Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Thursday, 5 Dec 1996

Estimates 1996.

Vote 26: Office of the Minister for Education [Supplementary]
Vote 27: First-Level Education [Supplementary]
Vote 29: Third-Level and Further Education [Supplementary]

We have before us today Supplementary Estimates comprising Votes 26, 27 and 29 from the Department of Education. I welcome the Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, and her officials. I also welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Allen.

I welcome the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee to discuss the additional sums required in the Supplementary Estimates for three of the four Education Votes. The Supplementary Estimates for which I seek approval are required mainly for capital expenditure in the first and third-level sectors and to meet a shortfall in funding for the free fees initiative. Supplementary Estimates are also required because of reduced receipts from the European Social Fund due to my Department as appropriations-in-aid in 1996. I seek approval for three Supplementary Estimates amounting to £34.194 million as follows: £3.950 for Vote 26, Office of the Minister for Education, £6.850 million for Vote 27, First-Level Education, and £23.394 million for Vote 29, Third-Level and Further Education.

A Supplementary Estimate totalling £3.950 million is required on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education. It is comprised of the following elements: in subhead B.2 — Transport Services — I am seeking an increase in the 1996 expenditure for school transport of £520,000. This increase has been caused by the demand made on my Department for improvements in transport services for disabled pupils attending special schools and special classes. These improvements include the introduction of specially adapted buses for wheelchair pupils. The introduction of the transition year in a number of schools has also increased demand for services, together with new services for increased pupil numbers on transport at post-primary level in the current school year.

A supplementary amount of £1 million is required for subhead B6 — In Career Development. As Deputies will be aware, considerable progress has been made on the introduction of new programmes, revised curricula and special initiatives to provide good educational opportunities for the more disadvantaged in society. Major new programmes, such as the leaving certificate applied, the restructured leaving certificate vocational programme, the new civil, social and political education programme and the junior certificate elementary programme have been introduced. These, combined with revised syllabuses in subjects such as business and music and the major initiatives to introduce relationships and sexuality education into schools as a structured part of the curriculum, have led to great demands on the provision of in-career development for teachers, management and parents.

Under subhead B.12 — Grants for the Provision of Major Sports Facilities — a sum of £1 million is sought. The major sports facilities scheme is a multi annual capital programme under which grants are provided for the development of major sports and leisure facilities at national, regional and local level. The scheme, which was originally introduced in 1988 for the establishment of regional and local sports centres, is funded from the proceeds of the national lottery.

Payments of grants allocated under the scheme are made on the basis of architects' and engineers' certificates for payment submitted by grantee organisations after the necessary documents have been submitted. The Estimates provision in 1996 is £4 million. The final expenditure is estimated to be £5 million. The reason for the increase is that progress on construction of some projects was greater than anticipated.

With regard to subhead B.11 — Grants for the Provision of Recreational Facilities — there is a saving of £0.5 million in the recreational facilities scheme which assists voluntary community organisations in the provision and equipping of and improvements to recreational, leisure and community facilities. The saving arises because it is difficult to forecast precise expenditure under this scheme, given that local voluntary groups tend to be slow in forwarding documentation for payment.

Subhead B.16 deals with general expenses for the Royal Irish Academy of Music. The funds in this subhead are allocated to the academy to meet the costs of the estimated deficit between its income and expenditure on its current account. A sum of £50,000 is being sought by way Supplementary Estimate to cover costs which have arisen during 1996 and which cannot be met from the original provision. These costs relate to unavoidable expenditure associated with the replacement and upgrading of defective and aged instruments.

Under subhead B.20 — Miscellaneous — I am seeking an additional provision of £280,000 towards the cost in 1996 of funding the ESF computerisation project. The purpose of the project is to computerise and integrate the processes and mechanisms for claiming £55 million in EU Social Fund aid annually for vocational training courses operating within the second level sector. The cost of the current phase of the project, which commenced in the middle of 1995 and will be completed in 1997, is itself being funded to a level of 75 per cent by the EU Commission. Due to uncertainty as to the pace of development of the project between 1995 and 1997, no provision was made for £280,000 in expenditure for the current year.

Under subhead C — Appropriations-in-Aid, item 4 Receipts from the EU Social Fund — provision is made for receipts of aid from the fund towards the cost of measures which improve the quality of the education system. A Supplementary Estimate of £1.6 million is being sought due to reduced aid receipts in 1996 arising from the following factors: first, losses incurred due to unfavourable exchange rates between the ECU and the IR£ in 1996; second, underspending in 1995 on two programmes which resulted in lower receipts in 1996 and third, additional receipts which were anticipated arising from indexation of aid to 1996 prices have not been realised. The 1996 aid losses arising from programme underspending will be re-allocated to the same programmes over the period 1997-99.

