I move:
That a sum not exceeding £64,186,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1984, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education (including Institutions of Science and Art), for certain miscellaneous educational and cultural services and for payment of sundry grants-in-aid.
The total gross provision for 1984 in the five Votes of the education group of Votes as provided for in the revised Estimates volume and taking account of the revised Estimates circulated for the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education, is £965,525,610, including £42,643,610 as appropriations-in-aid. The comparable outturn in 1983 was £894,322,084, including £40,702,630 as appropriations-in-aid. The amount being sought for 1984 represents an increase of £71,203,526 or 8 per cent over the 1983 outturn.
The sum of £965,525,610 being sought for 1984 includes provision for the cost of the general increases in public service pay provided for in the 1983 public service pay agreement but does not provide for special increases, or for the full parity for public service pensioners provided for in the budget. Provision for these increases is made in the Vote for increases in remuneration and pensions. The cost of these increases is estimated at £2,771,300. In addition, a sum of £14,800,000 is being provided from youth employment levy funds towards the cost of secretarial and pre-employment courses. The total overall amount being provided for the education services is thus £983,096,910. The comparable outturn figure for 1983 was £918,637,684, of which £894,322,084 was a charge on the education Votes, a sum of £9,325,600 was charged to the Vote for increases in remuneration and pensions and £14,990,000 was received from youth employment levy funds. This overall provision of £983,096,910 represents an increase of £64,459,226.
The capital provision for 1984 is £82,400,000 including an additional £2 million for primary school building provided for in the budget.
The gross non-capital provision contained in the £965,525,610 sought in Votes 29 to 33 is £883,125,610. The corresponding outturn figure for 1983 was £804,874,324. The provision for 1984 represents an increase of £78,251,286 or 9.75 per cent over the outturn for 1983. The non-capital content of the overall provision of £983,096,910 is £900,696,910. The corresponding 1983 outturn was £829,189,924. The overall non-capital provision thus represents an increase of £71,506,986 or 8.62 per cent over 1983.
The gross provision for pay and pensions for 1984 in Votes 29 to 33 is £726,283,600 or 82.24 per cent of the non-capital provision. The comparable outturn figures for 1983 were £657,717,104 and 81.7 per cent. The provision for 1984 represents an increase of £68,566,496 or 10.42 per cent over 1983. The pay and pensions content of the overall non-capital provision, taking account of the Vote for increases in remuneration and pensions and the subvention from youth employment levy funds, of £900,696,910 is £740,194,900 or 82.18 per cent. The comparable 1983 outturn figures were £678,282,704 and 81.8 per cent. The overall provision for pay and pensions for 1984 represents an increase of £61,912,196 or 9.13 per cent. The increase in the provision for pay and pensions represents 96 per cent of the total increase.
The gross provision for non-pay non-capital expenditure in Votes 29 to 33 is £156,842,010 or 17.76 per cent of the non-capital provision. The comparable outturn for 1983 was £147,157,220. The provision for 1984 shows an increase of £9,684,790 or 6.58 per cent over 1983. The overall provision, taking account of the subvention from youth employment levy funds, is £160,502,010 or 17.82 per cent of the overall non-capital provision. The comparable 1983 outturn figures were £150,907,220 and 18.2 per cent. This overall provision represents an increase of £9,594,790 or 6.4 per cent.
The main objective in framing the 1984 Estimates was to maintain the existing level of services. This objective has been achieved. The Government recognised, however, that even in the current difficult financial circumstances, provision for some improvements would be made reflecting the commitments in the Programme for Action in Education 1984-1987. The Estimates, accordingly, include over £7 million for improvements including: (I) an increase of £4 per pupil in the rate of capitation grant payable in respect of the running costs of national schools, costing £2.3 million in 1984; (II) a special fund of £0.5 million for primary education in disadvantaged areas; (III) an increase of £8 per pupil in the rate of grant payable to secondary school authorities in lieu of tuition fees, costing £1.6 million in 1984; (IV) an increased provision of £781,000 for in-service training (£146,000), aid for school books (£235,000), and micro-computers in secondary schools (£400,000); (V) an additional £2 million for primary school building and £300,000 for grants to sport organisations provided for in the budget; (VI) £300,000 for the curriculum and examinations board.
The provision in the vote for the Office of the Minister for Education is for: (A) the administrative costs of the Department; (B) the services in relation to art and culture in the National Library; (C) miscellaneous educational services.
