what lottery funds they may or may not be eligible for. On gender equity and the increased allocation to £700,000 in respect of recreational facilities for youth, sport and general community purposes, would the Minister give an assurance that the facilities will be equally accessible to young boys and girls?
I share the same concern expressed by the last two speakers about the criteria used for the allocation of funds. Under subheads B.10 and B.11 there is an allocation of almost £5 million and it would appear to be the only national lottery fund that will be allocated to sport and recreational facilities. As other Deputies have stated, local sports groups whom we represent are advised to apply to local authorities for funding. Would the Minister indicate what application mechanism operates to gain access to those funds? Are those funds only available to applicants who are aware of them, and who are aware of them? Is there a list of projects to which those funds have been allocated? Under the second heading of major sports facilities which provides an allocation of £4 million, would the Minister indicate if there is a limit on the size of grants available? There is a major project to provide an international basketball venue in my area on the north side of the city. Having sought £150,000 it received a grant of £10,000 from national lottery funds. Since receipt of the national lottery funding there has been no opportunity to seek additional funds for the project. Would that project qualify for funding under this subhead, or is it too late to apply for this funding? Is there any publicity as to how organisations may apply for these funds?
On paragraph No. 11, a regional sports centre was designated for Athlone. I understand provision will now be made for a track and indoor facilities for regional use. Recently it has been indicated that funding will now be provided for a new swimming pool for Athlone. What consultative process was entered into to arrive at this decision? I was not consulted or made aware of any decisions. I was not aware there was an announcement regarding the decision. Deputies should be more involved and should be consulted in regard to such decisions. Would the Minister indicate what consultative process took place in regard to this decision?
On paragraph No. 11, there is an allocation of £4 million this year. In relation to regional sports centres repeated announcements of promised regional sports centres have been made for the last three election campaigns. Leaflets on a proposed sports centre for Cork were circulated before those elections and I am sure the position has been similar in regard to other proposed centres around the country. Would the Minister make a clear-cut, unambiguous statement on the promised regional sports centre in Cork? I ask for openness in this regard and that he take the necessary steps to ensure that there is no further exploitation of people's expectations during sensitive political periods.
I question the criteria and terms of reference used in allocating moneys. Recently £700,000 was allocated to one project in the Dublin area; admittedly the project involves the hosting of a major sports event. A European soccer championship final is scheduled to be held in Turner's Cross, Cork, next year. The Munster football association applied for the relatively small amount of £100,000 and to date there has been no response. There is a danger now that the European final will be lost to Cork if the money is not forthcoming. The Secretary of the Department may smile but this is a genuine concern for those people in Cork involved with young people. This association has to ingratiate itself with politicians in Government to obtain information and concessions. I ask for openness and transparency in decision-making on the allocation of this funding.
Under subhead B.11, I ask the Minister of State with responsibility for this area to come clean on the question of the regional sports centres. He has been acting like a three-card-trick merchant since he took up responsibility for the area of youth and sport some years ago. I refer in particular to the midlands area. Successive Ministers for Education have made promises about a regional sports centre for the midlands. I ask the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Aylward, to clear the air in regard to the provision of that centre. Where will the centre be located? I would prefer if the centre was located in Tullamore and I accept that if it was located in Athlone it would be of great benefit to people in my constituency. The centre was promised in 1987 by the then Minister for Education, Mr. Cooney, and that promise was reiterated by his successor, the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke. Are we now to find that the provision of a swimming pool is, in effect, the regional sports centre for the midlands and that one swimming pool is the net effect of the various promises made in recent years? Will we have regional sports centres of the type so eloquently outlined by the Minister in the sports pages of various Sunday newspapers every three and four months when the early rounds of league finals and championships are held? An exclusive interview with the Minister who refers to his ideas for regional sports centres tends to fill a page of the newspaper. I ask him to clarify the matter of the regional sports centres of the midlands. In 1993 it is an embarrassment that on the Education Estimate we should be asking about the Olympics-size swimming pool which has been flogged to death for 20 years and which we still have not got. The Minister might advise as to when the blocks for this pool will be laid so that recognition can be given to our great swimmers.
Would the Minister of State provide a list of individuals and bodies who received grants under subhead B.12 last year and the criteria for granting such allocations.
I would like a copy of that list also as I am sure would other Deputies. Would the Minister indicate if the notion of a national sports centre is politically, financially and aspirationally dead?
It is unfair that the Minister of State should be referred to as a three-card-trick merchant; it is an unfavourable remark.
The Minister can disprove it.
Are there any questions on subhead B.12? Are there any questions on subhead B.13?
On subhead B.13 there has been a substantial increase in money — allocations of £180,000. I note that allocation is to assist in preparing a new English-Irish dictionary. Would the Minister indicate if that dictionary will be prepared by the Department or by one of the independent publishers? I tabled a question to the Minister yesterday on the allocation of money from the Department of Education to independent publishers. I was surprised to find that one company, namely, Folans is receiving in excess of approximately 95 per cent of the money paid to independent publishers. I sought information from a former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, on the criteria for allocating that money. The Department refused to give me that information, indicating, more or less, that it was none of my business, that the money was allocated by An Gúm and no information was available on it. I understand also that in 1986 the Department of Education decided that no further moneys should be paid to this company for publications such as this. In 1987 we had a change of Minister and everything was onstream again. The money continued to flow during the Minister's term of office.
Is there some connection between the Minister and that company? Why is the information not forthcoming in regard to this money? Why was such a large allocation of money, approximately £250,000 per annum, made to this company towards their publications? I was refused information as to what publications that involved, how it was decided it should be allocated and the connection between the company and the Department of Education. In 1986 the Department decided to discontinue the allocation of moneys but that policy changed with the appointment of the new Minister.
I am led to believe also that election material for the particular Minister may well have been prepared by this company. Unfortunately, I cannot prove that but I believe my information is accurate in this regard. What was the connection between this company and the particular Minister of the day?
I have a query in regard to publications in Irish and I would like to hear the Minister's views on the availability of textbooks on a range of subjects in Irish. It has been brought to my attention by a number of people who are working in all-Irish schools that there is a problem in this regard. What are the Minister's plans to address that issue?
Subhead 14 provides for the general expenses of Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann, the national centre for research on all aspects of language teaching, with special reference to Irish, but also involving English and other modern European languages. The teaching of modern European languages is a matter of great disappointment in Irish education. It has been commented on frequently by a number of people, particularly with the growing consciousness of our position as a member of the European Community and the job prospects for young Irish graduates with language skills.
To whom does this body make recommendations? What recommendations has it made in recent times regarding the improvements that must be brought about in schools to promote the teaching and the learning of modern European languages? To date we have failed to harness television as a medium of language teaching in any serious or coherent way. I am encouraged that TV5 has been available in certain districts of Cork for some time and the programmes transmitted on that channel are enormously helpful to students of French and their teachers. It is available in Athlone also.
The Minister in planning to improve the teaching of modern European languages should no longer ignore television as a medium. In regard to language teaching and learning the ASTI say that a range of additional supports are required. Teachers are expected to teach in isolation. They need the support, particularly of television facilities, to make the kind of progress they wish. They see television as a medium that has not been fully utilised. On the teaching of French, German and other modern European languages, what real benefit do we get from the recommendations of Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann?
To expedite matters we should discuss the remaining subheads — 15 to 19, inclusive, as they are closely related.
On subhead B. 18, the promotion of Ireland as an international education centre, has tremendous commercial potential. Recently I asked the Minister to indicate the number of foreign students who used Ireland last year as a base for the improvement of their English language skills. She replied that approximately 100,000 students came to this country. That is welcome news, indeed, and the breakdown shows that these students tend to be French, Spanish and German. Students from every country are welcome but the Department of Education, in co-operation with the Department of Tourism and Trade, could enter into a profitable joint venture promoting Ireland as a centre for foreign students.
The Chairman will recall that last year he and I had the privilege of visiting Taiwan. In the course of our discussions with the Taiwanese Minister for Education he mentioned that the Taiwanese were not aware that English was the primary language here. He was unaware that we pride ourselves on speaking a high quality of English and claim it is more perfect in some respects than English spoken in the mother country. We made the point that it should be possible to attract Taiwanese students here. The Minister said he would welcome an approach from our Department of Education in this regard.
Many oriental students would be interested to travel to Ireland to learn English and we should embark on an active campaign to attract them. A joint venture should be launched by the Department of Tourism and Trade and Bord Fáilte with the private schools which do great work in this area. There is also a sub-agency which is monitored by the Department of Education. We hope there will be positive recommendations in this regard.
I now call on the Minister to reply to the various points made by Deputies.
I will begin by referring to the question about the staffing in the Office of the Minister by Deputies Shortall and Flaherty. I would say to Deputy Flaherty that in 1980 there were 1,226 civil servants in the Department of Education, a time when there was not the student population or the great demands at second and third-level that exist now. At present there are 848 civil servants in the Office of the Minister and the effects of decentralisation has been felt in Marlborough Street. In comparison with other Departments the Department of Education was not considered to be one of the over-staffed Departments.
Reference was made also to the number of civil servants accompanying me today. This is the first time the Department of Education has been called before a select committee. One of my philosophies in life is that information is not secretive and should always be made available. We are responding as best we can today. I wish to thank the civil servants who accompanied me today and who prepared the briefing material. I will share as much of the information as possible with Deputies.
On training, we spent 0.8 per cent of our budget on our training unit. Due to the constraints in numbers we are installing as many computer systems as possible. There is a policy of accountability in the Department for all moneys spent. It is dealt with under the label "efficiency". It reviews the activities of the Department and produces an annual report. The targets it has set itself have been met, but more staff is needed in that section.
Deputy Flaherty asked about the expenses in connection with the preparation of the Green Paper. The expenditure in this area, which involved travelling expenses for meetings held outside Dublin, advertising and so on, was provided for in last year's budget. As the announcement has been made to the National Education Convention regarding the White Paper a consultancy budget is provided for this purpose. While a certain amount of advertising is provided for I will not have to advertise for people to participate in the convention. The difficulty will be that too many people may offer to participate.