With regard to Vote 27 — First Level Education — a Supplementary Estimate of £6.850 million is required. It comprises the following elements: subhead K1 — Building Equipment and Furnishing of National Schools — funds the accommodation needs of half a million children and their teachers in 3,319 national schools. The subhead covers spending on the major capital programme, the minor and emergency grant scheme, acquisition of sites and buildings and the provision of prefabricated accommodation. I am seeking an additional £8.35 million for the subhead for the current year. Most of this is needed to deal with claims from national schools for minor and emergency work undertaken during the year. The works vary in scale from replacement of defective furniture to improvement of playspace, renewal of electrical and heating systems and re-roofing.

Over 2,000 applications are received from schools each year. Some of the additional money is needed for new and replacement prefabricated classrooms. Prefabricated buildings are used where there are short term bulges in enrolments in schools. There are also many demands for replacing existing prefabricated buildings which reached the end of their useful life. Under subhead A — Salaries, Wages and Allowances — there is a saving of £1.5 million on the primary teachers salary subhead due to the delay in securing agreement on the final phase of the PCW.

With regard to Vote 29, Third-Level and Further Education, a Supplementary Estimate totalling £23.394 million is required. It comprises the following elements: Under subhead A.1 — Higher Education Grants — a Supplementary Estimate of £250,000 is required because the recoupment to local authorities in respect of higher education grants was greater than anticipated at the time of the preparation of the 1996 Estimates, given that there was a greater number of grant holders than expected in the 1995-96 academic year.

Under subhead A.4 — Grants to Vocational Education Committees in respect of Scholarships to Students — grants paid by vocational education committees to eligible third level students under the vocational education committee scholarships scheme are funded from this provision. The vocational education committees administer the scheme in accordance with rules and guidelines prescribed by my Department and recoup the expenditure on the scheme in the current financial year.

An additional £1.5 million is required in 1996 because the number of students in receipt of grants under the vocational education committee scholarship scheme has increased substantially in recent years. This is due to the major improvements which I introduced into the schemes of third level student support from 1992-93 onwards, and to a general increase in the number of students continuing their studies from certificate and diploma levels to degree and post graduate level.

The funds under subhead B.2 — An tÚdarás Um Ard-Oideachas — General (Non-Capital) Grants to Universities and Colleges and Designated Institutions of Higher Education — are allocated to the Higher Education Authority for disbursement to the universities and other institutions of higher education operating under the aegis of the authority. A sum of £227.445 million is being provided to the authority for this year and a further figure of £8.71 million is now being sought to cover items which arose during 1996 and which were not foreseen or could not have been accurately estimated when the initial Estimate was prepared.

A sum of £8.1 million of the extra amount sought is required to reimburse designated Higher Education Authority institutions in respect of tuition fees foregone due to the non-payment of fees initiative. The remainder, £610,000, is needed for the unanticipated superannuation costs and pay increases under the PCW.

The funds under subhead F — Dublin Dental Hospital — Dental Education Grant — are allocated to help the hospital meet its running expenses. A sum of £31,000 is being sought to cover unanticipated costs in respect of increases in certain allowances and increases arising from the introduction of full PRSI cover for new entrants to certain officer grades. The funds in subhead G are allocated to the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies to meet its administration costs and the general running costs of its three constituent schools. A sum of £33,000 is being sought by way of Supplementary Estimate to cover costs which have arisen during 1996 and which cannot be met from the original provision. These costs relate to increases in pay and pensions due to senior professors in the institute under the Gleeson report.

Under subhead L.1 — Building Grants and Capital Costs of Regional Technical Colleges, the Dublin Institute of Technology and certain vocational education committee Colleges. I am seeking an additional £7.5 million and under subhead L.2 — An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas, Building Grants and Capital Costs for Universities, Colleges and Designated Institutions of Higher Education — I am seeking an additional £2.5 million. The third level capital allocation is used to meet the costs of additional student places, health and safety works, building element replacement and site and property acquisitions. In 1996, the greater part of the capital allocation for the universities and colleges in the regional technical college/DIT sector had to be expended on the provision of extra places to meet the ever increasing growth in the demand for third level education. As a consequence of directing the funding towards resolving this demand a significant shortfall arose in the funding necessary for ongoing upgrading works. These included urgent and essential works to meet the needs of the various health, safety and fire safety requirements.