The net amount being sought this year for this Vote is £64,186,000 an increase of £5,423,000 or 9.2 per cent over the 1983 outturn of £58,763,000, including a charge of £168,500 on the Vote for increases in remuneration and pensions.
The administrative costs of the Department in 1984 are estimated at £14,331,400 as against an outturn of £13,650,100 in 1983. This is an increase of 5 per cent.
The functions of the Minister for Education in relation to the National Museum, the Irish Manuscripts Commission, the Chester Beatty Library and Marsh's Library have been transferred to the Taoiseach with effect from 27 January 1984 and expenditure from that date is being provided for in a revised Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach. In addition, the Government have decided that the functions of the Commissioners of Public Works in relation to school buildings should be transferred to the Minister for Education. Pending finalisation of the administrative details of this latter transfer the provision for this service continues to be shown in the Vote for Public Works.
The capital provision for school building is already included in my Department's Votes.
A sum of £11,045,000 is being provided for higher education grants, an increase of almost £2.5 million or 29 per cent over 1983. The increase in the cost of this scheme is mainly due to improvements in the means test provisions and in the value of the maintenance element of grants introduced in 1981 by the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy John Boland. The cost of these grants have risen from £5.49 million in 1982 to £11.045 million in 1984, an increase of 101 per cent. The number of grant holders has increased from 6,263 in 1981-82 to an estimated 8,650 in 1983-84, an increase of 38 per cent. When one takes into account the scholarships awarded by vocational education committees and the ESF grants, it is estimated that some 16,760 students at third-level are in receipt of grants. This represents 35.6 per cent of the total estimated student body at third-level.
The provision being made in Subhead D.6 for grants to students at Thomond College of Education shows a similar increase — from £648,000 in 1983 to £942,000. This reflects an increase in the number of grant-holders and in the value of grants. A further £654,000 is being provided in subhead C.2 for scholarships, research grants and fellowships. This is 12.5 per cent more than in 1983.
Provision is again being made for a grant-in-aid fund for cultural, scientific and educational activities. The organisations which receive grants from this fund include the Irish Countrywomen's Association; An Cumann le Béaloideas Éireann; the Music Association of Ireland; Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland; Comhdháil Múinteoirí na Rincí Gaelacha; the National Film Institute; Dublin Institute of Adult Education; An Cumann Scoildramaíochta; Irish Committee of Historical Sciences; Royal Zoological Society of Ireland; People's College; Aontas; An Foras Éireann; the Planetarium, Armagh; Slogadh; and Dublin Philharmonic Society. For the first time this year, the National Adult Literacy Agency are being given a grant-in-aid. A sum of £10,000 is included in the overall provision for that agency.
The provision of £706,000 for international activities shows an increase of 21 per cent. This provision is for a contribution to the UNESCO budget and incidental expenses of the UNESCO National Commission; costs relating to participation in the European Schools' Day Competition and in the international apprentice competitions; contribution to and scholarships at the College of Europe, Bruges; educational tours to the USA for teachers; expenses in connection with the organisation of any international conference of EEC, Council of Europe, OECD etc., which may be held in the country; scholarships and other expenses arising from participation in the European University Institute, Florence; EEC study visit schemes and exchanges under cultural agreements. Provision is being included this year for membership by Ireland of the Standing Conference of the International Baccalaureate.
The provision being made for operating costs of the school transport service is £28,925,000 in 1984 as against £27,762,400 in 1983. This will allow the current level of service to be maintained without an increase in charges. A further £70,000 is being provided as capital for the provision of a small number of mini buses.
A sum of £120,000 is being sought in Subheads E.1 to E.4 for various expenses of the National Library as against £96,630 in 1983. The increase is mainly for the purchase of books etc.
The provision in this Vote is for Primary Education, including national school teacher superannuation. The net amount sought is £350,847,000, an increase of £28,915,180 or 9 per cent over the 1983 outturn of £321,931,820 including a charge of £6,168,000 on the Vote for increases in remuneration and pensions.
Salaries, allowances and superannuation of national teachers account for £311,791,000 or 85 per cent of the gross total provision for the Vote.
At present approximately 20,650 national teachers are employed in 3,400 schools. The provision sought reflects the full year cost of an additional 150 teachers appointed in autumn 1983 and includes provision for an additional 200 teachers in 1984. Recoupment of costs incurred in the employment of substitutes during teachers' absences will cost an estimated £4,630,000 in 1984.