Deputy Flanagan referred to civil servants and I am sure the Deputy joins with me in expressing thanks to them for the information they are providing today. On the Clonmacnoise school, I met the management. A past leaving certificate paper described Clonmacnoise as the capital city of Ireland and having recently visited it, I agree the school is in a magnificent setting. It is such an interesting building that I had hoped it would be dealt with under the Estimate of another Department, but the Deputy need not be concerned, we will not forget it.
On school transport, I do not want the message to go out that buses are in bad condition. Bus Éireann, the agents for school transport, operate very stringent controls in regard to overcrowding and safety. While the future of school transport will be examined under local education structures, in light of various reports to prepare us in dealing with day to day local problems experienced by schools, I intend to invite Bus Éireann to talk to officials in the Department who should not be left in the dark about the overall plan. Preparations have not been finalised yet in this regard but discussions will take place.
Deputy Allen raised the question of Marlborough Street. I do not know if the Deputy visited the building but inside the front door is a noose from which somebody could be hanged. We are due to move out of the building temporarily for renovations. I bought two pink blinds but the curtains and so on were there before I arrived. There is an ongoing exhibition of children's paintings——
I would say they were there before the foundation of the State.
The Minister's room is good but the Minister's staff work in conditions that I would not defend. We hope money will be provided in the next number of years to upgrade the building, starting with staff toilets. Some of the prefabricated buildings are used by the Department. The Model School is being refurbished and, as patron of the building, I believe that was necessary. It is one of many projects that are ongoing. Deputy Higgins raised a question about legal fees. I do not have the details he sought but I will make them available to the Deputy when they come to hand.
Deputy Fitzgerald raised the question of adult education and cr�ches in vocational schools. I visit these schools quite often and the response of women to the courses on offer is fantastic. Vocational education committees respond with great flexibility to the demands placed on them. Recently I visited the Dublin vocational education committee school in the Liberties where I met 400 people, more than 70 per cent of whom were women. In one or two areas cr�che facilities have not been provided but I will follow up this matter until such facilities are provided in all areas. In most schools when I ask whether cr�che facilities are provided I get a positive answer. These facilities are important in schools which provide adult education courses.
Deputies Quill, Flaherty and Fitzgerald raised a question of Aontas. I will open the annual general meeting of that body in September. I am not aware of all the adult education services available and I have asked the assistant secretary with responsibility in this area to prepare a full list of those services. I am sure many Deputies are aware of the exciting new programmes and information on them should be widely available. Various courses are available in the People's College and under the national literacy programme. It is important to know what groups avail of these courses.
On the question of the dictionary, An Gúm has full responsibility and there will be consultations. As regards the contract with Folens, I realise the Deputy was not referring to my connection with these people. I cannot be answerable in this regard. To be honest I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. Folens has a contract to produce children's comics which are available in schools for about 9p.
I was refused the information by the Minister's predecessor.
I am answering questions on this Estimate. I am here to account for these moneys and the amount in question relates to comics.
Deputy Bell asked about the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The recent decisions made under this programme have not been provided for in the Estimate of my Department or of any other Department. The Department of Finance cannot be convinced to provide for a matter that may arise in the future. However, that point will have to be taken up not only by the Minister for Education but by Ministers in other Departments.
As regards the number of teachers made available, much depends on the demographic trend. There has been a dramatic fall in the primary school population. The number was at its peak in 1986. The number at second level will peak in 1997-98. I do not know when the number will peak at third-level because this level is open not only to people aged 18 to 21 years but to all age groups. In other countries whose demographic trend is quite different from that here there is a great opportunity for people to return to third-level education. The number at third level will probably peak in the next century.
A number of Deputies mentioned gender projects. Research must be undertaken into the effects of coeducation. Suggestions made about this matter are not well grounded. It is a subject which receives an enormous amount of inaccurate publicity. Rather than dismissing these suggestions about the education system it would be better to do research here, and funding is provided for that. There are other provisions in relation to gender. The physics and chemistry project is ongoing and there is an awareness pack for primary schools as well as research at the post primary level. I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of work taking place in the Department. It is incumbent on me to ensure that everybody knows about this work. Coeducation research is much needed and I will share the findings of this research when it is finished.
The NCCA concentrates totally on the different aspects of the curriculum. Deputies referred to the European language project. Fifty projects have been completed. The NCCA are considering the status of European languages in schools. The senior certificate circular will be ready in June.
In June?
It should be ready in June, because we are talking about children entering the senior certificate in 1994. I share Deputy Quill's enthusiasm for the senior certificate. We have taken on board recent recommendations by the NCCA and I have asked an expert group in the Department to look at specific projects. I would like to see it ring-fenced. It is a programme which will adequately deal with children who may be struggling with the leaving certificate. We certainly do not have full attendance up to leaving certificate.
I thank Deputy Quill, and others, who have joined with me in supporting the Senior Certificate which is moving away from its pilot status. It has more than proved itself.
I agree with teachers' centres. Certainly in-service training for teachers is taking place at a more local level. I have answered Deputies' questions to the best of my ability so I will give way now to the Minister of State who wishes to make a short statement.
Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Aylward): I am disappointed with some of the remarks by one Deputy this morning. There is nothing hidden or secret in the allocation of lottery funding to our Department. Our lists and allocations on projects are published each year in the appropriation accounts. This information is freely available to any Member. Information has always been readily available from me on request and the Deputies in question have not contacted the Department for any of it.
Lottery funding each year is distributed by the Government through the Department of Finance for a wide range of activities. The total allocation in my Department this year was £22,354,000 for youth and sport. Youth got £11.4 million distributed to youth organisations with particular emphasis on disadvantaged youth. There was an increase of 6 per cent this year in the allocation. The balance of the money is distributed in the sports sector. A sum of £6 million is for current spending in the sports sector. Grants are allocated to the various sporting bodies. There are 75 governing bodies for sport. Various schemes are operated from that £6 million. The Olympic Council of Ireland who prepare our athletes for the Olympic Games get some of that allocation and money is also allocated for the outstanding sports persons schemes.
The other allocation is to the capital programme which was £4.2 million. The capital programme has been in operation since 1988. A five year programme was drawn up at that time and local and regional centres throughout the country were designated for funding. Most of these centres have been completed. Those that have not were referred to this morning. Deputy McGrath referred to the Athlone centre. In 1988, £1.5 million was allocated for that project. I am surprised that the Deputy is not aware of what has been happening. There have been numerous meetings with Athlone Urban District Council. Recently a decision was made to approved the completion of that project.
A regional centre should not be involved.
I am surprised that the Deputy was not aware of that. I would certainly be annoyed if I did not know what was happening in Kilkenny.
The Minister of State should not be smart.
I suggest that the Deputy check with the urban council in future.
Is a swimming pool a regional sports centre?
Order.
In regard to the Cork regional centre, £1.75 million was made available for a pool and ancillary facilities. The Deputies referred to the projects that have not been completed, those with which there are problems. All the problems are not with the sports sector. The blame could be apportioned elsewhere. The problem with the Cork Regional Centre has in the past few weeks been solved and we can allow it to go ahead. There was a difficulty with a private concern in Cork, not in Dublin.
It has, or will be solved?
It has.
I did not know that. That illustrates the secrecy.
Questions can be asked in the House. There are several ways of getting the information.
What about transparency and openness?
Today was probably the best day to get a headline.
It is the day on which we can get answers.
There was an allocation of £300,000 for the refurbishment of the Tullamore track and the work has been completed. Provision is being made for spectator accommodation, the contract for which will be placed in the very near future. I am glad to be able to inform Members that £250,000 was allocated to the Nenagh centre and the work has also been completed. An additional provision of £50,000 was made for spectator accommodation there.
The lists of allocations are published each year in the Appropriation Accounts. We should all read these publications but we are very busy people; perhaps that is the reason we are not always aware of all of their detail.
Deputy Frances Fitzgerald mentioned the gender equity and the role played by girls generally in sports in schools. I am glad to be able to tell her that in the grants we allocate to the governing bodies on sport generally, emphasis is placed on administration, coaching and attendance at international events aimed at raising standards generally and increasing levels of performances. The Department is very much aware of the role played by women in sports and this has also been addressed in the Green Paper on Education.
The policy operated within the Department reflects this encompassing of the role of women in sports, in games such as squash, ladies' hockey, ladies' Gaelic football and soccer and the Ladies Golf Union, to mention a few. Although the sporting organisations are independent my understanding is that a substantial number of women are employed in sporting organisations, for example in organising the special Olympics, in adventure sports, squash, hockey, boxing, community games and so on. The Deputy will be aware that the only major announcement I made this year on behalf of my Department was an allocation of £800,000 to the Ladies Hockey Union.
Deputy Flaherty asked how this was included under subhead B.10. I have been implementing the provisions in the Programme for Government since assuming office. It would be my hope, with the co-operation of the various groups who have been dragging their feet somewhat, that we could prepare a programme in the near future. One of the commitments enunciated in the Programme for Government was that a new capital programme would be put in place. Negotiations are taking place at present between the Department's sports division and various sporting organisations in regard to a new scheme.
Members seemed confused today between the sports division of my Department and the recreation and amenity grants scheme which was operated initially by our sports division but was transferred to the Department of the Environment in 1988. It has been administered by that Department through local authorities. That Government decision has not been changed.
There is no money.
No money has been provided since.
I am not here to answer for the Department of the Environment. We are dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Education. That Government decision has not been rescinded. Until such time as it is we have no say whatsoever in regard to that scheme. I am aware that there is no money available and I would dearly love to see money being made available. If the Government, in its wisdom, decides to return that scheme to the sports division of my Department, I would have no difficulty with such decision. It is somewhat ridiculous that two different Departments operate similar schemes. It should fall within the aegis of our sports division and be operated by them.
