Before I move this Estimate I should like to ask the Chair how he proposes to allocate the time for this debate.
Supplementary Estimates, 1989. - Vote 26: Office of the Minister for Education.
Are we not awaiting some agreement between the Whips in respect of this?
I understand that the debate must end at 6 o'clock.
Votes 26, 28 and 29 shall be debated together and, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m.
How does the Chair propose to divide up the time?
Speakers shall be confined to the main spokesperson nominated by each of the groups as defined in Standing Order 89 whose speeches shall not exceed ten minutes in each case and the speech of the Minister replying shall not exceed five minutes.
We are going to have to find five minutes somewhere.
This was the order of the House.
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £5,700,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Office of the Minister for Education, for certain service administered by that office, and for payment of certain grants and grants-in-aid.
I am seeking the approval of the House for three Supplementary Estimates amounting to £14.322 million as follows: £9.251 million for the Vote for Second Level and Further Education; £5.07 million for the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education; and a token £1,000 for the Vote for Third Level and Further Education.
The additional expenditure arises mainly from the provision of additional funding for second level schools in respect of the introduction of the junior certificate programmes, the expansion of services aided by the EC Structural Funds and the provision of an additional £5 million for the school transport service.
In 1989 additional expenditure on ESF-aided programmes generated additional Appropriations-in-Aid. An extra £16 million was approved for payment in 1989. However, due to a delay in processing the payment of this aid, it is unlikely that it will be received in full before the end of the year and this has been reflected in the Supplementary Estimates. While this will mean an extra charge on the Exchequer in 1989, the delayed aid, when received in 1990, will be in addition to the amount provided for in the abridged Estimate volume and will further reduce the charge to the Exchequer in 1990. Over the two years, therefore, the charges will balance out.
The additional amount sought for the Vote for second level and further education is £9.251 million. A total of £1 million is being provided to assist schools in the introduction and implementation of the new junior certificate programme. The amount for each school will be related to the number of new entrants with a minimum grant based on 30 pupils. The programme started in schools last September and will be examined and assessed for the first time in June 1992.
The junior certificate programme replaces the intermediate certificate and day vocational (group) certificate programmes. It represents a major reform of the junior cycle post-primary programme and marks the commencement of a phased programme of curricular development. The new programme is a positive response to the changing needs of society and will have a great impact on the quality of education available in our schools to our young people.
A further £310,000 is being provided for an additional resource grant of £5,000 for each of the 62 schools which have proffered and been approved to offer and develop the new junior certificate technology syllabus which is being introduced on a phased basis.
The implementation of the syllabus will be carefully monitored and its content and methodology will be reviewed, amended and developed. The introduction of this new subject is of extreme importance. As we enter the nineties and prepare our young people to become responsible citizens, who will spend most of their adult life in the next century, it is imperative that their basic education will prepare them for a world where technology will play an important role.
The new vocational leaving certificate programme was launched in September 1989 and is eligible for ESF funding. A sum of £690,000 is being provided for an additional resource grant to each of the schools concerned. This will be paid on a per capita basis with a minimum of £3,000 per school.
A further £5 million is being provided in respect of building and equipment grants for second level schools. Of this, £2.5 million is for liabilities which have matured under the capital building programme mainly because nine major construction projects proceeded faster than expected due to unprecedented fine weather conditions. Expenditure on emergency works has also been greater than the contingency sum provided and £900,000 is for payment of equipment grants to secondary schools, £600,000 for minor capital works of an exceptionally urgent nature and £1 million for payment in respect of final accounts for capital works.
We give priority to areas where there is agreed rationalisation, where there are stand-alone schools, where there is a need for a replacement or extension or where population projections are quite clear. Rationalisation and cost-effectiveness are principal features of my policy on the provision of second level schools. My Department are committed to promoting and encouraging co-operation between educational interests. The beneficial results accruing from these policies will be substantial.
I am aware that the issue of rationalisation can cause apprehension but we have had many discussions and harmonious agreements have been reached in nine cases during the current year. It is my intention to continue with the consultative process to facilitate further developments in this area.