Hitherto, the provision sought in Subhead C.1 for salaries and allowances of national teachers has been for the gross amount less 5 per cent superannuation contributions. For 1984 the amount provided for is the gross amount and the 5 per cent contributions are being included as appropriations-in-aid in Subhead F. While this does not affect the net amount sought for the Vote as a whole, it does give a clearer picture of the cost of salaries and pensions.
The gross provision for national teachers' superannuation is £43,378,000. This is offset by appropriations-in-aid of £15,041,000. Pensions are currently being paid to 4,778 former teachers as well as to spouses and children of former teachers.
A sum of £13,060,000 is being provided in subhead C.5. This includes provision for an increase of £4 per pupil from £17 to £21 in the rate of capitation grant payable towards the running costs of national schools which will cost an estimated £2.3 million in 1984. In addition, a special fund of £500,000 to aid primary pupils who are educationally disadvantaged is being established this year.
A sum of £28,750,000 is being provided for the building, equipping and furnishing of national schools, including the additional £2 million provided for in the budget. Projects for which grants may be paid include the provision of new schools in new housing areas, additional classrooms in existing schools, essential facilities such as sanitation, heating, lighting and furniture in existing schools, new schools where necessary for mentally and physically handicapped children, upgrading of existing schools to meet modern requirements and replacement of prefabricated accommodation.
A sum of £6,677,000 is being sought for the non-capital costs of the colleges of education for primary teachers. A further £944,000 is being provided for loans and grants to students of the colleges.
The net amount being sought for post-primary education in 1984 is £405,499,000, an increase of £23,207,310 or 6.1 per cent over the 1983 outturn of £382,241,690.
Pay and pensions account for £322,709,000 or 75 per cent of the gross £432,401,000 being provided.
A sum of £161,747,000 is being provided for incremental salary and allowances of secondary teachers. There are currently 11,900 secondary teachers in receipt of incremental salary.
A sum of £93,559,000 is being provided in subhead A.2 as grants to vocational education committees as compared with an expenditure of £92,913,490 in 1983. The 1984 provision does not include, however, a sum of £14 million from Youth Employment Agency funds which will be made available to vocational education committees towards the cost of secretarial and pre-employment courses, £2.2 million more than in 1983. In addition, the provision of capital for vocational school building as a voted capitalservice since 1 January 1983 has reduced substantially the loan repayments to be made by VECs. Direct comparison between the grant being provided in this subhead for 1984 and the 1983 outturn does not, therefore, reflect accurately the increase in funds at the disposal of the committees.
A sum of £35,751,000 is being provided in subhead D.1 in respect of the running costs of comprehensive and community schools compared with an outturn of £29,964,940 in 1983. Provision is also being made for a subvention from Youth Employment Levy Funds of £800,000 in 1984 against £1,600,000 in 1983. The total amount being made available for the service is thus £36,551,000 as against £31,564,940, an increase of £4,986,060 or 15.8 per cent. This increased provision reflects the continuing growth of the number of pupils in these schools and the opening of a number of new schools.
In addition to the grants to vocational education committees provided for in subhead A.2, which are mainly in respect of second-level education, a sum of £51,569,000 is being provided in subhead D.2 towards the running costs of regional technical colleges and technological and other colleges run by VECs. The corresponding figure for 1983 was £46,870,230 of which £1.59 million came from Youth Employment Levy Funds.
Hitherto, money was provided in subhead F.1 to enable payments to be made to the Secondary Teachers' Pension Fund to meet any shortfall between income from teachers' contributions and the expenditure on pensions and other awards. As the fund has not had capital assets for some time, it has been decided, with the agreement of the Ministers for Finance and the Public Service, that it should be discontinued, that the cost of pensions and other awards should be made a direct charge on the vote and that pension contributions should be appropriated in aid of the Vote.
The gross provision being made for secondary teachers' superannuation is thus much greater than the provision which would have been made if the fund were being continued but the net provision sought, after taking account of contributions being shown as appropriations-in-aid, remains unchanged.
A sum of £29,064,500 is being provided in Subhead C for six different schemes of grants to secondary school authorities, an increase of 10 per cent over 1983. The grant in lieu of tuition fees is being increased by £8 per pupil from £92 per pupil to £100. Approximately £400,000 is being included in the provision for science and other equipment grants for microcomputers in secondary schools. The provision for grants towards the cost of school books is being increased by 11.3 per cent.
The capital provision in this Vote is £37,600,000. The provision for secondary, vocational and community-comprehensive schools is £33.2 million and includes provision for expenditure on construction, furniture, equipment and fees, and for sites other than secondary school sites.