People often question how such funds are allocated. There are many deserving groups. For example, we have reconstituted Cospóir, the sports body, an excellent group. At present it administers the outstanding sportsperson award, through the governing bodies on sport. Until such time as the Government takes a decision to reinstate that function to our Sports division, we can do nothing about it. I am not in a position to answer questions today since it remains a scheme operated by the Department of the Environment.
If any Members experience difficulty in obtaining information, they need only ask me, a Principal Officer, or the people in the section, and we shall furnish them with the requisite information. However, I suggest that Members read the annual report.
That concludes our discussion on Vote 26.
Sitting suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m.
Vote 27 — First Level Education.
I note that subhead A covers the salaries and allowances of teachers in respect of posts of responsibility and special qualifications, and to teachers in Gaeltacht and all-Irish schools and for miscellaneous expenses. The approximate number of teachers is 20,758, including 3,326 principals. The increase in expenditure over 1992 is due mainly to increases arising from the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, agreed special increases, increments and extra costs.
I do not want to deal with the Programme for Economic and Social Progressbut I would like to refer briefly to the figure of 20,758 teachers. Of the total number of full time teachers approximately 4,711 are male while 14,826 are female. Of the total of 4,711 males 1,839 are principals whereas of the total of 14,826 females only 1,416 hold principalships. On the basis of those figures there is bias against the appointment of female principals.
Correct.
In other words, the figure for males is 1:2.5 whereas the figures for females is 1:10.5.
Another point that needs to be made is that in recent years the intake to teacher-training colleges has been female dominated. For example, I understand that of the total of 110 taken in last year, the previous year and the preceding year to St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra 100 were female while only 10 were male. This has social implications, in terms of role models. There is a need for gender equity and proofing. This matter will have to be addressed seriously as we need to find out the reason more men are not joining the teaching profession. This question will have to be examined in detail and I do not think any proper or thorough assessment has been carried out to date.
Are the salaries of those who work in the school psychological service covered in the subhead for salaries in the Department rather than under this subhead? I came across this service in the Finglas district recently and I was surprised at the huge areas individual psychologists are required to cover. Will the Minister comment on the level and adequacy of the service and its capacity to respond to the problems which arise? I take it that psychologists simply assess the students and pass on the information to the health board psychological service. Is the Minister satisfied that a three-four week response time is adequate? Is it reasonable to expect psychologists to cover the huge areas they are expected to at present?
We have heard much about the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress not being honoured in full. We have had this document for a number of weeks and it appears that most of the headings include additional payments for this year. Will the Minister indicate the sections of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which are included in these increases and the sections, if any, which are not included? Will the additional payments promised by the Minister for Finance to the unions during the week be dealt with by way of a Supplementary Estimate later in the year or will they be included in the Estimates for 1994?
I wish to ask two questions in regard to primary education. My first question relates to a matter I raised in my opening remarks, that is, the provision of school accommodation for a south city multi-denominational school. Is it intended to provide a permanent building for that school? What arrangements will be made in the interim for that school? Specifically, what arrangements can be made to obtain use of school buildings which are not in use at present and which could be used for that school?
My second question relates to a subject which is perhaps closer to home for the Minister. With regard to the overall building of primary schools, may I ask the Minister if there is a programme for school building in order of priority and where, if at all, in that order of priority is the promised school for the Carrickmines—Ballyogan area of south County Dublin? As the Minister will be aware, this fast developing part of south County Dublin, which will shortly have a population of 10,000 people, still has no primary school and the parents have to send their children to schools in other areas. This problem is reaching critical proportions. I should like to know, where, if at all, in the order of new primary schools buildings that proposed primary school fits.
Deputy Higgins referred to the gender imbalance among the principals of schools, a problem that is particularly bad in primary schools. Something has to be done to remedy this anomaly. In addition, recognition needs to be given to the role of school principals in the times in which we live. When he was Minister for Education, Deputy Séamus Brennan saw school principals as having the role of a chief executive within schools and envisaged giving them a strong management role. That proposal may have gone too far — it certainly brought the language of commerce into the language of education but nonetheless, the essential idea was correct.
During these changing times, a school principal must be the main agent for change and for bringing about change within the school and among the school staff. A school principal has to have many management skills, the skills to motivate his or her staff to be innovative and the skills to bring about the necessary and overdue changes in education within the school. For that reason the time has come to update and upgrade the role of the school principal. We can then devise a salary structure which will motivate those people who have those skills naturally to put themselves forward for the post of principal. The time has also come for us to set a limit on the length of time one can remain a principal of a school. We have to look at the role of the school principal and consider what changes should be introduced. Once we have decided on the changes we can set a salary scale to meet the requirements.
Has the Minister any plans to introduce a pension scheme for caretakers?
Subhead C is, perhaps, one of the most important subheads. While I welcome the £5 increase, which amounts to a 25 per cent increase in capitation, it is tragic that the service is still inadequately funded. My colleague referred to very extensive surveys on the running costs carried out by parents committees. In a national survey by management and parents committees it was estimated that the minimum running cost was in the region of £88 to £95 per pupil. This was the estimated cost of providing the most basic service of maintaining the fabric of the school. The capitation grant goes nowhere towards the real cost of maintaining a school to which the children can go, never mind about maintaining the children in school, because that is an additional cost. The gap is being made up by parents. In some areas this is not a difficulty but in many schools in my constituency which includes Finglas and Ballymun, it is extremely difficult to bridge that gap. While occasionally they may benefit from funds for disadvantaged areas every penny they raise is being used for paying the insurance and paying for repairs and maintainance to the basic fabric of the school, which in many cases is inadequate — we will deal with that under the subhead for school buildings. The increase is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of schools and this is most sharply felt in areas of disadvantage where the money is not available to bridge the gap between £33 and £80. There certainly is no extra money to provide additional facilities which parents in more comfortable circumstances are able to provide by successful fund raising.
It is unconstitutional, as other Deputies said, that a basic free primary education is not being provided for the children of this country. This area will have to be prioritised. I accept it is expensive and that every £2 increase in the capitation grant will cost the Department an additional £1 million per year.
Will the Minister give a commitment to substantially increase the capitation grant in the years ahead because, despite the 25 per cent increase, that grant is still grossly inadequate?
I support the basic thrust of Deputy Flaherty's remarks. Will the Minister take on board the views of Deputies Flaherty and Gilmore because they go to the core of what the primary education system is supposed to provide? We are supposed to provide full free primary education but there is no such thing as free primary education. The Green Paper on Education uses the very flattering terminology that the primary school principal is now to be known as a chief executive. He is a chief executive as things stand. He has to be master of numerous skills, indeed he has to be quite an entrepreneur because if he is to survive as a primary school principal he has to organise raffles, bazaars, sales of work and fund raising functions as well as getting sponsorship from local shop-keepers, industries and so on. In many cases the school children are told to bring their own toilet paper and soap to school. That is simply unsustainable. There is no doubt that the cost of primary education is imposing considerable hardship on a growing number of parents in urban and rural Ireland. Instead of being a happy prospect it is becoming a daunting financial task for parents to send their children to school because of the constant financial demands in order to keep body and soul together or to have some sembalance of involvement in the school. Of course, there are all the hidden extras.
Some years ago the Department of Education commissioned a unit cost study. The Department officials may not wish to hear this but I understand that this unit cost study turned up very salutary figures in relation to the costs of keeping a student in primary school. The same study showed also — this is unofficial because it was never published and all pleas for its publication have fallen on deaf ears — that the unit cost of keeping a pupil in a secondary school was £140; in a vocational school, £190; and in a community comprehensive school £240. I am open to correction on these figures, indeed I would be delighted to be corrected because this would give us some indication of the actual figures. However, if those are the figures it shows how low the allocation for primary schools is in comparison. Schools are supposed to provide lighting, heating, equipment, carry out maintenance and so on out of a capitation grant of £33 per pupil.
The Minister for Education recently launched a pilot project on school vandalism and allocated £40,000 to it. While I welcome that, it is unfortunate that we have to resort to protective measures of this sort. However, I do not believe it should be part and parcel of the education budget as it is a security matter and that falls more appropriately on the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána. There should be no obligation on schools other than providing for the normal safety devices, to provide its own security system.
I agree with what the previous speakers said about capitation levels. Schools have been grossly under-funded for a number of years. As a matter of fact for a number of years in or around 1987 — it may have been five or even more years — there was no increase in the capitation grant. It is to the Minister's credit that there has been an increase this year and we must give credit for that, and this is a step in the right direction. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that this increase is built on, that the allocation will be significantly greater in the coming years and no year will pass without a percentage increase in the capitation grant. Everything that the previous speakers said is correct and accurate.
One of the effects of low capitation is that schools in middle class areas, where the parents are comfortable and can afford to do fund raising, have not been neglected but schools in areas of high unemployment and low wages, where parents have not the money for anything but the bare essentials, have become very run down because parents have not got the additional money for school fund raising schemes. In these areas the principal and teachers are put to the pin of their collars to manage. Energies that should be put into developing education and new programmes are put into fund raising. For all their efforts they raise small amounts to keep the fabric of the school up to scratch and to pay for heating and lighting so that it is available for pupils and staff alike and to provide basic equipment. The result is that there is a huge disparity between primary schools in middle class areas and those in working class areas. To put it simply, the money is not in the working class communities and this has to be taken into account.
If we are to tackle disadvantage, it has to be on a step by step basis, measure by measure and a key measure to tackle disadvantage in education is the provision of adequate capitation grants for all schools, but particularly for schools in disadvantaged areas. Not alone will this have to be done in this year's Estimate but in the Estimates for in the future.
I will not repeat what previous speakers have said. I referred to the problem of capitation grants in my opening remarks. The problem with fund raising is that it is becoming increasingly difficult because schools in their fund raising efforts are competing against voluntary organisations in the same community who in turn are competing with the national lottery for the available disposable income for matters of this kind.