A supplementary allocation of £568,000 is being provided for the cost of examinations. The number of candidates was higher than expected — this year there was an increase of 5.6 per cent in the number of candidates for the leaving certificate examination. There were increases in the number of centres, the number of superintendents and attendants and the cost of materials. All of that led to the increase needed there.
There is need for £1,000 by way of a Supplementary Estimate for third level and further education.
An additional £3.090 million is being provided for grants in support of trainees on ESF-aided programmes other than the vocational preparation and training programme. This results from the expansion of the programme of courses eligible for ESF aid. An additional £68,000 is provided for the grant in aid for general expenses of the HEA. It is a transfer of funds.
The additional amounts sought for grants-in-aid of institutions funded through the HEA is £1.655 million. An additional £1 million is being provided for building grants and capital costs of regional and other technical and specialist colleges under vocational education committees, to meet contractual commitments.
There are offsetting savings of £1.6 million as the amount required for recoupment to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in 1988 on higher education grants is less than expected.
There will also be surplus appropriations-in-aid of £4.8 million as a result of the expansion of ESF-aided courses, particularly the introduction of two new programmes, the higher technical and business skills programme in the regional technical colleges and the advanced technical skills programme in the HEA institutions. Consequently, a token Supplementary Estimate only is required as the surplus receipts exceed the additional expenditure.
We need £170,00 for office machinery and other office supplies for the further advance of the computerisation system. Computerisation is not just required for getting out results; it is also needed in order to collect the immense amount of data that will be required to enable us to plan satisfactorily.
We need an additional £5 million for the school transport service. The Government have been concerned at the high cost of providing this service and have sought to have it reduced, as did previous Governments. Despite the additional moneys needed the school bus service continues to give a very high satisfaction rate. The care with which large numbers of children are taken to school by the various contractors and subcontractors augurs well for the system.
I wish I had more time and could speak more informally but the nature of the submission of Estimates to this House requires a Minister to speak more formally than he or she would wish to speak on other occasions. The issues raised in this debate are worthy of more detailed debate than any of us would have the time for here this evening, but the contributions will point the way to further exploratory and developmental-type debates.
I am particularly pleased that we have been able to get the junior certificate off the ground with the goodwill of all the various parties involved in the school system. The results so far are very pleasing. There are wide issues which still remain to be addressed in the whole system of second level education and I hope there will be further debates on those issues as time and occasion permits.
Since we are referring mainly to second level education I would make a passing reference, particularly in view of something I heard on a radio programme the other day. There is a view abroad that in the second level system there is only a five-year cycle available to pupils. That is not so. Across the broad range of the transition year, the repeat year and the provision of vocational and preparation training courses, now a great majority of all second level schools offer a six-year cycle in one shape or another in line with the programme for action in Government which proposed a diversity of choice rather than requiring every school to have a transition year or a vocational preparation and training course. There is a range of options available to schools and many pupils are availing of these options. There are now options thanks to the European programmes and the matching moneys which the national Government provides for education. There is a huge explosion of demand and the demand is being met in the VPTP schemes at various levels throughout the schools system.
I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the House and in the five minutes which will be left at the end I will endeavour to answer many of the points which will arise.
This is the second year running in which the Minister for Education has got her sums wrong. Last year she underestimated how much it would cost to run the school transport system by a massive £6 million, a 20 per cent error. This year she has got it wrong again by almost the same sum of money.
The buses are running.
Was last year's Estimate for school transport a genuine one, or was it just a token cut put in for the optics, or are the Minister's advisers bad at arithmetic? It is five months since I became my party's spokesman on education but what struck me most forcibly is the extent to which debate on education here is confined to a small group, those professionally involved in education. This is unhealthy. Irish education will never prosper until it engages the interest of the broad mass of people. Education should be the central issue in Irish politics. Indeed, it is one of the few things that Dáil Éireann still controls, but it is not one of the central issues of Irish politics. My ambition, as spokesman for the main Opposition party, is to initiate a thorough audit of Irish education to establish a sound basis for future investment. This is something I would like to see done over the summer months, and I will return to it in a few weeks time.