The investment in post-primary school building forms part of the ongoing programme designed to meet the increase in enrolments arising through population growth as well as population shifts; replacing unsatisfactory and uneconomic accommodation; and meeting the backlog of places for which short-term arrangements were made, mainly in the form of temporary prefabricated accommodation.
About 113,000 permanent places — 73,000 new places and 40,000 replacement places — were provided in the period 1966 to 1982 against a growth in enrolments in that period of 176,000 students. In the period to the end of the decade it is estimated that, subject to the availability of funds about 80,000 places will be required — 30,000 to meet new enrolment growth, 20,000 to meet the backlog of places for which temporary arrangements were made and 30,000 replacement places either in the form of major upgrading or replacement where use of existing accommodation is no longer economic. About 13,000 places — 7,400 new places and 5,600 replacement places — were provided in 1983.
The provision of £4.4 million for regional and other technical and specialist colleges is mainly related to costs arising from final accounts and work on ongoing projects, as well as projects in the course of planning, namely, Tralee RTC and Colleges of Technology at Bolton Street, Kevin Street and Bishop Street and minor capital projects.
The net amount sought for residential homes and special schools is £3,740,000 an increase of £716,690 or 23.7 per cent over the corresponding outturn of £3,023,310 for 1983. Arising from the recommendations of the Task Force on Child Care Services, the provision for grants to residential homes which are certified industrial schools under the Children's Act 1908, has been transferred to the Vote for Health with effect from 1 January 1984. The expenditure in 1983 on the services transferred was £615,000. Subheads A and G are being retained in this Vote with a reduced provision as my Department have retained responsibility for one school which is a certified reformatory school for girls.
Subhead B provides for the operational costs of the institutions for young offenders — Finglas Children's Centre, Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, St. Joseph's Special School, Clonmel, Trinity House, Lusk and Cuan Mhuire Assessment Centre, Whitehall. A sum of £730,000 is being provided for capital development in respect of work at Trinity House, Lusk, St. Joseph's Clonmel and other minor works.
A sum of £98,660,000 is being sought for the Vote for Higher Education which provides for grants-in-aid of an tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas in respect of its own general expenses and the current and capital costs of designated institutions of higher education, and of the Dublin Dental Hospital, the Cork Hospitals' Board and the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
A sum of £448,000 is being provided as a grant-in-aid of the general expenses of the Higher Education Authority, an increase of 5 per cent on the 1983 outturn of £428,000. A sum of £80,309,000 is being provided as a grant-in-aid to the Higher Education Authority towards the general non-capital costs of the universities and other designated institutions of higher education which are funded through the HEA.
A sum of £15,000,000 is being provided in the Vote for capital costs. £14.85 million is for projects funded through the Higher Education Authority and is intended to cover building and equipping costs in relation to Phase II at the NIHE, Limerick, building work on Phase II of the library at UCD and on an extension to the Albert College building for NIHE, Dublin, equipment renewals and small capital projects; £150,000 is being provided in respect of third-level institutions not funded by the HEA, mainly for equipment and furniture.
I want now to turn to some general educational issues. I do not propose to refer in detail to the Programme for Action or the Curriculum and Examinations Board which were the highlights of my first year in office. The House will recall that on 6 March last, I opened a debate on the Programme for Action — a debate which stands adjourned. I do not intend to go over the same ground. Instead, I propose to address myself to a couple of major areas.
First, I want to talk about parents and their role in education. I do so because their role is crucial. The process of education takes place as much in the home as in the school. The pre-school years of any child are as important as the later formative years in the school environment. The educational process should be a co-operative venture between parents and teachers. Parents are an essential element in education since they are legally responsible for their children's education. Our own Constitution lays down that the parent is the primary educator.
Increased formal involvement of parents should be an essential feature of educational planning. The main parties in education are, of course, the churches, the State, the teachers and the parents. Up to ten years ago, the parents were sleeping partners in the process. Since then, they have become organised and have developed a new dynamism in place of their former passive role. They have established national parent organisations and have become participants in school management.
They are now poised to make their full contribution to discussion and decision-making in education. For my part, I was most impressed with their contribution to the preparation of the Programme for Action. It was of a very high professional standard.
What has amazed me is the fact that it has taken so long to recognise in a formal way the involvement of parents in education. I was not long in office before I realised their potential. Accordingly, for the first time ever, I involved them in our educational planning. The national bodies were invited to participate in the preparation of The Programme for Action. The Working Party in my Department which helped me to prepare the programme met them on two occasions.