The additional funding is also necessary to meet the number of strategically located properties that have come on the market and that are particularly suitable to alleviate space shortages as well as providing replacement accommodation for some of the prefabricated accommodation in the colleges.

Under subhead M.3 — Receipts from the European Social Fund — provision is made for receipts of aid from the ESF towards the cost of vocational training programmes provided within the third level education system. A Supplementary Estimate of £2.87 million is being sought for this subhead due to reduced receipts in 1996 arising from the following factors: losses incurred as a result of unfavourable exchange rate between the ECU and the Irish £ in 1996; underspending in 1995 on one programme which resulted in lower receipts in 1996 for that programme and payments anticipated in 1996 in respect of two programmes are not now expected until early 1997. The 1996 aid losses arising from programme underspending in 1995 will be re-allocated to the same programme over the period 1997-9.

I commend the Supplementary Estimates to the committee.

We do not oppose these Estimates. The most significant element relates to primary school buildings. We are told it relates to minor and emergency works undertaken during the year and for new and replacement prefabricated classrooms. Over £8 million is involved. We all read appalling stories during the week about 67 schools on an INTO list that were almost medieval in character, with poor sanitation facilities, located out of doors in many cases. This is unacceptable. The week before, schoolchildren had to leave a school in County Mayo because it was rat infested. Yesterday a principal from County Galway spoke about only one washbasin for 42 schoolchildren in his school.

Given the scale of budget available to the Minister and her Department over the last four years, it is extraordinary that children are still attending schools in these conditions. These schools should receive priority attention and the basic necessities and standards should apply in such school buildings. Irrespective of anything else, these schools should be on the priority list and should be given attention. There has been no reference to the schools in the INTO report or to the school in County Mayo. Where is the sense of priority? Considerable money was spent this year on primary school buildings. Why were these schools not at the top of the agenda? Is it because of a lack of political clout at Cabinet and that schools in economically better off areas tend to get grants? The Minister should outline her Department's policy of prioritising projects which, by any objective analysis, would be at the top of the list. Even in a difficult financial period like 1987 to 1991, then Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, spent up to £97 million on primary school buildings and engaged in very imaginative schemes. She adopted a hands-on approach and made great progress, even in a very difficult period. The present Minister should make a commitment that these schools will receive the priority they deserve and we should not have to read in newspapers about children having to go home because their school is rat infested or about conditions such as those mentioned in the INTO list of schools.

We have an appalling situation in relation to many Gaelscoileanna and multi-denominational schools. The White Paper on Education promised early recognition of such schools and provision of proper sites and buildings. In reality, Gaelscoileanna and multi-denominational schools are in very difficult positions; many are in appalling condition. If it were not for the spirit of commitment of parents, teachers and trustees, these schools would not survive. Their physical environment is unacceptable by any modern standards. We have raised these matters in the House. The conditions in the Crumlin multi-denominational school are scandalous. No community should have to go through that. It says a lot for the alleged commitment to pluralism in education that that situation has gone on so long. There has been a threat of eviction and no proper alternative accommodation has been put in place. Gaelscoil Tomás Dáibhís in Mallow is also in an appalling condition and there are other such schools throughout the country. Many Gaelscoileanna are still in GAA or soccer club dressing rooms. This can go on for years and entire generations of school children can go through schools without proper physical accommodation. That is unacceptable. We need a coherent plan and programme to ensure that significant improvement is made in that sector. Nothing in the Estimates deals with that.

I welcome the £520,000 increase in the school transport provision, particularly the provision of buses for the disabled. Regrettably, there seems to be no scheme to adapt school buildings for children with special needs. Some of the schools identified for integration purposes do not have the most basic infrastructure to facilitate children with special needs. I have had correspondence from parents of children with special needs and have raised this issue in parliamentary questions. In one case, to which the Estimates may be responding, a certain child's wheelchair would not fit on a bus; when the child got to school, the wheelchair would not fit into the corridor and there were no ramps. This was a school designated for integration. However, the child's capacity to participate was being restricted.

In tandem with the provision in the Estimate for school transport, we need, as a matter of priority, a scheme to ensure the most basic infrastructural improvements are made to schools to facilitate the participation of children with special needs. Such improvements, which include ramps, special sanitary facilities and other provisions, would not cost an enormous amount and should be given priority. We produce reports and set up commissions on disability but we need to show some practical common sense. It would be justifiable and desirable to put these matters at the top of the agenda, even ahead of the mainstream projects, with which nobody could quibble.

The next heading refers to third level and further education but there is no additional funding in the Estimate for further education. The colleges of further education are extremely anxious about the slow progress in the processing of a number of applications they have made for capital funding. Much of this is covered under EU funding but there seems to be extremely slow progress on the processing of applications for major refurbishments to these post leaving certificate colleges.