Educational debate here concerns itself almost exclusively with the quantity of the inputs and rarely ever with the quality of the output. Do we ever ask why Ireland, for instance, came third last in a recent international study of attainment in science amongst 13 years olds? Why do we fare even worse than Britain in overall attainment in continental languages? Why do Irish young people make such excellent employees and so rarely become entrepreneurs when they go to work abroad? Most importantly, why do so many leave school without any qualifications, condemned to joblessness for life? We do not ask these questions because we do not collect the data which would prompt such questions. This is something we complacently leave to others. Such statistical information as we have is published incompletely and far too late. The year 1992 is about competition and our educational system like other areas in our society will be in direct competition with the other European countries after 1992.
Irish education needs more investment. It probably needs more tax to be paid to finance it, as borrowing is not an option, but it will not get the necessary investment from our people unless the general public as distinct from the in set in education are told and understand that the money is necessary to raise standards for all, especially the weak, in comparison with levels in other European countries. If the money is actually spent as recommended it will achieve the stated results and there will be a method in place for monitoring the results to ensure that the extra resources bring about an improvement rather than simply absorb more cash.
The Minister for Education made a huge error when she reduced the basic second level education period to five years. The cuts in primary education which she initiated were extremely shortsighted. She will make another mistake if she allows financial considerations to preserve an oppressive system of written examinations which will constrict the new junior certificate. She was especially foolish in the discriminatory increases in the pupil-teacher ratio that she imposed in vocational schools.
These are my beliefs but they are not things that I can prove because we do not have the necessary objective data on the comparative performance and the results of Irish education by reference to those achieved in other countries.
I call on the Minister to arrange with our fellow EC Ministers to finance a comparative attainment study of the education systems of the 12 member states as between one another and as against other developed countries with whom we are in competition; to introduce a system of external examiners from other countries each year to examine the results of Irish education as displayed in the junior and leaving certificate examination results and publish an annual report showing where we are strong, where we are weak and where there are gaps in our system in comparison with those in other countries. Those involved in Irish education would have everything to gain and nothing to lose from the publication of such data. It would strengthen the case for the informed and intelligent application of additional financial resources and would, above all, justify a major and continuing investment in in-service education of teachers, probably the most neglected of all aspects of Irish education.
Let me now turn to a related subject, the new junior certificate. As the House knows, I favour awarding 10 to 15 per cent of the marks in the junior certificate on the basis of continuous assessment. I am glad that this proposal of mine has elicited a lively discussion. As a next step I will be inviting the teachers' unions and the parents to discuss the proposal with me. I have already discussed it with one of the teacher unions and I propose to discuss it in greater detail with the others. I will then publish a detailed paper on the subject.
There are five arguments I will be putting to those concerned on this matter: (1) The marking system for the new junior certificate is about to be introduced. If provision for assessment is not included at this stage there is a real danger that this opportunity will be lost for years to come. We will not pass this particular crossroads again; (2) Sole reliance on written examination tends to narrow the curriculum and reward characteristics that are not the only useful ones in life. Rote learning, not creativity and entrepreneurial flair, are what written examinations encourage; (3) A student can do poorly in written examinations due to illness or emotional disturbance. Assessment throughout the year would provide a method of compensating for this; (4) Teacher assessment procedures exist in virtually every country in the English speaking world already. Employees in countries to which Irish students may emigrate are likely to expect teacher assessments to be included in the curriculum vitae. In Australia, the whole trend is towards teacher assessment. In Italy assessment is replacing written examinations in their junior certificate; and (5) Teachers are already informally assessing pupils as part of their normal class work. There are problems. Favouritism is one, but it can be overcome if there is a proper system of external moderation. The relationships between teachers and students need not be adversely affected. One is, after all, relying on people who have a well-established code of professionalism and professional ethics.