I have stressed in the programme the need for parents to organise themselves with a representative parents' council. I have promised that I shall facilitate the setting up of a council in any way that I can and that I shall continue the consultative process with the new council when established. Towards this end preliminary meetings with the existing national bodies of parents have been held to discuss the setting up of a council.
It is important that the council should be representative of all parents and not just those of one type of school, secondary, community-comprehensive, vocational or primary. I would like to emphasise the fact that the success of a National Parents Council will depend in large part on the effectiveness of parental involvement at the level of the individual school. Ideally I would like to see the existence of a parents council in each school in the country. Such councils would then form the basis from which to elect representatives to regional committees from which the national body would be drawn.
The House will be aware that parents are represented on the boards of management of primary and community schools. I am now arranging for parents to be represented on boards of management of comprehensive schools. None of us in this House needs to be reminded of the efforts and the sacrifices which Irish parents have made down the years for the education of their children. I look forward in the years to come to a constructive role being played by them.
Now I want to turn to the area of third level education. One of the greatest problems facing any Minister for Education in this country up to the end of the century is how to cater for the demand for third level education. The increase in enrolments at primary level is tapering off and the rate of increase in enrolments at second level is also declining. On purely demographic grounds alone, therefore, the pressure for places is moving up the educational ladder and will be intense at third level for the remainder of the century. This pressure is accentuated at present, and will be for some time to come, by the employment situation with very many able young people who might hitherto have transferred from school to employment in the public services or other major semi-State or private utilities being unable to do so and opting instead to pursue their education and acquire more marketable qualifications in one or other of our third level institutions. Despite the daunting problems, the Government are determined to provide, as far as possible, third level education for all those seeking it.
If the most recent projection of enrolments in third level education over the rest of the decade prove to be correct, the number of students would rise from about 47,000 in 1982-83 to about 67,000 in 1990-91, an increase of 20,000. These projections are based on the application of current participation rates to increasing student numbers in the senior cycle of second level and do not postulate any change in the transfer rate from leaving certificate to third level education. If the latter transfer rate were to increase for whatever reason, then the projected increase in third level enrolments would, of course, be even greater still. These numbers, tentative though as projections they must be, give us a good idea of the task which faces us if we are to provide third level education for as many as possible of our young people who have the ability to benefit from it.
The Government are committed to providing third level education for as many qualified young people as possible, but must have regard to the level of resources likely to be available. If we had endless resources, our problems would be solved relatively easily, but I am convinced that given good management and the co-operation of all the interests involved we can cope with our difficulties in a way which will not militate against the prospects of our young people and the contribution which they in turn can make to the development of this country in the new technological era.
The development of the regional technical colleges, the colleges of technology, the national institutes for higher education, Thomond College and The National College of Art and Design has transformed the face of third level education in Ireland. The intake into these colleges is now greater than the intake into the universities although the total numbers of students in the latter is still greater because of the longer average duration of courses. When one also takes into account the science and technology elements in university courses, particularly the engineering, science and commerce departments, one appreciates the true extent of the development of science and technology in our third level education system. Figures published some time ago by the Higher Education Authority show that in 1980, for example, over 40 per cent of all new entrants to third level education enrolled in the combined fields of science and technology and a further 20 per cent enrolled in commerce.
The point I wish to make is that there has been a tremendously high investment over recent years in science and technology in the third level system. Not only that, but all of the massive proposed new investment over the rest of the decade is also in that area, and none of the projects at present before the Department relates to the provision of additional arts or social science places.
I think it is necessary to emphasise this point because many people still seem to suffer from the after-effects of the traditional image of the third level system. In saying this I wish to make it clear that I am not in any way denigrating the value of a good liberal arts education; indeed, I was very struck recently by the contribution of an expert from a Nordic country to an international symposium on third level education in which it became clear that they are deeply concerned about over specialisation at undergraduate level and are coming round to the view that the thing to aim at is a broad general groundwork to which specialisms can easily be added later, different specialisms at different times if necessary. If the thinking underlying that trend becomes general, the wheel will certainly have come full cycle.
As indeed also with second level education, there is a need for closer links between the third level institutions and the world of work. A good deal has already been accomplished in this area and links have been forged between the industrial and commercial world with a number of our third level institutions. This kind of linkage is mutually beneficient; the needs of the business world become known to the institutions and have an influence on their courses, while the business world in turn can use the institutions for research and development work and sponsor the kind of developments in the institutions which would have a spin-off for the business world. In this context, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the NBST with which my Department and the HEA have established good relationships and the various schemes mounted by the NBST have been of great value to the third level education system in the field of science and technology.