The revolution in such education has been driven from the ground up. A wide variety of diverse courses are on offer. They are developed by local teachers who show great initiative and innovation. However, the response does not come from the top down. Many of them work in outdated conditions with poor equipment, with the exception of what they can beg from the private sector through sponsorship and so on. If we are committed to the post-leaving certificate sector we should provide it with the capital grants it needs for further space, greater facilities and proper equipment, particularly in the technology area. Technology is the most undeveloped area in the Department of Education and the post-leaving certificate colleges, in particular, need updated equipment as a matter of urgency.

The Supplementary Estimate also deals with higher education grants. The post-leaving certificate sector, which has almost 20,000 students, receives no maintenance support. It is the sector which is most discriminated against in education. Any student attending a FÁS course, a third level college or even a private third level college can apply for some form of assistance, but there are no such schemes in this sector. Post-leaving certificate students receive no maintenance grants and they must be made a priority. I am disappointed there is no indication today that their plight will be realistically addressed and that a proper scheme will be put in place to provide maintenance grants for them.

I also hoped the Supplementary Estimate would deal with independent mature students, the treatment of whom is scandalous. Deputies must have seen examples in their clinics of independent mature students who only receive half the maintenance grant, or what is termed the adjacent rate, because of a change in the regulations. I have met independent mature students who went to England to avail of the extension of the higher education grants scheme to UK colleges; they only receive half the maintenance grant in England where expenditure costs are obviously far higher.

The depressing part is that these mature students are, by and large, under pressure to return to education and it is not an easy choice for them. They are endeavouring to gain qualifications so they can re-enter the labour market. For example, I recently met lone parents who are taking early childhood studies in UCC and only receive the adjacent rate, which is half the grant. They are making a superb effort to return to education. This matter was raised in the Dáil and this Supplementary Estimate provided an opportunity to deal with their problems and the anomaly which has arisen in relation to the treatment of independent mature students. The students to whom I refer employ childminders to look after their children while they attend college and have to make additional sacrifices, all of which costs money.

The higher education grant scheme makes no effort to deal with the overall picture for mature students. Maintenance grants and the income eligibility thresholds have remained more or less static for the last number of years because the initiative has been in the fees area. The broad thrust of the de Buitléar report has never really seen the light of day, particularly in relation to mature and part-time students.

The treatment of independent mature students is scandalous and should be examined. These people are struggling against the odds to make their way through college and they only receive the adjacent rate because of a regulation brought in two years ago which tightened up the scheme. The number involved could not be excessive; in any event, if we are serious about facilitating the re-entry of independent mature people into education we should be more generous. That sector has been neglected in the reforms of the higher education grant scheme we have witnessed over the last number of years, as has the position of part-time and evening students.

There is a saving of £1.5 million due to the failure to reach agreement with the teacher unions in the PCW negotiations. The fact that saving has been realised speaks volumes for the industrial relations capacity of the Department and the Minister's capacity to deal with this issue. It has dragged on for far too long and other disputes are now breaking out. If there had been a hands on approach from the outset this issue could have been resolved.

It is destabilising to have ongoing industrial tension and difficulties lasting for almost two years. We have come to the end of a budgetary year without the matter being resolved. It is extraordinary that negotiations have begun on a fourth national social partnership agreement without the last one being satisfactorily put to bed. Presumably if it is put to bed at some stage in the future that money will have to be brought forward and spent. We have to sort this out because if we have a dissatisfied teaching profession whose standing grievances have not been resolved or dealt with, their commitment and enthusiasm for implementing reforms will be reduced.

I have made these points before. The matter has been handled in a poor fashion. The vibes which emanated prior to the package being presented and from the White Paper process were that the teaching profession could not be trusted to do a good day's work and needed to work extra hours and so on, which created very bad feeling and contributed to low morale. In my view, having visited teacher conferences, that is why the package was rejected. I was amazed at the gulf between the Minister and teachers on the issue and the anger felt by teachers at the impression which was clearly given that they were not putting in extra hours. I note that moves are now afoot to drop the 15 hour condition imposed at that time, which I suggested last February. Perhaps it takes a year for the Minister or the Department to move forward. An initiative must be taken to solve this problem because it has dragged on for far too long.

I would like an explanation of the recreational grants. I am sure most Deputies would consider humorous the reference to how slow communities are at processing documentation for the receipt of money. Has the saving of £0.5 million been realised?

Is it going into sport?

Will the Minister of State elaborate further on the community area?