In her opening remarks the Minister referred to a four year plan for education and outlined her four year plan for a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. I would like to know the four year plan for the capitation grant. I am sure the Minister will accept that the £33, welcome as it is, is only a tiny fraction of the cost of running a school. It would be helpful for schools, parents, boards of management, parents' associations and fund raising committees of various kinds, if they knew what the future holds for them. Will there be a continuing increase and what will it amount to? What does the Minister anticipate? We know what the pupil-teacher ratio is expected to be at the end of four years but what will the capitation grant be at the end of four years?
We will proceed to subhead B.
The capitation grants scheme is based on schools designated as disadvantaged but would the Minister consider that a fairer system might be one where the pupil would be designated as disadvantaged rather than the school? I do not know whether that has been considered but I would be interested to hear the Minister's opinion.
This subhead, and the subhead dealing with the employment of caretakers in national schools, has been completely reneged upon in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I am glad there is recognition that this should get some kind of priority. If we look at the numbers promised in theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress and those appointed such as clerical assistants and so on, we will see that a promise has been reneged upon. What saved the Department’s blushes in this regard has been the operation of the social employment scheme under which a huge number of part-time secretaries are employed at the rate of £70 per week. That has given the impression that there has been an input but the commitment to full-time clerical assistants has been extremely disappointing. The same applies in regard to caretakers in national schools. More resources should be devoted to this section. As the development of primary education takes place there is a huge amount of administration work involved. In some cases school principals are walking principals, they are teaching in other cases. The increasing amount of clerical and secretarial work demands that properly trained clerical assistants and support systems be put in place.
Can the Minister tell us the total cost to her Department per clerical assistant employed? What is the net cost to the Exchequer taking into account PRSI and tax? Have any studies been carried out as to the difference between the net cost to the Exchequer and what that person would receive in unemployment payments, including ancillary benefits? In other words, is the Government aware, because of the high unemployment situation, that the additional cost of employing one extra clerical assistant may be negligible? It is not good enough that many schools are without clerical assistants.
Earlier there was a reference to a chief executive. Has anybody met a chief executive who has to write their own letters, answer the phone and so on? For schools of a certain size clerical assistance is essential.
Under subhead E, the employment of caretakers in national schools is essential. There are both caretakers and clerical assistants in the English schools. During our political life many of us regularly make representations to the Department of Enterprise and Employment to have a scheme extended because a suitable person would like to be taken on for another year. Where there is an established need the position should be made permanent. I know one caretaker who after 18 years' service in one of our local primary schools is approaching pension age. I tabled a question to the Minister for Education this week — which we did not reach — on pension entitlements for such persons.
We will proceed to Subheads F.1 and F.2.
In regard to school books, there appears to be an abuse of the system. There does not appear to be any conpulsion to hand back the books when the course is completed. There does not appear to be any central monitoring and students often sell on the books to their wealthier colleagues and than claim that the books were lost thrown into the fire or damaged. That should be examined.
I agree with Deputy Moffat's remarks on school books. From the point of view of good housekeeping, good management and good practice there is a strong case, apart altogether from cost considerations, for putting in place a proper school book rental scheme. Responsibility for such a scheme should be assigned to somebody with a post of responsibility. It is galling to see that books obtained under this scheme are disposed of willy nilly. If a proper scheme is to be put in place seed capital is required. I would like to see some money under this heading being made available for seed capital in each school for the purpose of providing a books rental scheme. We should expect that books would be handed back in reasonable condition at the end of the period of usage. The fund itself is inadequate.
Last year the former Minister for Education caused a furore when he introduced a new scheme involving community welfare officers. People who were eligible for the footwear and clothing allowance were given a slip of paper by the community welfare officer and told to go the principal of their local national school to get free books on the strength of the note. School principals were swamped with this documentation assuring them that the parents had a bona fide case under the free books scheme when, in fact, there had been little, if any, increase in the allocation for free books. Subsequently that scheme was scrapped. It reduced the dignity of a number of parents who had to go from Billy to Jack with a slip of paper indicating that as they had qualified for the footwear and clothing allowance they were now eligible for free books. We have now been told that the replacement scheme is not being continued but that there has been an increase in the actual cost of the school book grant from £1.418 million to £1.647 million. The fundamentals of the scheme remain in place.
Deputy Higgins has summed up the position.
Does the Minister consider the current scheme adequate and, if not, does she intend to introduce new regulations?
I am not sure whether this is the correct heading under which to ask the Minister a question about school attendance but it appears to be the only heading under which it can be asked. Dublin Corporation — of which I am a member — discovered recently that we are spending £750,000 per year on a service which is not operating in a serious way. In some parts of the city, and especially in the most disadvantaged areas, the school attendance service is virtually non-existent. Under subhead F.1 there is special assistance for schools in disadvantaged areas. It is probable that that school attendance does not come under that heading. I am sure the Minister will agree that the problem of truancy or, absence from school, is particularly acute in disadvantaged areas. What action will the Minister take to overhaul the school attendance services, especially in Dublin city? In school attendance area No. 3 — the inner city — which I have the honour to represent, the problem is very severe. Does the Minister intend making any changes in the legislation to deal with school attendance? Does she intend to take that matter out of the hands of the local authorities or to adjust the service in any way?
When the Minister is dealing with special assistance for schools in disadvantaged areas, will she indicate the variety of ways in which schools in such areas are assisted? It is my understanding that such funds have been used to assist schools in debt and that is unacceptable to schools which manage their affairs properly without receiving any assistance. What criteria are used and how many schools are involved? Is the funding available over a broad geographical base?
I suggest that we move on to discuss subheads G, H and I together.
Is St. Paul's school in Finglas considered one of the special educational projects? As that school aims at second level students, I am not sure what heading it comes under. The school provides special educational facilities for children who have dropped out of mainstream education and is a necessary and valuable service in the Finglas area. We have been campaigning for a similar facility in the Ballymun area where approximately 70 children have dropped out of mainstream education. Following a number of meetings with previous Ministers with whom I though I was making some progress, this Minister told me she believed the FÁS workshops and other mainline educational facilities were an adequate response to the needs of such children. I do not hold that view and neither do any of the principal teachers in the Ballymun area. We need two Finglas-type projects in the Ballymun area and I am sure the same applies to many other parts of this city.
There are two schools for children in care in my area, St. Michael's and St. Laurence's. I hope the question of children in care will be dealt with under the proposed juvenile justice Bill to be introduced shortly. An ongoing question in this regard relates to whether all facilities should be under the aegis of the Department of Health for the purposes of having an integrated services. While St. Michael's and St. Laurence's operate effectively, the fact that they operate during the school term means they are not open during the summer months. The needs of juveniles do not cease in the months of June to September. Will the Minister comment on the future for such schools in the context of a review of the juvenile justice service which I presume will form part of the juvenile justice Bill?
I would like to refer to the definition of the word "handicapped". I frequently deal with cases of disruptive pupils who are usually socially upset rather than handicapped. Such pupils are sometimes not acceptable in any school. I am aware of two children who could not be placed in a school for several months despite the best efforts of their parents to secure a place for them. Some children simply have a low IQ. Under the definition of "handicapped" does the Minister mean children with a low IQ, children who are socially disruptive or is there a grey area? The Rutland Street project deals with children in this category, but that project needs to be expanded because it is unable to deal with the inner city problem not to mention the greater Dublin area. Is the Minister aware of the impact disruptive pupils are having on teachers? Will she indicate her proposals to assist teachers under stress who are dealing with a large number of socially disruptive pupils?
The facilities for children in care are expensive in terms of the return they provide. One of the difficulties experienced by staff in the schools in question is that we do not have homes for children with psychiatric problems who need medical attention and they are placed in the special schools about which we are talking. That does not benefit the children involved because they are not getting the type of treatment they need and deserve. Such pupils are a disruptive element in the schools in which they are placed. They disrupt other pupils who might benefit from the courses provided by such schools. This means we are not rehabilitating the young people in those schools to an acceptable level. That problem must be confronted and the Minister should take it up with her colleagues, the Minister for Health and Justice. It is not directly her responsibility but it impinges on her Department. It can be dealt with effectively in the juvenile justice Bill.
Will the Minister consider the need for a non-academic service for certain areas of the city with a high drop out rate? Outdoor rather than academic pursuits might keep children at school longer than at present.
We will deal now with subheads J, K and L.
Both male and female teachers pay the same level of super-annuation. However, if a male teacher dies his widow will receive a pension, but if a female teacher dies her widower will not receive a pension. Will the Minister explain why this is the case and what she intends to do in that regard?
At the annual Easter teacher conferences the Minister indicated that she would be prepared to examine in depth the question of early retirement. What discussions have taken place to date?
In regard to the provision of a residential special school for young female offenders, can the Minister tell us if the full round of consultations undertaken with the residence is now completed or if they are ongoing?
That completes questions on Vote 27. The proposal is that we proceed to Votes 28 and 29 after which the Minister will reply.
On a point of order, we have asked many questions. Will the Minister reply to those questions now?
I intended calling the Minister after we have dealt with the next two Votes.
I could reply now. Eighteen issues were covered. Deputy Higgins asked about the number of female and male teachers. There are two tiers — the number of males who apply for teacher-training place whilst still at second level and the number of women who apply for these positions. Both areas must be examined. I was surprised to hear that recently in the Deputy's county where two principals were appointed no woman applied. This is an ongoing problem and we must try to ascertain why people do or do not choose to be teachers or look for promotion. I suggest it reflects the heavy burden women carry in our society but I know that these inequities also concern the male members of this committee.
There is a commitment in the Programme for Government to increase the psychological service. A pilot scheme that has been in place for three years is now complete. Rather than stopping it we have allowed that scheme to continue. The Estimates include the carryover from 1992, the increases in the General and special area, the cost of the general increase paid with effect from 1 January and the cost of moving from cash increase paid from January to the 3 per cent increase. There was no provision but that is something that concerns all Departments.
I am glad Deputy Gilmore has given me an opportunity to refer to multi-denominational schools. A school has been offered to these people.
In Rathfarnham?
It is a school in Nutgrove belonging to a section of the Catholic religion.
It is an hour's journey away.
There has also been an offer of a site. I have listened to Deputy Gilmore twice put on the record statements that are really not the full story.