A good example of co-operation between higher education institutions and industry sponsored by the NBST is the very successful development by the Dairy Science Faculty in UCC and a County Cork co-operative in the processing of cheese for export. Another project involved the NIHE in Limerick and the development there, with funding from the NBST, of an automatic power supply test system. The success of this venture led to the formation of a new company to produce and market the product. The company is now selling automatic power supply test systems in Ireland, the UK and the US.
An expanded higher education-industry links scheme sponsored by the NBST and the IDA with a current budget of £1.5 million was initiated last September and a number of joint ventures will benefit under this scheme.
There is not, perhaps, a great public awareness of the extent to which our third level institutions are in tune with developments in modern technology and are co-operating with industry in this field but this is, in fact, a very important and growing feature of the higher education scene. The National Microelectronics Centre attached to University College, Cork, is a good example of what I mean. It has twin objectives of, on the one hand, educating engineers to work in the microelectronics industry and, on the other, serving as a centralised research and development laboratory where co-operative university and industry projects can be carried out. I recall that at the opening of the centre my colleague, the Minister for Industry, pointed out that the existence of this centre was a determining factor in attracting some major electronics firms to Ireland. This is a demonstration of the most practical kind of the important role to be played by our third level institutions in the industrial development of the country.
Plassey Technological Park, attached to the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick, is providing a major resource attractive to high level international technological investment and research. The park is operated with a flexibility which ensures that all participating bodies derive maximum benefit from a sharing of facilities and resources. Experience in other countries has indicated that the concept of a technological park alongside a major third level technological institution has been of great benefit to the institution and to the organisations sited in the park. I am confident that the Plassey development will prove equally beneficial for those involved. The Faculty of Engineering in UCD, conscious of the importance of maintaining strong links with the industrial world, has plans for the development of a university-industry centre to be sited in Belfield. I mention these developments as examples to demonstrate that our third level institutions are not academic backwaters but are playing a major role in the technological development of our society.
My Department have under consideration at present proposals from the IVEA as to how the regional technical colleges might make a greater contribution in this area, particularly in relation to the development of the regions in which they are situated. I hope shortly to introduce a more flexible system which will enable the RTCs within the limits of the available resources and without impinging on their primary function to make a greater contribution to research and development work in their regions.
The total current provision for the designated institutions of the Higher Education Authority in Vote 33 of the 1984 Estimates is £80,309,000 in addition to which a sum of the order of £1 million will be provided out of Vote 49 — the vote for increases in remuneration and pensions — for these institutions. The Department of Agriculture Vote also contains provision of over £9 million for the agriculture-related faculties of UCD and UCC. The provision in Vote 31 for the regional technical colleges is £51,569,000 and the provision for grants to the colleges of education in Vote 30 is £6,927,000. The total current provision for higher education is, therefore, in excess of £150 million. Given a total full-time student population in the present year of around 50,000 it will be seen that the current State expenditure per student is of the order of £3,000.
The level of fees charged to students varies considerably as between the different types of institutions and even within institutions depending on the course being undertaken. The general fee level in the universities now is about £800, but it is much less in the technological sector despite a very substantial increase in fees in that sector for the current academic year. I am conscious of the fact that fees have been increased in recent years by amounts well in excess of inflation, and I realise that such increases have placed a heavy burden on students and on their parents. It will be evident from the figures I have quoted above that fees still form less than a fifth of the overall cost of third-level education. In the year 1982-83 the percentage in the HEA sector was about 17 per cent, and less than that in the technological sector. The increase in fees in the current academic year and for next year will increase that percentage. The dilemma facing me as Minister for Education in developing a fees policy is the extent to which fees could be made to meet a greater proportion of the overall costs and yet be at a level which would not place an intolerable burden on students and their parents. It was these two, possibly conflicting, factors which led the Government to consider the question of a loan scheme for third level education. Decisions on this issue cannot be taken lightly, involving, as they do, questions such as the level of fees, the provision of capital, levels of interest, debt burdens on students and parents, repayment periods and several other matters of principle and practicability. The Government are not unaware of the fact that many parents are already borrowing from the banks on a personal basis in order to finance third level education for their children. I am not at present, therefore, in a position to make a definitive statement on the question of a loan scheme other than to say that it is one which is receiving the most careful consideration.