On in career development, will the Minister outline whether some of that money is intended for chemistry and physics? There has been a long standing commitment to introduce new syllabi for chemistry and physics, the latter is complete; teachers expected it last year but it did not materialise.

Will the Minister indicate when the relationships and sexuality programmes will be introduced? Will she outline in detail the in-career development which is necessary in that area before the programme is introduced uniformly throughout the country?

There will now follow a question and answer session unless the Minister wants to respond to some earlier points.

It might be helpful to acknowledge the fact that the Opposition is in agreement that I do not have enough money rather than that the Department is wasting money; I thank Deputy Martin for saying he will not oppose the Estimates.

I have a couple of detailed answers on schooling, Gaelscoileanna, third level education, the PCW and in-career development. It might be helpful if the other Deputy present wanted to add to that list of queries and I will respond to them all at once. I note that the Minister of State has already been invited to respond on another matter.

I want to raise a number of queries. First, how is the scheme for the employment of caretakers in national school working? Is it being expanded? What criteria are currently in place, particularly with regard to the employment of additional caretakers?

May I have more detail on the capital building and equipment costs for special schools for children? There is reference to Cork, Dublin and Galway in that regard but will the Minister provide information on that matter?

On the grants for the provision of recreational facilities, to which my colleague, Deputy Martin, referred in subheads B10 and B12, will the Minister indicate where the major facilities are located?

On third level education, will the Minister discuss subhead L1 which relates to the regional technical colleges and the additional expenditure involved there. I know one involves site acquisition but I am interested in Tallaght regional technical college as it is in my locality. I know the Minister is committed, as her predecessor was, to developing Tallaght regional technical college. Is there any movement with regard to the funding of additional space? I understand there is concern that a piece of ground adjacent to the college may be at risk. If it is not acquired soon, it may not be available to Tallaght regional technical college. Subhead L1 relates to site acquisition costs for other colleges. Is Tallaght regional technical college included among them?

Those are my queries; Deputy Martin has ably raised issues which I would normally have raised.

I apologise for being late but I have been at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Small Business and Services. Deputy Flood referred to the recreational facilities scheme and my question relates to that particular area and the broader area of sport. What progress has been made by the sports strategy group the Minister put in place? There is no mention of it in this Supplementary Estimate but will the Minister outline its funding requirements to date, its plans and its progress? When does the Minister of State expect a report from which action will flow?

The first point raised by Deputy Martin was the primary school building programme. It is not worth arguing the toss on this matter from a political point of view. An extraordinary amount of money has been invested in school buildings and the situation has improved dramatically. In 1991, £13 million was made available and I have spent £90 million in my time as Minister; this year alone I will have spent nearly £30 million. At this stage we are beginning to see the end of that terrible list of totally unsuitable buildings. Some of them have been there a long time because I have been present at the celebrations of 100 year old buildings. However, I must say that some of the schools constructed in the 1960s can pose more problems. At present two communities a week celebrate the finishing of a school so the pace of the building plan is good.

Given the controversy abroad — I will not defend a mouse, a rat or a poor school building — I am committed to the principle that children should expect at least the same level of accommodation at school as at home, if not better. We are putting great demands on the teaching profession and unsuitable buildings are not the correct environment in which to educate our young children. To put in perspective the list of 47 schools — not 67 as Deputy Martin suggested — which were referred to on television as a challenge for the Minister, four of the schools received grants in 1996, in ten cases there are reports on schools with architects and engineers which must be returned to the Department, 11 schools are to be considered in future capital programmes, two of the schools never contacted the Department looking for assistance and I believe another school said it would not co-operate. The role of the Minister and the Department should be appreciated. Nineteen schools on that list are already in the process of being built. One school has already received the money.

One striking element in the breakdown of such cases is the role of the board of management and the local community in taking on the responsibility for seeking refurbishment or a new building. There has been improvement in this regard. The Department has spelt out the details of applications to schools and that has helped. For instance, two schools, which the INTO would identify as totally unsuitable, never contacted me.

In summary, money is being spent and the list which I inherited of totally unsuitable buildings, some of which were 100 years old, is diminishing rapidly. That is not to say that other schools do not need assistance. We will tackle their needs in the same systematic way I tackled the list of 167 schools which the INTO put in front of me when I took office. When the lists are prepared it is worth informing ourselves as to where these school are. It is the role of the board of management and the community to apply for funding and to see the process through.