The Minister should tell us the full story.
I assure people that they need not be afraid, they are not to be whipped up. An extraordinary amount of work has gone on in my Department for that group of people since the night that building went on fire. I saw them within 24 hours. I ask Deputies who are involved with that desperate and worried group to help in the process we are putting in place in the Department. There are two options on the table and I want them considered. I know the board of management is seriously considering the options. If individuals do not agree with the overall response, that surely is not something for which I, as Minister for Education, can be held responsible.
The Deputy alleged this morning that those people would be left on the side of the road, that they were not getting access to property because it belonged to one section of a religious community. I owe it to the two sides involved, my officials and the people at Nutgrove, to acknowledge the work that has been done. I hope the Deputy will give me the opportunity in the near future, within days possibly, of putting on the record of this House what has been achieved for a group of people who are entitled to have their school. I am confident that this will be sorted out.
Why were they outside this House last Wednesday?
I am putting on record what is happening.
I did not invent them; they appeared here last Wednesday.
I am telling Deputies that that school has two offers on the table. That is very generous. The work of the Department and the people of Nutgrove should not be hijacked.
The offers are not in Crumlin.
I ask that I be allowed return and tell the end of the story. I have told it as it is so far.
They have been offered accommodation in Rathfarnham. It is a long way away.
The role of the school principals was raised by Deputy Quill who spoke about the help they need. School principals certainly benefit from caretaking and secretarial services and guidance teachers. There are funded management courses for school principals and it may be possible to increase the number of them. The role of school principals has widened because, given the make-up of society today, schools have a much greater role to play.
Caretakers and secretaries are covered under the PRSI scheme. The number under that scheme has been increased. We are moving towards a grant to the schools at £30 per pupil at primary level and £50 per pupil at second level. The grants will be paid to the schools who will use the money to finance part-time or full-time secretarial and caretaking services or security arrangements that I will refer to later. It is a move away from full involvement by the Department. The schools will have a say as to how their budget is spent. This is done under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and will be dependent on future such agreements.
Capitation grants have gone up from £28 to £33. The schools Deputy Flaherty referred to would also be in receipt of £17 extra per pupil because they are in a disadvantaged area.
Deputy Bell asked about the criteria for the scheme and if it would be easier to base it on the number of pupils rather than on the school. We must remember that some areas do not have the wherewithal because of unemployment of 20 per cent. In Ballymun the suggestion is that the unemployment rate is as high as or higher than 80 per cent and there are six schools there. In disbursing the £1 out of every £5 of taxpayers' money that is spent on education, we target the funding where it is most needed. Among the criteria are unemployment, the number of medical cards and local authorities housing. We have to address this on a community basis and the local inspectorate are involved. I am not suggesting that is sufficient. Not only do they get an extra capitation grant but there is an acknowledgement that there are specific and severe problems in what I would describe not just as disadvantaged schools but as schools in crisis. They get extra teachers, caretaking allowances and extra security services. Security is operated under a pilot scheme. Insurance costs are covered under capitation grants. However, some school find it difficult to obtain insurance unless they invest in security. I am aware that is the case in schools in Cork and in another area where 121 school windows were broken over a weekend. The boards of management of those schools find it extremely difficult to obtain insurance cover. It is too much to expect the general school insurance scheme to cover large cost in respect of damage to school buildings. Insurance companies are concerned as to whether some are insurable and we must be reasonable and say that in some areas they are not. Schools in those areas should have good security facilities. Those schools should be ring-fenced. Security should be provided to ensure the safety of the schools and the provision of good facilities for the children attending them.
Regarding the budget provision for education, if the Minister's position was secure for three years the position would be easier. The Programme for Government extends over four years. Submissions for allocations from the Structural Fund in respect of education are not made on an annual basis. However, the budget allocation for education is made on an annual basis and today we are examining the amounts allocated in last year's budget.
The allocation in respect of school books has been considered and the position is not satisfactory. There is general agreement that this allocation needs to be changed and Deputy Higgins highlighted the position when he said that people had to run around with pieces of paper to prove that the allocation was inadequate. The allocation has been increased. There is no scam, the figure involved is £10 per pupil. I agree with the Deputy that we must endeavour to put in place a rental scheme for books. The allocation of £9.25 per pupil in primary school from first class to sixth class has been increased to £10 while the allocation in respect of infant classes has been increased from £4 per pupil to £5.50. I do not know if there are any entrepreneurs who would make money on those figures.
That is the enterprise culture.
I would be open to suggestions from any side of the House on how this area could be targeted in a fair way.
Deputy Mitchell referred to school attendance. I would refer him to a reply I gave on Wednesday in response to a parliamentary question. He stated that if Dublin Corporation, which has five school attendance committees, changed to have one committee that would go some way towards addressing concerns regarding children's non-attendance at school. I see children walking in O'Connell Street when they should be attending school. This is a major problem and it is being addressed to some extent by the home-school liaison scheme. It may be better to deal with this problem through the home-school liaison scheme than through the legal process. There is a breakdown in communications between parents and children and children are found wandering around and nobody is taking responsiblity for them. The staffing of the home-school liaison scheme has been increased and there is a commitment to introduce it to more schools during the Government's term of office. The White Paper will refer to school attendance. There is need for legislation in this area.
Deputy Flaherty referred to the youth reach programme which caters for children who have removed themselves from academia. The point was made that perhaps we should have a non-academic stream, but it would be unfair for children to come from the primary level without the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. There is flexibility at second level in respect of courses, for example, the senior certificate and those run by the vocational education committees. Funding has been provided under another sub-head from EC money. I will go into greater detail in this if the Deputy wishes.
Will there be a special school for Ballymum, like the school provided in Finglas which is very good?
We must consider the programmes in place and the allocation of resources. Capital funding is mainly used for buildings and current funding is mainly used to provide services. I am considering those matters at present. I take the points made by Deputy Flaherty and Shorthall in this regard and they have raised the issue of how those resources are used on a number of occasions.
There is a commitment to the Rutland Street project as was announced earlier in the year in respect of the provision of pre-school facilities for the disadvantaged. We hope to introduce eight projects and we have retained 16 of the 200 teaching posts for dealing with those programmes. I am familiar with the Rutland Street project but we must ensure that work on projects is monitored. There are regular reports in regard to this work. There is a commitment in the Programme for Government to preschool facilities for the disadvantaged. We are basing our programmes on the Rutland Street model.
Regarding early retirement, for teachers, this matter is being considered. Those in our teaching profession are not old but they could be termed middle-aged. It would be beneficial to the teaching profession to recruit young and energetic teachers. Figures in regard to costs involved in this area produced by the Department of Finance and our Department differ. We must establish a satisfactory base in regard to costs. I have done some work on this area since I attended the conferences.
Regarding the provision of pensions for the surviving spouses of female teachers, the 1.5 per cent contribution required from teachers and the 1.5 per cent contribution by the State is being considered by the teachers' union and the teachers. This matter has been drawn to my attention now and I will pursue it. If there are implications in respect of contributions I will consider this matter further.
I have dealt with 18 issues drawn to my attention under the Vote.
I wish to refer to a point made by the Minister. First, in regard to the school in Crumlin I wish to make it clear to the Minister that I did not ay anything here I did not believe to be true. Second, I resent strongly her implication that I was in some way, as she put it, "whipping it up". The parents of the pupils in that school protested outside this House earlier this week. They made it clear that they want alternative premises in the Crumlin area and not in Rathfarnham which they say is about one hour's drive in morning traffic. There are ten classrooms lying idle down the road from that school which they sought to rent but they were unable to do so. That is the central point in my argument.
The school they sought to rent is an old building. It would require much investment. It is considered to be bad value for money and, rather than take on something that is old, broken, battered and bruised, we considered the alternative accommodation in Rathfarnham was better value. To suggest Rathfarnham is an hour from Crumlin is a slight exaggeration.
Ten minutes remain before we conclude the meeting. We should proceed to the next Vote.
I live close to the area referred to and I know some of the parents involved. The parents who protested outside the Dáil said they were satisfied with the way the Minister was dealing with this problem. They want her to address the bigger issue of classrooms which might because available in the future. They were happy with the progress the Minister had made regarding the issue.
We now have only 25 minutes remaining——
Nine minutes.
——nine minutes if we are concluding at 3 and the two remaining Votes need to be examined. We will have to provide an hour or two on some other occasion to conclude these Estimates as they obviously cannot be concluded today.
I understand we have no option in this regard. It was an order of the Dáil that the Estimates be concluded today.
That the Estimates were to be discussed. I am not aware that the order stated they were to be concluded.
Discussed and completed.
They must be concluded today.
We have dealt today with primary education but we have not dealt with vocational education committees, second and third level education. We will have to organise our time more efficiently in future. I wanted to make several points which are very important in the area I represent. I am being denied an opportunity to do this because our time has not been properly structured. In future, if we are allocated three hours we must organise that time in advance and adhere to time constraints.
It is possible for the committee to sit late today if Members so wish.
That would be very difficult for many Members. Last Friday we discussed only the Tourism Estimate but it was agreed to adjourn the committee and discuss the Trade Estimate another day. In that way they will be dealt with adequately. Had I thought that provision was not available we probably would have adopted a different approach to the timing of this committee. It will be impossible to cover the remaining Votes in five minutes. Can we have it clarified that the Estimates taken today will not necessarily be concluded?
My information is that it was an order of the Dáil that they be concluded today. I will have the matter clarified for the committee.
This is making a nonsense of the committee system.
I have already clarified that matter with the Government Whip's Office. The document circulated a week ago was clearly headed "Suggested Time Table". Anyone could have proposed that the time be extended to 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. or whatever time Members felt necessary. That document has been in circulation over a week.
This problem arose on another committee last week and it was addressed quite reasonably. Business was not completed and the committee was adjourned to another day. This is all new ground for Deputies and we are putting down suggestions as guidelines. We are only discovering how much time is required to discuss these Estimates. We must not forget we are dealing with £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money. We cannot discuss the remaining £1 billion in five minutes. That would not be doing what this committee was set up to do.