There were a number of disturbing revelations about the state of education in Ireland in response to some written questions I put to the Minister in the Dáil recently: (1) Teachers in community schools have no contracts of employment. The Minister says they are supposed to teach between 21 and 23 hours a week but this is nowhere specified in a contract. This lack of a contract makes the managerial role of community school principals extremely difficult. Meanwhile 23 of the community schools are themselves operating without any legal basis because the deeds of trust have not been agreed; and (2) The Department of Education is breaking the law by its failure to publish its own annual report within three months at the end of each year. Printing the report actually takes six months. This is a direct breach of the Minister's statutory duty.
In regard to the deeds of trust, it is very much of concern that the VEC seems to be holding this up. I am particularly worried also that they are preventing new schools being provided in some areas because they are insisting on a comprehensive school rather than a community school. A community school, is, of its nature, a compromise between a secondary school and a vocational school and it was designed as such. I believe it is a fair compromise. I believe that in the case of the town of Trim, which needs a new secondary school for boys, it is wrong that the VEC in Navan is holding that up because it will not agree to a community school.
I intervene to advise Deputy Bruton that two minutes now remain of the time available to him.
I have just two points to make in two minutes. The first is — and I hope the Minister will take note of this — I am very worried about this Youthreach programme. It sounds like a great idea to help early school leavers. However, they are being paid if they go on a Youthreach programme but not if they stay on at school. What is happening? People who would otherwise stay at school are leaving to go on a Youthreach programme, which is supposed to prevent them from leaving school. In many cases they would be better off staying at school, but the money attracts them. I know that is not the intention of the Minister. It has been said to me by a community school principal — and I can give the Minister the name afterwards if she wants it — that this is happening in his school; he is losing students who would be better off staying at school because they are going off on a Youthreach programme. That is an example of how the EC is distorting Irish education, by giving money for one thing and not for another.
We have a further example in the case of third level education where the EC is giving money to subsidise accountancy firms to put their trainees on courses in university because that is described as training. The EC refuse to fund primary education and ordinary third level education but is funding the most exclusive and the least in need of subsidisation, namely, accountants. That is another distortion introduced by the EC. The sooner we change the Treaty of Rome and allow the EC to assist education as well as training the better for Europe.
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First I would like to deal with the school transport Estimate. I am tempted to say "I told you so"——
The buses kept running. The Deputy said they would all stop.
The Minister is bringing in a Supplementary Estimate.
That is about the weakest defence. We all knew they would stay running. We also knew the Minister's figures were wrong.
There is one thing I would like to clarify before I start. I had some difficulty with the Supplementary Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Education, subhead B.2. The original Estimate is shown as £26.194 million. The additional sum required is shown as £5 million. The revised Estimate is shown as £31.937 million. There seems to be a discrepancy of £743,000. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
In the Seanad in 1988 and again in 1989 I raised the question of school transport and said that this Supplementary Estimate would be necessary at the end of the year. The Minister has told us £5 million is being provided. That means there is a shortfall of £.8 million once again and that, after a £1.5 million shortfall in 1988, Bus Éireann has suffered losses to the tune of £2.3 million in the past two years in spite of the Supplementary Estimate. Both the Minister for Education and the Minister of State were at great pains in the Seanad to talk about the excellent service Bus Éireann provides. It is about time Bus Éireann was left alone. There were efforts made in 1988 to introduce pilot projects which were not successful and the Minister withdrew them. Next year Bus Éireann are left short another £1 million in the new Estimates so, taking into account the last three years, we are talking about a shortfall of £3.3 million, and the £1.5 million from 1988 is a debt that Bus Éireann is carrying. Efforts have been made to find savings in Bus Éireann and I would suggest that the investigations by the Department have not come up with evidence that there is any fat on the Estimate. The Labour Party will be opposing this Estimate on the basis that Bus Éireann have been left short £1.5 million in 1988 and £0.8 million this year.