We are seeking four sites for Gaelscoileanna. Members may notice that the multi — denominational school is not in the news at present because the matter is under consideration. I look forward to the matter being resolved. At present no other multi — denominational group has come forward. The terms of reference and the composition of the school accommodation commission which will look at primary school accommodation will be announced in a matter of days. The commission will be the same as the steering group chaired by Frank Murray which looked at the rationalisation of the vocational education committees. Its next task will be to look at primary school accommodation. There are different levels of support. Each group, including the multi-denominational one, the educating together group, Gaelscoileanna and church schools have a place on this commission which will meet and bring forward recommendations. Groups which believe the rules are unfair and that it is time for a change will have a voice on the commission. I look forward to the commission's recommendations.

As regards pupils with special needs, some buses are being adapted to cater for them. I take the Deputy's point about school buildings. An increasing number of children are being integrated. New buildings have been designed to take into consideration pupil differences. Not all pupils are physically mobile. It is an area which will require additional funds.

Deputy Martin made a point about independent mature students. We spoke about this issue during Question Time in the Dáil. At present they are not defined as mature and there is a geographical remit. Deputy Martin has more than challenged me to look at the rules which govern independent mature students. I increased maintenance grants and I abolished covenants and that funded the abolition of tuition fees. Last year I increased maintenance by double the rate of inflation. However, that is not to say enough money is being provided. Dr. Kathleen Lynch published a useful report yesterday which will be helpful to me in securing more funding for education. The situation is not as static as some might suggest.

As regards the PCW, I would like to put on record the great work done by officials in the Department. I will not comment on "hands on Ministers" in industrial disputes. We attended the teacher unions conferences last Easter. However, it is only fair to say that the executives of each union had finished talks and were going to their unions to ask them to accept something which they recommended. Each of the union executives recommended the PCW and the INTO accepted it. The money is still there. The ASTI and the TUI have put in place and accepted a facilitator, Mr. Seán Healy. It would not be helpful for me to comment at this stage. However, we should not underestimate the Department of Education's work and interest in a good outcome. We are moving towards a new agreement without completing the last one. I hope we will do so.

The biggest programme we have undertaken in the past year concerns relationships and sexuality education. Some 21,000 primary and 1,600 post primary teachers will be given in-service training.

How much did that cost?

I do not have a breakdown of the figures, but I will get it for the Deputy. We are also giving in service training to boards of management and principal teachers. It is not the easiest programme but it will be introduced in more than half of the schools by the end of the school year.

Does that mean the beginning of the next year?

I thought it would have been introduced three years ago.

Does that mean the beginning of the next one?

It will commence before the end of the current school year. There is a committee which represents unions, parents, management and the inspectorate and it has given me that commitment. I have made money available. I hoped it would happen more quickly. I underestimated the difficulties and the need for training. I will come back to the Deputy with details of the specific sum involved.

The Deputy asked about physics and science. The physics and science curriculum has been completed by the NCEA which has made recommendations. We must enter into an agreement with the teacher unions. Questions have been raised about assessments, etc. There was bedlam after the junior certificate was introduced because little in-service training was provided. I would not change a subject unless teachers were trained and agreement had been reached.

We are spending money on business and music. We have seen the curriculum and teachers know it will be introduced next year. They are two new leaving certificate subjects. We have slowed down. Last year there was criticism in the media about the number of changes we made to the leaving certificate in one year. I gave an undertaking that we would uphold the confidence of parents in schools where we were able to introduce changes in the curriculum and train teachers. However, we have slowed the process down. Business and music along with the relationships and sexuality programme are being prepared. The PCW is relevant to this.

As regards provisions for young offenders, there have been new developments about which Deputy Flood asked. We heard the Minister of State, Deputy Currie's, statement. We are talking about children in care. It is anticipated that we will create new posts and two new units with eight beds each for unruly and depraved cases because not all are young offenders. One unit will cater for younger children, while the other will cater for older children. There are plans to increase the number of places. As regards the four eight bed units referred to, some of this involves upgrading existing accommodation in our centres. We are talking about the conversion of facilities. There is a new distinction between children in need of care and young offenders, so we do not have to wait for children to offend before being taken into care. The Deputy has a particular interest in this area and he might like me to send him information on it. I would welcome his comments in this regard.

As regards Tallaght regional technical college and site acquisition, we are not looking for additional funding at present. There is some funding for the acquisition of temporary accommodation and safety works. We have £250,000 to spend on Tallaght. I know the site to which the Deputy referred. I have come to the committee for additional funding for current requirements but I take the Deputy's point about the extension. I do not know why people are surprised and the Deputy is not. It has been an outstanding success. I met the heads of the regional technical colleges, including the director of Tallaght, during the week and they have put together a good submission for further investment.