There is no doubt that we can continue on this evening. However, we are seeking clarification that this Estimate was the subject of an Order of the Dáil. The Estimates referred to by Deputy Flaherty may not been taken in that way. Perhaps we could proceed while we are waiting for that clarification. There is little point in losing time. We will continue until this matter is clarified.
Many Members have made arrangements to travel to the country. We had not been aware that sufficient time was not available today. Based on my experience of another committee only last week we thought flexibility would apply. We hope we can continue these discussions on another day. We should not require more than two or three hours on that occasion.
We should have this matter clarified within the next few minutes.
If the committee does not approve the Estimate today, would it not then be necessary to adjourn to another day?
That is the point we are now seeking to clarify. Is it agreed that we proceed beyond 3 o'clock?
No.
No.
We agree to proceed for the remaining five minutes.
Vote 28 — Second-Level and Further Education.
We will discuss the total Vote, rather than the various subheads.
In relation to second level education this is an area of enormous change. To enable the teaching staff to confront that change there is an overwhelming demand for in-service courses for teachers. During the coming years new subjects will be introduced to the curriculum. These will include subjects in the sciences and language areas, in the area of technology and, hopefully, in the area of civil, social and political education. These subjects will be on the curriculum for the first time. Teachers will need to update and upgrade their teaching skills to enable them deal with the behavioural and other changes in young people in recent times. This is very important.
Teachers require in-service training on an ongoing basis to cope with certain areas of social disadvantage where the culture of learning and study is breaking down. In those circumstances there is an overwhelming demand for in-service education for all teachers, particularly those involved in specialised subjects. The whole career guidance scheme in second level education is in need of large financial allocations to enable it meet the demands of the times. This will allow the service deal with the needs of students, particularly those in areas where there is no tradition of sitting the leaving certificate or progressing to third level education. Students who come from that type of background must be highly motivated and this can be done by career guidance teachers. Those teachers must encourage students to remain in school and sit their Leaving Certificate. The subject matter of the new courses must be adapted to their needs, interests and aptitudes and they must be motivated to embark upon those courses with enthusiasm.
Our objective must be one of a leaving certificate for all, whatever the frame of that leaving certificate. This must be the minimum in basic education provisions for our young people. There is an overwhelming need for additional funds to be allocated every year for the next five years to provide ongoing in-service education and training courses for teachers.
I take the point made by Deputy Higgins and replied to already by the Minister that when one considers the need to include new subjects in the curriculum we must consider the possibility of an early retirement scheme for teachers. There is a glut of teachers of some subjects and a dearth of teachers in others. The only way to address this problem is to offer an adequate early retirement scheme to some teachers who may feel they have made their contribution to education and would like to avail of such an offer. By so doing they would create opportunities for teachers of German and the modern technical and vocational subjects.
I appeal to the Minister to consider introducing a proper welfare service for all our teachers. Our greatest asset is the calibre, commitment and quality of our teachers. We compare well with other countries in this regard and we should never ignore the quality of our teaching force.
Before I call on Deputy Higgins to make his contribution I have now a copy of the order of the Dáil made on Wednesday, 9 June. It is as follows:
"The Select Committee on Social Affairs shall meet on Friday, 11 June at 10.15 a.m. to consider and to conclude all Estimates relevant to the Department of Education."
That is an order of the Dáil and, unlike committees dealing with other Estimates, we are subject to that order. We have no discretion to vary that order which was made and agreed on the Order of Business on Wednesday morning. We must conclude today. As the Deputy rightly said, other committees were not subject to an order of the Dáil but for some good reason this committee is so subject.
Is that a copy of the Order?
Yes.
I do not recollect hearing the word "conclude". Had I known that was the position I would have approached this Estimate very differently. This arrangement undermines proper consideration of a huge amount of public spending. In future we will have to insist on at least a two-day debate for an Estimate of this magnitude — we are discovering that two days are required for consideration of most Estimates. This arrangement frustrates what has been a very effective examination of the first two Votes. I appreciate the time given by the Minister and her officials but that is negatived by not having sufficient time to devote to the other two major areas involving more than £1 billion.
We have discretion to continue until 12 midnight tonight. I am not being facetious but we have further time to conclude this debate.
A pre-session meeting took place between the Chairman and myself as well as the clerks and Department advisers. Deputy Flaherty was invited but could not attend due to an important engagement. Having discussed the matter at length the result was immediately circulated to all Members and no comment was made by anybody, including Deputy Flaherty, about changing the time. Subsequently an order of the House was made.
I did not get much notice of the meeting.
Visit by British Parliamentarians.
I interrupt proceedings to offer a very warm welcome to Mr. John Smith, Leader of the British Labour Party, and Mrs. Smith, as well as our good friend, Mr. Kevin McNamara, MP.
Vote 28 — Second-Level and Further Education (Resumed).
Vote 29 — Third-Level and Further Education.
Is it agreed that we extend the time for the discussion?
We have no option.
We will keep going.
Until what time?
Until 4 p.m.
Most of us anticipated that the discussion would conclude at 3 p.m. and the point has been fairly made that a number of Members had made other arrangements in anticipation of that. None of us anticipated the discussion on the Estimates would be brought to a conclusion at that time if all matters had not been dealt with. It is not acceptable that there be no discussion on second level and third level education. One possible suggestion is that we continue for some time, perhaps raise the major issues on second and third level education and allow the Minister to reply. That would prevent a prolonged extension of the debate while enabling us to complete business.
Is that agreed?
I have attended a couple of committees and the procedure varies in each committee. I know we have to comply with the order of the Dáil but I had hoped we could observe the precedent that was observed in a committee meeting seven days ago in the Seanad Chamber when a different approach was adopted. I welcome Deputy Gilmore's proposal that general statements be made by party spokespersons on the two major areas and that other people have an opportunity to make critical points.
That should be agreed without further loss of time. I call Deputy Jim Higgins to make his general statement on Votes 29 and 29 and I will subsequently call the other spokespersons.
I accept we are tied by the restrictions of the House but we are not doing justice to the Estimate by dealing in such a short time with £613 million in the case of second level education and £300 million in the case of third level education. The formula devised in terms of the Estimates debates is extremely successful provided the necessary time is made available. Examination under the various subheads of the minutiae of policy and provision is extremely good. I welcome the presence in the House of the considerable representation of An Roinn Oideachais. I do not know whether such representations is evident in terms of other Departments but it is a new departure and it is welcome that the Minister is advised on various elements and aspects so that she can give a comprehensive and satisfactory reply on the spot.
Yesterday there was the spectacle of parents and children marching on the streets of Limerick because of lack of access to secondary education, which is a scandal. The main reason for this problem relates to class distinction or perhaps it is due to an unfair selectivity procedure. As the State pays teachers' salaries a long hard look should be taken at the method of debarment used by schools in denying children the right to second level education. I was heartened to hear the Minister talk some time ago about the elimination of selectivity procedures in State-funded schools. The matter has now come to a head and I trust the Minister will seek a meeting between her Department and managment of the schools involved so that the problem is ironed out once and for all.
At present 63,350 pupils are sitting their leaving certificate examination, an examination which will decide whether they become doctors, dentists, plumbers, nurses, teachers, electricians, secretaries or whatever. Everything rests and falls on that 20-hour examination. It is the final arbiter of the career one is to follow and there is no second chance. I welcome wholeheartedly the NCCA report on the junior certificate examination. Notwithstanding that we acknowledge the integrity of the leaving certificate as an orthodox written examination, it is not fair and equitable that a person's future should hinge on a 20-hour examination after five or six years of post-primary education. Teacher unions will have to take on board, in terms of equity and fair play, the idea of ongoing assessment, starting with the junior certificate — there is not very much at stake at that level. I have no doubt that the teaching body has the capacity to take on board the question of assessment. An examination does not give a clear picture of a person's social, psychological or educational development. The only way that can be satisfactorily determined is by combining the orthodox examination with ongoing assessment. Ongoing assessment means in-house examinations, projects, field work and monitoring by the teachers. The TUI argue validly that if there is additional work there should be additional payment. The ASTI say that they will not touch this in any shape or form because of peer pressure. If they can do it satisfactorily in other countries, we should take it on board but we should put our foot in the water gently and start with the junior certificate and graduate to senior certificate if it works at junior level.
Of the 63,350 students sitting for the leaving certificate, 18,000 have had no contact with career guidance counsellors. Yet before the end of the month they will have to make a final choice in relation to CAO-CAS courses. It is hard for parents with a third-level background to wade through the labyrinth of courses and the complexity of the points system but for parents without that background it is impossible. I pay tribute to the education correspondents in the various newspapers who produce worthwhile supplements. Without those supplements many children would founder and we would end up with square pegs in round holes. It is wrong that 18,000 children will have to make those decisions without career guidance.
I agree with Deputy Quill with regard to the development of the leaving certificate. We look forward to the emergence of the new leaving certificate. If we are going to produce three or four different leaving certificates, but at the end of the day only one of those certificates will carry the points for entry to university, the status that will attach to that will make it "Mark I" and the others will be nothing other than pale alternatives. Before any decision is made the NCCA should look honestly at the modular approach in relation to the interaction between different subjects and so on.
Of all the schemes that discriminate against middle income families none discriminates more heavily that the higher education grants system. I acknowledge that the Minister did much work on education since she came into office. She has been innovative and, with limited resources, has bitten the bullet on a number of issues. I am extremely disappointed in regard to the promised reform of higher education grants. A clear commitment was given in the Labour Party Programme for Government that grants would be based on net income rather than on gross income. At Question Time, the Minister threw that out and gave various valuations in relation to the interest value of mortgages and so on. The week before the election, the Fianna Fáil Party decided to go Dutch on this and promised and there would be full free third-level education from September 1994. We cannot afford that but we can afford a substantial reform to introduce some equity for the hard-pressed middle income families who have to mortgage and remortgage, who have a cling to existence by their nails while their children go through college and whose lives are literally on hold while they pay for a fundamental right, the right of the best quality third level eduction that this country can afford.