The Minister is also providing for the junior certificate in these Supplementary Estimates, a fact we welcome. With regard to the mathematics provision, I welcome the fact that there is a three level certification in intermediate certificate mathematics, or junior certificate mathematics as it will be now. In the intermediate certificate mathematics there was a failure rate of something like 20-30 per cent, which I think we all agree is totally unacceptable. For children who failed mathematics at the intermediate certificate to take pass mathematics in the leaving certificate is very difficult. The figures tell us that 10,000 pupils annually fail mathematics at leaving certificate level. Take this against 7,000 pupils taking honours mathematics and we see there is something radically wrong here. My suggestion is that a three level certification be introduced for leaving certificate mathematics to take cognisance of the fact that there are children who have been failing up to now with the three level certification. The underachievers will be better catered for and will have certification from the junior certificate, but these children on the lowest certification, the lower achievers, must be provided for at leaving certificate level. I ask the Minister to consider that very carefully.
During the year the Minister introduced concessionary posts to national schools in disadvantaged areas, a very welcome development, and I compliment her on that. The last time I checked the disadvantaged areas there were something like 160 throughout the country, most of them in Dublin and Cork. Many schools in my locality, and schools in other areas, could be justifiably categorised as disadvantaged, and further resources could be provided for them.
At Question Time some weeks ago I raised the matter of emotionally disturbed children in our schools. I am glad the three pilot projects are going ahead, and again, the Minister is to be complimented on that.
Indicative of our thinking vis-á-vis education is that there is now a Supplementary Estimate for first level. There is a great need to provide more resources at first level. If many of the problems that arise at first level are not dealt with at that stage the children will go on to become problems at second level and will never properly get their lives organised and become useful, productive people in society. These children can be dealt with if more resources are provided at first level. There are discipline problems there stemming from the fact that there is no real sanction that teachers in the classroom, the principal in a school or the board of management, can use. This must be tackled quickly and effectively.
Another aspect of this problem is the growing number of the children I have termed to be emotionally disturbed. Remedial education deals with children who have problems with learning that can be rectified if they are given special care and attention, but emotionally disturbed children very often are quite intelligent. Their problems may stem from disturbance in the home. Because of health cutbacks school psychological assessments in various rural areas have been very much reduced. Even if the assessment is done, there is nowhere in the system these children can be referred to and dealt with. The concessionary posts have gone some part of the road to solving these problems.
The Department of Education must provide their own psychological assessment. This would be a worthwhile investment which at the end of the day would assist quite a number of children to escape the poverty trap, something everybody on every side of this House would favour.
An area that causes me great concern is that children in many areas, Waterford being one of them, are disadvantaged in terms of obtaining third level education. A child in Waterford city or county has half the chance of a child in Cork city or county of obtaining a degree. The Clancy report dealt with the various socio-economic groups in terms of access to education. Many children are excluded from third level education because of their parents' means or circumstances at home and a large number are disadvantaged in terms of access because of their geographical location. The Minister should look urgently at the provision of more degree courses through regional colleges or possibly some agency through the VECs to provide these courses.
I have said on many occasions that the income limits relative to scholarships and grants for third level education are way too low. When we take the tax régime into consideration we can take a step forward if we can provide that these income limits relate to nett rather than gross income.
I must come to call another speaker.
The Labour Party will be opposing these Supplementary Estimates on the grounds that not sufficient provision is being made for school transport this year, was not made last year, and will not be made next year.
Unlike Deputy Bruton, I am not a bit worried about the Minister overspending in the education area. I hope she will overspend a bit more.
I was worried about her competence at arithmetic.
Fair enough. She should take second chance education in that area.
The Taoiseach has that problem too.
I think the Minister will be seen as the Minister for Education who in the eighties destroyed the dream of the sixties — that is, the dream of fair education, more equal education, free education — by the cutbacks. Everybody says the cutbacks were necessary, but I do not think the Minister fought enough for her Department at Cabinet and with the Minister for Finance because the cuts in education were far too severe. The economy now sees the advantage there would have been had cuts in the education area been fewer from the point of view of developing the economy.