The provision of caretakers is based on the number of pupils in each school and the number being provided increases annually.

What about colleges of further education?

They come under the allocation for second level education. PLCs provide second level education and that is why there is a commitment to recognise them as a group in their own right. At present, they are funded by the EU.

The total value of commitments made in major recreation schemes is £8,643,000 and is £3.5 million under the smaller schemes. The amount of money available annually is approximately £6 million. We find that even through we sanction schemes, there are delays in drawing down the money. There are a number of reasons for this. For example, there are planning delays, those groups which have been awarded money may not have enough to supplement it and sometimes groups decide to take a different course to spend the money. The Department gives them 12 to 18 months to draw down the money. Unfortunately in the smaller schemes, local groups are not drawing it down as much as we would like.

Five hundred thousand pounds of the money which will not be drawn down this year on the smaller schemes has been transferred to the major schemes where more money has been committed. That does not affect the amount of money to be allocated because we increased the level of allocations from £4 million to £6 million this year, but there is a time lag between allocation and drawing down. Guidelines have to be followed and documentary evidence has to be produced. The provision of this information is slow and we are trying to simplify it as much as we can while, at the same time, meeting our legal requirements on expenditure.

Where are the facilities allocated? In recent parliamentary questions in the Dáil we set out clearly on a county by county basis where the money has been allocated. Decisions on the approval of schemes are based on three main parameters, geographic spread, the level of local need and the level of local effort and there are a number of others, such as the availability of other facilities in the area and an equitable spread of funds. We try to tie in the amount of funding for each county with the population of that county. We are also governed by the level of applications from each county. Comments were made recently that present Ministers are partial to their counties. One year's allocation cannot be taken in isolation; it has to be taken over a period of time. Schemes take a long time to plan and come on stream, even in smaller schemes. Comments have been made that certain counties have done better than others this year but over a three or four year period it evens out because of the nature of the projects.

In regard to the national plan for sport, the group headed by Mr. John Treacy has almost completed its work. I expect to receive a report within a month and it will be published within two months. I hope that not only will there be a national strategy which will have evolved as a result of consultation with all political parties — over 400 submissions and dozens of public meetings throughout the country — but that there will be a plan of implementation which will not be left on the shelf. I will make a strong case on a sporting, social and educational basis for greater resources for sport. The purpose of the plan is to make more effective use of our resources and, hopefully, to increase them. I thank the groups and organisations who have co-operated and I look forward to publishing and implementing the report.

I am pleased with the allocation of funds in my constituency. They have been used in disadvantaged areas, such as Sheriff Street and Inchicore. I would appreciate a copy of the breakdown of all allocated funds.

I congratulate both Ministers in terms of the input to education over the past number of years. There has never been a more sustained period of input in terms of finance and educational development. At every level there has been a significant contribution. I was extremely disappointed that we were debating a Private Members' motion in the Dáil this week which criticised the Minister with regard to remedial education. The motion was tabled by Fianna Fáil who did not spend anything on remedial education and, despite the substantial number of teachers appointed in the years 1989 to 1992, appointed not one additional remedial teacher. This Minister has appointed 241 remedial teachers and 39 resource teachers during her term in office. Such an attempt to tarnish a significant educational development in terms of providing support for disadvantaged areas, the "Breaking the Cycle" programme and the number of remedial teachers appointed, gives an unfair impression. It is nit picking about one aspect when the overall picture is extremely positive.

I am glad to see a major part of the Supplementary Estimate devoted to school buildings. That area was always the hardest to deal with and the last to be tackled because of the number of schools. Many primary schools have four or fewer teachers, so it is difficult both to repair minor defects in school buildings and to build extensions. With the introduction of the transition year many schools are looking for extensions because they are short of accommodation. This major initiative has been sought for a long time and, having been piloted, it is now operational in the majority of schools in the country.

In my constituency, Marlborough Street primary school has been rebuilt from scratch. When I was a Senator I raised the issue four times in three and a half years with the then Fianna Fáil Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke but I received no response. Also, on five occasions I mentioned St. Aidan's school, the alma mater of the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Ahern, yet nothing was done. Two months ago, I was at the re-opening of the new school building at St. Aidan’s and the Leader of the Opposition was a guest of honour; yet when he was Minister for Finance not a stone was laid to develop the school. When one is being critical one should be careful to paint the picture correctly.

I look forward to two new schools in deprived areas of my constituency. The first is the North Inner City Community College, which I called for when I was in the Seanad but this Government has made a commitment and the school is at an advanced stage. The other development is a primary school and pre-school in Cherry Orchard. These are welcome developments but none of this happened under the previous Administration up to 1992, which gives an idea of how particular deprived areas have benefited under the present Administration.