I am disappointed that the Minister has now indicated that the review taking place in the Department of Education will not be published for the next year or so. It means that the anticipation and hopes of so many parents that at last they will get a fair share of resources, have been dashed. We will have the opportunity next Tuesday and Wednesday to debate a Fine Gael motion on this issue. I look forward to the support of the other parties in relation to our endeavours for the middle income people.
I thank the Minister for her openness to the ideas put forward this morning and for the manner in which she answered questions. I thank the officials who came in such great numbers to listen to this debate. That is very encouraging for those of us who nibble away in the House on educational issues. The high attendance of officials this morning augurs well for the future of Irish education. Irish education is big business. We are talking about £1.8 billion of tax-payers' money and if we get the regional funding we are looking for it will be more next year. That is the way it has to be because we have a very big young population and the future is very uncertain. We cannot foresee the circumstances either in economic or social terms in which they will live in 40 years time. They are the people who will be living, as some poet said, in the house of tomorrow where we will never come. All this generation can do for them is give them the best possible education.
We have an obligation to ensure they get the best education possible; not just a section of our young people but all of them. It has become a feature of education in recent times that while our system has been doing extremely well for the top 40 per cent achievers, it has failed another group. I am referring to the 12 per cent who are doing badly and who are getting very little out of education. They are ill-equipped to bid for jobs and secure employment and are ill-equipped to live decent happy lives and to confront the social challenges of life. We must provide additional resources for those people if we are to give any kind of meaning to the aspiration to cherish all the children of the nation equally.
The Minister is very concerned about these issues and is aware of what needs to be done and what must be done now. That is why at the outset I put strong emphasis on the need to put extra resources into primary education to ensure that every child gets a fair chance at that level. Having done that we should ensure that when people go to second level the courses available to them are ones from which they can benefit. They should be courses in which they can actively participate and which will whet their appetite for learning and living. Some of the courses available now do little more than dull their brains, turn them off and alienate them from schools and learning. They go into life crippled as far as learning is concerned with the kind of distaste for learning that will ensure they will never again come back to learning despite all the opportunities in terms of ongoing learning, second chance education and distance education.
We must ensure that all our children will leave school having mastered certain things, above all the skill of learning so that they can go on learning through life. They should have mastered the art of living. Is not that important? I see young people in urban areas who are caught up in the world of substance, alcohol and drug abuse and hanging around gaming parlours. That is the ultimate of their vision of life. When I see that I ask myself, what have schools done for these people? What have they done to instil in them some kind of relish for the art of living? That is terribly important. These are all areas that must be addressed now and, in so doing, a number of new elements and approaches will have to be built into our education system at every level. We talked a good deal about third-level education, which is important. If we did nothing else here this year except commit ourselves fully to the concept of a decent leaving certificate for all young people we would have done a good day's work. Indeed we should broaden our understanding of what a leaving certificate means because there has been far too much emphasis on an academic approach, book learning and abstract book learning in this country.
I see many young people doing well, making progress, attending art colleges, engaging in apprenticeships. They are well geared for marketing because they have acquired good communications skills. Some people are creative in their thinking, can fashion a good piece of furniture, perhaps design a piece of ceramics, make a good bowl, paint a good picture, act out a good piece of drama, or something like that. These are creative areas that have received fairly poor recognition in mainstream education in recent times. I want to see them stitched into mainstream education.
In his report Culliton talked a good deal about an enterprise culture. I do not think one can teach an enterprise culture, but one can cultivate creativity among young people. I do think one can cultivate language skills, language being such a basic tool of learning. These skills can be cultivated very much in education if the facilities are made available in schools. We should remember that teachers themselves are very innovative people. In a number of cases, particularly at second level, they have been placed in the type of stranglehold the points system has taken of all second level education, so that everything else, unless it qualifies for points, appears to take second place or be regarded as second rate. It is a fact in second level education that, after 20 years of the points system, studies and disciplines that do not fit into this system tend to be rated as second class or second rate. We must change that.
I do not like to reduce the country to an economy. This has been done too frequently in the past; nonetheless we cannot ignore it because bread is bread. We need tradespersons, craftspersons, people with good marketing skills, good communications skills. It is a fact that in Germany there are more people working in the media-entertainment industry, media/broadcasting, art, cultural entertainment, than there are in the manufacture of motorcars. We should look to that example, learn from what the Germans are doing and learn from the orientation of their education. That is the kind of thing I am calling for when I seek this flexibility, this variety that must be introduced into all second level education. The time is ripe for so doing; it can and must be done.
We will make little progress unless we manage to harness the co-operation, active continuous interest and support of parents in the overall learning process. That is the key element. If that is ignored I would not be very optimistic about the future. We must enlist the support of parents at every level, particularly at primary level. We can do that well through the home/school links. That is why earlier I sought an extension of that scheme which is crucial. Indeed the overall home/school link scheme must be incorporated into adult education or adult learning for parents. I should like to see a devolution of adult education right into the heart of the community, into family support groups and women's groups. That is where I want to see adult education really begin to burgeon, parallel with the home/school link, so that parents can relearn and revisit their learning in conjunction with that of their children. If that could be done, and done well, we would be bringing about the kind of shift in the centre of gravity needed to be brought about if we are to affect the changes so essential to education today. More of the same will not do, although that is what other people may argue for. Regardless of how much money we put into education, unless we effect that type of change of approach, attitude and outlook, our system will fail many of our young people. I hope that will not be allowed to happen.
I pay tribute to the Minister on the manner in which she has approached her brief.
In view of the time I shall be as brief as possible. It has been rightly pointed out that disadvantage begins at primary level, possibly even earlier, but manifests itself most dramatically at second level because it is at that level people actually drop out. There must be a concerted effort to keep young people at school. The whole question of why some young people remain at school and others do not — why some young people from socially disadvantaged backgrounds remain at school whereas others drop out — must be examined much more closely.
I agree with the comments made in relation to the home/school liaison system which must be expanded. It operates on an ad hoc basis at present. I am not aware of any specific guidelines issued to the teachers operating that scheme. That is a criticism some teachers themselves have voiced. There needs to be a more coherent policy direction for the home/school liaison scheme and its extension.
I agree with the points made by Deputy Jim Higgins on the shortage of places at second level and the whole question of selection. Selection takes many forms, one of which is the charging of fees. This is not a simple problem but I would like the Minister to ascertain to what extent schools which are currently fee-paying could be brought into the free system. For example, many schools are fee-paying not merely for the purpose of selection but for the purpose of raising money for the school. That needs to be addressed, particularly in areas where there are a number of such schools and consequently the proportion of second level places in the free system is reduced. This exacerbates the whole selection problem. In the months of July and August, in particular, I find myself chasing around after principals of second level schools, begging and pleading with them to take in, X, Y and Z who have not been successful for a whole variety of reasons in obtaining places in such schools. There is a very serious problem of selection. Like Deputy Jim Higgins and other Members who have spoken on the subject I should like to see proposals on how that is to be addressed.
Second-chance education is very important. I was very encouraged by the VTOS scheme and should like to see it expanded. I saw a worrying report last weekend on the possibility of money not continuing to be forthcoming for that purpose. I should like to have that aspect addressed. I did mention earlier women being enabled, particularly those who have been working in the home, to participate in schemes such as the VTOS and being enabled to pursue their full second level education without having to pay fees. For example, a number of vocational education committees are running special programmes, second-chance education, affording a second chance to obtain the leaving certificate but people must pay fees. It is unfair that a person who, for example, has been working in the home for 20 years and wants to pursue a course in education has to pay fees while those who participate in the VTOS or other schemes are supported.
I mentioned earlier that we should consider the possibility of a repeat examination for the leaving certificate. I wish to pursue that matter further. At third level there are repeat examinations. Criticism has been expressed repeatedly about the leaving certificate and the fact that all one's life chances are concentrated on one examination. The difficulty is that, no matter which type of continuous assessment is devised, there will be a terminal examination which inevitably gives rise to a situation where a person puts his or her entire future prospects on the line. In those circumstances people should be given a second opportunity. I am talking here about someone who suffers a family bereavement on the morning of the examination, falls ill and so on. It is unfair, if they wish to have a second go, that they have to repeat the entire year. While I appreciate that it would cause difficulties in regard to the CAO system if a student could repeat the examination and qualify for a place the following year on the basis of his results in the repeat examination, but at least he or she would not have to repeat the entire year.
I agree with Deputy Higgins and Deputy Quill on the third level grant system. If the problem of disadvantage is to be eliminated there has to be a proper support system for third level students. Deputy Higgins mentioned those in the low to middle income bracket. We are not talking here about people on big money but about teachers, nurses and postal workers who cannot afford to send someone to third level. There is an urgent need to carry out a review.
The final point relates to the question of places at third level. If one is to promote equity in education, places will have to be made available. It is my understanding that there is a bulge in the third level sector. The Higher Education Authority estimates that there is need to provide an additional 30,000 places by the end of the decade. This raises the question as to where the places will be made available. Previously we had a debate on the need to provide an regional technical college in Castlebar when some of us used the opportunity to remind the Minister that a commitment was given to provide regional technical colleges in other locations such as Thurles, Dun Laoghaire and Blanchardstown.
Waterford.
There is one there. When I last drew the Minister's attention to the four-year plan she expressed some concern that she might not see the four years out, but I take a more optimistic view of her chances and ask her again bearing in mind the need to provide additional places at third-level, to state if there is a plan to provide these places. If large numbers of people are looking for a third level place they will have to be provided.
I would like to refer to the home-school liaison scheme which is mainly available at primary level rather than second level. In my locality students which availed of this scheme at first level found it was no longer available at second level. It is important, particularly in disadvantaged areas, that the link is maintained when one moves to a second level school.
In relation to the VTOS, this is the best thing to have happened to the unemployed during the past decade. Sometimes it can be better to participate in this scheme than to find a job as their lives can be changed radically and permanently. I know of a man who I first met at one of our local schools at a time when his business was collapsing. He owned a JCB and could not fill out a tax form. He had to give up this business and go on the dole. He became very bitter.