The Coalition Government have a good record in relation to student support in the context of the schemes for the provision of higher education grants and scholarships. For example, the provision in the 1984 Estimates for the higher education grants scheme is over £11 million, as compared to about £4 million before the introduction, for the academic year 1981-82, of major improvements to the scheme by the Coalition Government. Even more significant increases have taken place in the scheme for the provision of vocational education scholarships in the same period.
In 1980-81, the year before the much improved scheme of higher education grants was introduced by Deputy John Boland, when Minister for Education, there was a total of 9,852 students or 26.1 per cent of the student body in receipt of a grant or a scholarship. For the present academic year 1983-84, the numbers have grown to 16,760 or 35.6 per cent of the student body. I refer to these statistics not to make a political point but to point out that over one in three of students at third level has their fees paid for them and the vast majority of them also receive a maintenance allowance. These students are cushioned against any increase in fees. It is well to bear this fact in mind when people complain about fee increases at third level.
In regard to the provision of new or improved accommodation at third level, I pointed out in the Programme for Action in Education, that a number of projects were on hands in my Department. Work is proceeding on the second phase of development at the NIHE in Limerick and on UCD's new library in Belfield. Planning of a new Regional Technical College in Tralee is at an advanced stage and building work is due to commence in the autumn. Major developments are also in train for the colleges of technology in Bolton Street and Kevin Street, the college of marketing and design and the college of commerce, Rathmines. Consultants have been appointed and planning is proceeding on regional technical colleges in Tallaght, Blanchardstown and Dún Laoghaire. The proposals for a new school of engineering for UCD and a clinical sciences complex for TCD at the St. James site, planning for both of which is at an advanced stage, will be considered in the context of the Public Capital Programme for the years 1985-88.
The action programme draws attention to the need for the third level system to become more cost effective and to improve productivity. If we are to cater for greatly increased numbers of students at third level, we need to adopt a twin-pronged approach, to provide such additional places as we can afford and particularly to increase investment in equipment and technological hardware generally, but, secondly and no less importantly, to improve the cost effectiveness of our institutions and to spread available resources fairly over institutions and courses. I appreciate that people in the institutions can make comparisons with other countries and argue that third-level education is achieved relatively cheaply in this country, but we have not the resources of those countries and we have proportionately a far higher percentage of our population in the younger age groups. We need, therefore, to look at our institutions and to see in what way, without sacrifice of quality, we can make them more efficient and more cost effective. The action programme put forward a number of proposals in this area, and these will now be taken up by my Department with the interests involved. I have on previous occasions expressed my appreciation of the contribution which these interests made to the deliberations of the working party, and I look forward with confidence to their full co-operation in considering and implementing the various proposals made in the action programme.
The House will be aware of my intention to reactivate the question of providing legislation in regard to the structure of our Irish universities. The parent Act, The Irish Universities Act, has now been on the statute book for more than three-quarters of a century without any major changes being made in the legislation. What were in 1908 small colleges have now grown to be major institutions in their own right. The question must be asked if the NUI constituent colleges would now benefit by each being established as a university in its own right. Special consideration will have to be given to the place of the recognised colleges of the NUI that is to say the colleges of education, the Royal College of Surgeons and, in particular, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. I propose, as soon as possible, to initiate discussions with all the interests involved with a view to evolving structures which are more appropriate to the present-day requirements of university education.
In speaking of legislation, I should refer also to my intention of amending the Vocational Education Act of 1930. This will be necessary, in any event, to deal with such mundane matters as the payment of travelling and subsistence expenses for committee members, but much more fundamental matters arise for consideration. These include the enlargement of committees to provide for teacher representation and the position of regional technical colleges. The management of the RTCs is provided through sub-committees of the VECs under section 21 of the Act. There is a body of opinion that this management structure is inappropriate for these institutions and that a structure more in line with that of other third-level institutions ought to be established. This is a matter on which no decisions have been made at this stage but it is one which, I think, merits further consideration and I look forward with interest to hearing the views of the appropriate interests on it.
The management boards of the RTCs as presently constituted are restricted in membership to 12 persons. This provides a particular problem in relation to student representation on the boards. I have stated that my aim is to have student representation on the governing boards of all third-level institutions, and any review of the 1930 Vocational Education Act will involve a resolution of the problem of student representation on the boards of RTCs. Student representation exists already in respect of the governing bodies of the NUI constituent colleges, but only by way of Ministerial nomination. A review of the university legislation, which I mentioned earlier, will deal also with the question of students being represented on the governing bodies in their own right.