In-career development is a key area and I often wondered why it was not raised in the attempt to arrange a settlement on productivity with teachers under the PCW, as it is at the heart of what teachers do in classrooms. The multiplicity of new career angles introduced through the curriculum — the leaving certificate applied course, the transition year, VTOS and the PLC — requires teachers to have new skills. This should be central to the discussions on restructuring and productivity. I do not accept that the public service, specifically the teachers, are not producing the goods because they have had to adapt and adjust much more quickly than those in most other areas in the public or private sector. The Minister has contributed to that with a huge emphasis on educational development, the plethora of thinking on the Green Paper, the White Paper and the Education Bill which is to come before us shortly. We now have a Supplementary Estimate for that area, which I welcome. I hope it will be linked to a resolution of the present impasse about what leads to promotion and productivity within the teaching profession, rather than looking at posts of responsibility which were introduced at a particular time for a particular purpose and were not geared to promotion as such but to solving a problem.

Supplementary funding is required for third level also. I compliment the Minister on introducing the fees scheme. What was the cost of that development and how many people have benefited from it to date? An extra £10 million has been allocated to the capital programme; what developments are taking place which require such an expansion?

We all agree that investment in building is good but the rate of that investment has varied and some Ministers had more difficult times in the Department. Some of our building stock needs to be replaced and much of it needs to be refurbished. The Deputy picked out two capital investment areas which require new investment. The Cherry Orchard project comes under the primary school allocation so it does not feature in this Supplementary Estimate but I am moving forward with it and acquiring a site. It is a year since I visited the community but that is not to say I have been inactive since then. With the help of the Dublin planning authority, Archbishop's House, the local community council and officials in the Department, I hope we will see the site secured. On the vocational education committee project, I was delighted that the Deputy, as chairman of the vocational education committee, was in a position to erect the notice on the site in order to indicate to people in the centre of Dublin that the site to which they had long aspired was finally being given to them. We will move forward with the vocational education committee and we have had meetings, although second level school building is not getting funding under this Estimate.

We discussed in-career development in some detail on the breakdown of the figures. The Deputy's experience and his position within the ASTI was useful in pointing out the historical reason for establishing the posts of responsibility. I share something with the last two Deputies who spoke in that I did teach. Teaching is a lonely profession and if one is not properly equipped it is all the lonelier. In planning the spend of money from the national plan I put aside £40 million to make training and in-career development available. I hope it is the way forward. Deputy Martin commented on the physics and science curriculum and I hope this is an answer for him. I hope it is the way forward. Deputy Martin referred to the physics and science curricula; this may be an answer.

With regard to the funding for third level building the following received funds: DCU, UCG for the quadrangle roof, UCC for biochemistry, the Good Shepherd for refurbishment and National Microelectronics Research Centre for equipment —£780,000, St. Patrick's Maynooth for property; UCG for St. Anthony's; UCD for veterinary X-ray; University of Limerick for the physical education building and TCD for the Foster Place development.

The regional technical colleges also received money as follows: Athlone for refurbishment and health and safety works; Carlow for infrastructural works; Cork for upgrading the laboratory, health and safety works and canteen improvements —£700,000; the Dublin Institute of Technology for health and safety works and equipment for Cathal Brugha Street and Bishop's Street; Dundalk for health and safety works; Dún Laoghaire for the fitting out of existing buildings on site; Galway, Limerick, Letterkenny and Sligo for health and safety works; Tallaght for temporary accommodation and health and safety works; Tralee for site investigations and health and safety works; the Tipperary Rural Business and Development Institute for feeds and infrastructural works and Waterford for acquisition of property, improvements and equipment upgrading. There was a total of £7.5 million for the regional technical colleges, excluding phase two for Tallaght and Blanchardstown.

The latest available figures for the number of students availing of fees relate to the 1995-96 academic year. A total of 28,462 students benefited under the free fees initiative. There are 30,000 other students who are entitled to student support schemes and would have had their fees paid; 27,000 students receive ESF funds. At the time the initiative was made the projected cost of the fees was £55 million. It was estimated at the time that the tax relief on covenants, the number of which was increasing, would be in excess of £60 million by 1997.

On the basis of the information available, the cost to the Exchequer in 1996 will be £55 million. If the covenants had continued and the number of student places had increased, we estimated that by 1997 the cost to the Exchequer would have been £60 million.

Report of Select Committee.

That concludes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimates.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

The Select Committee adjourned at 4 p.m.

Top
Share