The cuts in the eighties created a more unequal school system approaching something like the health system. Now we nearly have a two tier school system. The Minister should now be pressing at Cabinet level to eliminate the dreadful cuts in the free education system and to restore free education. Deputy O'Shea mentioned the Clancy report which showed that in the third level area education is increasingly dominated by the well off. The report indicates, for instance, that Dublin is very severely disadvantaged in this way in the third level area. Only 20 per cent of Dublin school leavers go on to college as compared with 35 per cent in many other counties. Strangely enough, the income limit Deputy O'Shea referred to does not seem to worry people on the higher incomes. Dublin was also the county with the highest proportion of students with no funding at all — 62 per cent of students from Dublin had no funding at third level. In other counties only 30 per cent to 35 per cent had no funding. Of all Roscommon children, 80 per cent were funded.
A survey was done two or three years ago in UCD which showed that 564 sons and daughters of farmers were in receipt of grants at the college, that 160 grant holders at the college had parents in the higher professional category and 231 students came from families in the employer-manager category. All those children had grants at college but only 37 offspring of unskilled workers and 72 children of semi-skilled workers at the college were in receipt of grants. This is extraordinary given the low income limit required to qualify for grants. How do these people fool others into believing they are entitled to grants? They obviously lie and cheat to get their children into college with grants while those who are entitled to such grants are not getting them.
The problem begins at primary and second level because this is where the inequality is built in. What happens at third level and in relation to jobs is decided more and more by the ability of schools to raise funds locally or directly from parents. Adult and second chance education has taken an enormous knock. This has been of great importance as the number of unemployed has increased. The recent Aontas report showed a 40 per cent fee increase and a 60 per cent fall in enrolments since 1967 due to the cuts. Their report was entitled Steady as She Sinks — The Decline of Adult Education in Ireland.
The Minister needs to rescue education from being an instrument which reproduces class inequalities. There must be a commitment to building genuinely free education, towards which we were progressing during the sixties and seventies until we met the cutbacks of the eighties. Free education is costing more and more every day. The Workers' Party have produced a booklet which shows that £200 would be a moderate estimate of the outlay required by a family with three children at school to cover the cost of books, clothing, uniforms, etc., not counting the so-called voluntary contributions which are asked from parents and charges for essential items like art and craft materials.
Class divisions are emphasised at school. Some schools are impoverished; they have nothing while other schools have fantastic equipment. Areas of disadvantage are talked about as if disadvantage was something which just happened, like an earthquarke. Disadvantage is something which has been imposed. We should be talking about areas of oppression because they are being made more and more oppressed and disadvantaged through the system of education. Every day there is further disadvantage. It starts at primary level where the remedial teachers and the psychological service required are not available. The disadvantage really shows up at second level; it is there we begin to see drop outs. The need for remedial teaching and for a school psychological service is apparent if the career prospects of students are to be improved. They have a very low level of confidence and a low level of anticipation of getting jobs.
The Minister has made enormous cutbacks at second level. I agree with Deputy Bruton regarding the dreadful increase in the pupil teacher ratio at vocational school level. It is outrageous. The vocational sector get more pupils from disadvantaged areas and they also offer a very much higher proportion of practical classes which require a lower level of pupils per teacher. The Minister should restore the position there.
The Minister referred in her speech to the planning criteria for the school building programme. These criteria have all sorts of interpretations. Generally speaking, there is a demographic change which indicates that fewer schools may be required and some children can change to existing schools. In Clondalkin in my constitutency there is an increase in the building of private houses and the area is expanding very rapidly. The second level school in the area, St. Kevin's Community College, is without a school building, although it was promised. The numbers are increasing at the rate of 100 pupils per year. This year they are to lose space rather than gain it in the old vocational school in Lucan which was abandoned by the VEC. They are bussed there every day from Clondalkin and have to stay there all day without even a play area. The Minister should reconsider the criteria for school building. This school will have 800 or 900 pupils in three years time. If the Minister were to decide now to build a school it would be three years before its completion. I would ask the Minister to look at this disadvantaged area and other such areas.
"Disadvantaged" is the "in" word in national plans but instead of support being provided by the Government disadvantaged areas are daily becoming more disadvantaged. Only the educational system can make them free and give people freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom to do what they wish in life. They do not have any of those freedoms. We might as well build walls around them since they do not have freedom or movement or freedom to express themselves in speech or writing because they have not the education.