In the Programme for Action in Education, I dealt at some length with another important area of third-level education, that is teacher training. I indicated that it is proposed to undertake a comprehensive review of the structure and content of the Bachelor of Education degree courses for primary teachers. The professional training of second-level teachers too will be reviewed in consultation with the appropriate interests. In a society which is constantly changing it is imperative that our schools should reflect these changes and be in a position to educate each generation of its pupils to meet the demands of modern society. It is relatively easy to make adjustments in the initial training programmes so as to produce what we might term "modern" teachers. The fact is, however, that following initial training many teachers spend more than 40 years in service. When one considers the developments that take place in all areas of life in such a period, it becomes clear that teachers must be given opportunities throughout their career of partaking in refresher courses. It is for this reason that so much emphasis is placed throughout the Programme for Action on in-service courses. There is no doubt that in the past the provision of in-service courses has been less than adequate. In-service education is, of course, quite costly, particularly if undertaken during normal school periods when replacement teaching would need to be provided. Nevertheless it is a facility which needs to be greatly improved, and it will be a major plank in my policy for teacher training.
I have discussed two major issues — the parents' council and third-level development — because time has not allowed me to develop these on previous occasions when I have spoken in this House. It is important also, however, in the interests of balance, to remind Deputies that the Programme for Action in Education sets out our priorities in all the areas of education. I have spoken before, for instance, of our making primary education the major priority for new investment, with pupils who suffer educational disadvantage being the major target for extra help.
The crucial area of curricular reform at both primary and post-primary levels is under way, principally being addressed in the work of the Curriculum and Examinations Board
The increases in capitation grant at primary level this year were the highest ever granted in a single year and are a very real expression of our commitment to this sector. The increases in grants to secondary schools also reflect our recognition of their financial needs.
Much work is going on in implementing the many proposals in the action programme. I expect to be in a position to give a progress report on this in the near future.
In the earlier part of my speech, I outlined the main details of the Estimates for 1984. The gross provision for the education services is now approaching the £1,000 million mark. The increase in the non-capital provision in the group of Votes for education is 9.75 per cent compared with 1983 while inflation is expected to be less than 9 per cent. This is a measure of the commitment of the Government to the provision of the best possible education for our young people.
The percentage of GNP which this country devotes to education is the second highest of the EEC countries. It is estimated that 6.7 per cent of GNP was spent on education in 1983 compared with 5.7 per cent in 1978. The amount of GNP spent on education is the objective criterion on which to judge the performance and the commitment of a Government. By any standards, the performance of my Government ranks high.
In evaluating the capital budget for education, it is necessary to remind ourselves that, because of our burgeoning population, we as a community spend a significantly large proportion of our total education budget on school building and equipment. This is an aspect of our financial structure that is ignored. The facts are that, compared with other EEC countries, we devote a far greater percentage of our financial resources to capital spending. In 1978, for instance, our capital expenditure as a percentage of current expenditure on education was 15 per cent compared with a European average of 8.9 per cent. The United Kingdom spent 6.9 per cent on capital projects. When comparing with other countries expenditure on current services many people conveniently overlook the fact, first, that we have to have a large capital budget because of our growing school population and, secondly, that most other EEC countries have a much higher income per capita.
I have spent some time today discussing the spending of £983 million. Where has this money come from? It has come from the men and women at work in this country who are paying extremely high rates of tax, whose disposable income is much smaller than it should be. Whether or not they have children in the education system, they massively support it. They pour money into the school experience of each child or young person. It is my job as Minister to direct the spending of that vast amount of money so that the children and young people will be the beneficiaries. A huge amount of this money pays teachers' salaries; a much smaller amount goes to provide the physical facilities and equipment in which those children and young people are educated. Sheer growth of numbers alone forces an increase in spending on education every year, in salaries of new teachers and new buildings. Any increase on top of this means, quite simply, a further burden on the taxpayer - either by increased taxation or further debt payments: the alternative to this increased taxation is to find the additional funds from some other area of education or elsewhere.
Anybody from the opposite side of the House, therefore, who intends to call for more this and more that, increased facilities here or more teachers there, should bear in mind that it is no longer credible in 1984 to behave as if there was no tomorrow. I suggest that this Estimates debate could be conducted in a more realistic manner if suggestions for increased spending were accompanied by a clear statement of where the resources will come from. It is no use sidestepping the issue by protesting that this is the job of Government. Every Member of this House is well aware of the financial situation and the taxpayers' difficulties. It is opportunistic to pretend otherwise. The challenge is to treat education, the general public and, indeed this House, as seriously as they deserve.
I commend the Estimates to the House.