Was there no amnesty?
I met him again three years later at a prize giving ceremony at the local vocational school in Finglas, a tremendous school, when he received an adult education certificate. This year he is doing eight subjects in the leaving certificate and has already been accepted for an accountancy course of two years' duration. His life has changed. The unemployment figure stands at almost 300,000. Therefore the number of places available under the VTOS at 3,000 represents 0.001 per cent. I am aware that some of the unemployed have direct access to other schemes but the VTOS is very attractive given that costs of books and fees are met. We could not have enough places.
Recently we tried to get some information about local community schools and other developments with which the Minister and her officials will be familiar. This has become a major issue in my area. There are no teacher and parent representatives on the boards of managements, which is both extraordinary and unsatisfactory. I ask the Minister to indicate if it is her intention to resolve this matter.
Given that substantial public funds are involved, can the Minister say if schools are obliged to keep records and if these are open to inspection? How many pupils at first level have access to remedial teachers? Will the Minister state what her plans are in regard to the senior certificate at second level? Finally, can she indicate what EC funding is available at third level?
In regard to the four-year plan, will the Minister address the question of pay of specialist teachers and raise it to the level paid to those teachers with a H.Dip? Will she try to reach agreement with her colleague, the Minister for Finance on the question of writing-off third-level fees against income tax? While we cannot afford to pay everybody's fees at third-level, this would be a step in the right direction.
On subhead H6 — aid towards the cost of school books for second level students — is the Minister aware that parents have to carry a heavy burden in supplying books? The question arises as to whether it is appropriate that books should be required for each subject and whether the same books should be used in all schools rather than vary from school to school. Does the Department have any influence when decisions are made on which books should be used for each subject in the curriculum? Given that the Department decides on the curriculum to be followed by students, should it not consider providing appropriate notes?
On subhead J, who is responsible for meeting the cost of examinations? What is the reason the total cost is not met by the Department and what percentage is borne by students? Does the Minister not consider that the total cost of examinations should be borne by the Department of Education?
Reference was made to in-service courses, for which an increase of £247,000 has been provided. I am committed to these courses, which could be made part of the local education structures. In relation to the welfare service, this issue could be much better handled at a local level rather than from Marlborough Street.
I agree with the points made by Deputy Quill in regard to the leaving certificate. I referred to this point this morning when I spoke about the senior certificate. Having listened to the picture of education painted by the Deputy, a school somewhere is missing a very good teacher. Deputy Higgins, Deputy Quill and I are a loss to the teaching profession. We all agree that there is a need for more funding for education, which should be spent in a careful manner. The Deputies and I have certainly served our apprenticeship to education through our commitment to it.
I should point out that some officials are attending a meeting in Limerick this afternoon. I hope the problems there will finally be resolved. A meeting will take place next Tuesday between the JMB, the ACCMS and the IVEA. I am very conscious of the criteria according to which children are given places. There is a demographic hiccup in Limerick in this regard. We have all had to concentrate on how people are assigned to different schools. When this problem is resolved I will look at the general position. Lessons can be learned from this case.
Reference was made to the assessment system for grants. I will take on board the recommendations made in the Murphy report in this regard. Reference was also made to the teachers who will implement those recommendations. This has given rise to an examination of the issue of assessment within the Department. With regard to grants, I expect the special advisory committee to be in a position to issue its report in July. I wish to give the committee some figures in regard to grants — I do not think I have over-burdened the Deputies with figures today. In 1982-83, 35 per cent of the 47,000 students at third level received grants, while in 1992-93, 55.5 per cent of the 82,208 students at third level qualified for grants. There is a gap in this area and this is why the advisory committee was asked to consider the issue of assessment. Consideration has been given to whether it would be fairer to base eligibility for grants on gross or net income. I have already dealt with this issue at some length in the House. The advisory committee will deal with it in its report.
With regard to adult education, second chance education and the VTOS, I am concerned at the suggestion that a cap is being put on the VTOS. I was very pleased that the Minister for Finance, on budget day, announced the 900 new places being provided under the VTOS this year. This commitment has not just been given by my Department, it was announced by the Minister for Finance who, I think, shares our enthusiasm for the scheme. There is also another scheme in place. A sum of £300,000 has been made available for the long term unemployed who take up places on other courses. This scheme may not be well known and this debate affords us the opportunity to examine information——
Is this scheme run by the Minister's Department?
Yes, but it is administered at vocational education committee level. Everyone may not wish to avail of the courses offered under the VTOS; some people may wish to follow straightforward academic courses while others may wish to follow less academic courses.
I accept the points made in regard to second level students who drop out of school. These problems begin in primary school. Teachers in the primary sector nearly always know the students who will drop out of school at second level. The home-school liaision scheme has been extended — the 26 such schemes now in place in second level schools cover approximately 15,000 students. I know that this service is available in Deputy Flaherty's constituency. There are 120 disadvantaged schools which have extra facilities and 12 more schools are coming on stream.
I have looked at the issue of fee paying schools. There are 56 such schools in the country. Anyone who lives on the south side of Dublin will probably think that there are many more fee paying schools.
Most of them are located there.
I think 21 of the 56 fee paying schools are Protestant schools. The salaries of the teachers in these schools are paid by the Department but the schools do not get a capitation grant. Before inviting these schools to join the free education scheme, one has to consider their place in the scheme. All the schools in the free education scheme receive a capitation grant and other benefits.
The suggestion that students could repeat their leaving certificate either two weeks or a month after they get their results is the cruelest suggestion I have heard in the past 24 hours. Students who repeat their leaving certificate the year after may have a better chance of obtaining a place on their first or second choice course. Regardless of the technical difficulties involved in the Deputy's suggestion, requiring students to repeat their leaving certificates two weeks or a month after they get their results would place too much of a burden on them.
Students are repeating their leaving certificate in any event.
Students who do not get a place on their first or second choice courses in university benefit far more by repeating the leaving cert a year later when they are more mature. One also has to take into account the number of places available on courses at the beginning of the term. Second level students cannot be compared to third-level students who already have a place in college; they are not competing for a place. As a Minister and a mother, my reaction to the Deputy's suggestion was that it would constitute cruelty to children. This matter can be discussed at another time.
That is a good line.
That was my reaction to the suggestion. As I said, third-level students already have a place in college while leaving certificate students do not.
With regard to the number of places available in third-level institutions, during the debate on the establishment of a regional technical college in Castle-bar I referred to the need for a study on needs in this area. If we spend money on the capital buildings side, we have to be absolutely confident that we know the needs in this area.
With regard to the availability of records, vocational education committee records are, of course, available. The accounts of the primary schools boards of management have to be available to the Department. I do not think the Department could decide the books which should be used on various courses. The junior certificate would be the most flexible in this regard but parents could raise their voices against changing the school books used. Ingenuity in this respect should be rewarded by putting in place decent rental schemes for school books and giving children responsibility for keeping their school books in a proper condition. I do not think the Department should decide which books should be used, but I note the suggestion that notes could be provided for students. We will invite individual schools at the different levels to discuss this suggestion.
The cost of examinations runs to £10.4 million, excluding the Department's overheads. This is broken down between the staff, the inspectorate and the cost of running the examinations. The examination fees amount to approximately £5.8 million. The sums of money involved are fairly big and the difficulty is that — unless the Minister wins the £3 million in tomorrow's Lotto — there is no more money in the budget other than the £1.86 million, which was referred to earlier. The figures are stark.
What percentage do students contribute to the cost of the examinations?
Approximately half.
I will deal briefly with EC funding. At third level we benefit from ESF and European Regional Development Fund funding. The building projects at Tallaght and Bishop Street, and the other projects I mentioned, are funded from the European Regional Development Fund while ESF funding goes towards fees. The Department receives ESF funding for training programmes and improving the training structure. The level of ESF funding for third level education in 1993 is £77.053 million. This is for funding middle level technician programmes, higher technical and business skills, middle level retraining programmes, CERT programmes, FAS programmes, advanced technical skills programmes, transnational projects and programmes for the training of trainers.
A substantial number of students benefit from the ESF funding. We received funding of £15.383 million for improvement of training infrastructure in the regional technical colleges, Dublin Institute of Technologys and universities. This money has been spent in Bishop Street. We have provided new technological facilities in DCU, at University College Cork, and University College Galway and we have provided facilities for science and technology at Maynooth, as well as accommodation for the College of Catering in Cathal Brugha Street, a programme for rationalisation and capacity enhancement for the regional technical college colleges and a programme to upgrade equipment at third level colleges.
In addition, there are other Community initiatives such as EUROFORM which is concerned with new skills, new employment opportunities arising from the internal market and technological change; NOW, which aims to develop interventions which will contribute to the integration of women in the labour market; and HORIZON which aims to improve access to vocational training and the labour market by marginal sectors of our society. It has been worthwhile to stitch into the record how we are benefiting from EC funding and that this money is being spent very well.
I hope I have answered all the questions put to me. I thank the Chairman, the party spokespersons and those who contributed to the debate which has been very positive. We have had an open exchange of information. Deputy Flaherty made the point that we have the same time to discuss expenditure of £2 billion as others have to discuss the expenditure of less. That point has to be taken on board. This ties in with Deputy Flaherty's point on staffing in my Department. A Department that has responsibility for spending so much money is entitled to more staff and we would be able to satisfy any sitting of the Select Committee on Social Affairs that the tax-payers' money is being spent wisely. I thank Members for the great interest they have shown in this debate.
That concludes our consideration of the Education Votes. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State, the officials and Members of the select committee for their valuable and constructive contributions.
It is proposed that the Select Committee will meet on Thursday, 17 June 1993 at 10.15 a.m. to consider the Health Estimate. The timetable will be the same as today.
We will be more conscious of time constraints.
We will be voting against the Estimate when the appropriate Vote comes before the House proper.
The select committee adjourned at 4 p.m. until 10.15 a.m. on Thursday, 17 June 1993.