The Minister should look at second level educational requirements in rapidly growing areas. These areas should be looked at separately because the Department are making general demographic decisions for the whole country which are not relevant to these new areas in Dublin.
Five minutes is a very brief time in which to deal with the many points raised. I wish to thank the three party spokespersons, Deputy J. Bruton, Deputy O'Shea and Deputy Mac Giolla, for their contributions. It would be quite impossible to reply to all the points but I will try to cover as many as possible.
Deputy Bruton spoke of the need for data. I am addressing that matter within the computerisation programme. He also raised a question on school buses, I am afraid I got my sums wrong but I got the number of buses right. The Deputy asked about reducing the five year second level cycle, but I had dealt with that in my speech. He referred to the need to focus on primary education and I agree with him on that. He also asked that I speak to the EC Ministers about carrying out a comparative study of educational outputs among the Twelve. He also expressed the need for assessment at the junior certificate level, and I note from the Order Paper we will be returning to that subject again.
I agree with the Deputy's suggestion on the need for in-service education and we have made provision for a very great increase in the amount of money for that. Deputy Bruton cavilled at EC funding for particular types of third level education. The funding of VEC third level colleges is enormous and is of great benefit to young people. The Deputy spoke about the lure of Youthreach payments to young people, inducing them to drop out of school. The criteria to participate in Youthreach are very strict. The person has to have no formal qualification at any level, throughout second level, and they must have dropped out for a considerable period of time before they are taken on by the agency. I will bear in mind what the Deputy has said; he has promised to give me an address.
I will tell you exactly what I said.
Deputy O'Shea raised the discrepancy in school transport. I have to admit I got the sums wrong but the number of buses right. He has asked for an account of the £7.48 million and I will get back to him on that matter. The Deputy welcomed the junior certificate, but he pointed out the need for three levels of mathematics at leaving certificate because there are three levels available at the junior certificate level. I will look at this suggestion and bring it to the attention of the NCCA. The provision of an additional 130 teachers over and above the norm for disadvantaged areas is a small step forward and I am glad the Deputy welcomes it. He commended the start-up of the school psychological service. This has been mooted for over 15 years and seven different Ministers tried unsuccessfully to get it off the ground. I cannot believe I have it up and running, but I am glad ——
I am, too.
If Deputies knew the barriers that had to be overcome; they were practically insurmountable but we managed it. The Deputy asked that more resources be given to first level education and mentioned the growing problem of discipline. He asked for more degree courses for the RTCs. I am sure he was not only referring to the RTC in his own constituency of Waterford but to other RTCs as well. I can say the review will attend to this.
Deputy Mac Giolla raised the cuts in education and the apparent inequities in the system of third level grants. The Deputy referred to categories of persons who were in receipt of third level grants and wondered how that came about. Grants were paid on the relevant accounts which they submitted to the borough council, county council, or VEC and certainly a large mark hangs over many of those. I hope that the review will look at this matter also.
The Deputy said that inequality begins at primary level and is carried on into second level. We have made a massive increase in the provision for school books, a 20 per cent increase last year and 20 per cent for the coming year. However, I have to say that it is never going to be enough. You could forever put money into education but you would be short forever.
Deputy Mc Giolla made a strong case in the House for St. Kevin's, Clondalkin. I also note he sent in a submission to my Department yesterday, which I have received. I will be addressing this very shortly.
The Deputy said inequalities were reflected in the participation at third level education. However, it is useful for us all to know that 96 per cent of all students attending VEC third level colleges have their fees paid and, to a varying degree depending on how far away they live from the college, they are in receipt of some maintenance payments. In fact, there is a great opportunity for all students to have access to these colleges.
I would have liked to have had more time to address the Deputies' remarks but the five minutes are nearly up. I thank the spokespersons and you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for your indulgence.
I am now required to put the following question in accordance with the Order of the Dáil this day: "That the Supplementary Estimates for the Office of the Minister for Education, Second-Level and Further Education, and Third-Level and Further Education, for the year ending 31 December 1989 are hereby agreed to."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finnucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan.
Question declared carried.