Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 1990

Vol. 404 No. 1

Supplementary Estimates 1990. - Vote 26: Office of the Minister for Education.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1990, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education, for certain services administered by that office, and for payment of certain grants and grants-in-aid.

I am now seeking the approval of the House for four Supplementary Estimates.

The position with regard to gross expenditures for the four Education Votes is that we anticipate having an overall overrun of £4.909 million. This amounts to only 0.36 per cent and in the overall context of a gross expenditure of almost £1,372 million represents in my view extremely good management.

The overrun of £4.909 million is the result of savings of £7.365 million on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education and of £1.215 million on the Vote for Second Level and Further Education, offset by deficits of £204,000 on the vote for First Level Education and £13.285 million on the Vote for Third-Level and Further Education.

The arrangements prescribed by the Department of Finance in relation to ESF aid require that provision be made in the relevant votes for the full cost of ESF-aided programmes and the resultant aid be brought to account as Appropriations-in-Aid. Consequently, the full amount provided for in the Votes may be spent only when and if the ESF aid has been received.

The Estimate for the Vote for Second Level and Further Education envisaged receipts from the ESF of £50.622 million. Receipts to date amount to £21.422 million. It is expected that a further amount of £13.682 million will be received before the end of the year. However, it is not certain that this will in fact be received before the end of the year, and if received it is likely to be received late in December and too late to allow for the processing of the payments which must be made from the Votes before then. This is a balancing mechanism pending receipt of the money which is guaranteed.

The Supplementary Estimate now sought for the Vote for Second-level and Further Education will provide Exchequer funding to meet payments which the approved Estimates envisaged would be funded from Appropriations-in-Aid. If the Appropriations-in-Aid are in fact received before the end of the year, they will reduce the actual charge on the Exchequer and the additional money voted will be returned as savings. Some of the expected shortfall of £15.498 million may be received in 1991 and have the effect of reducing the charge on the Exchequer in that year.

The four Supplementary Estimates amount to £38.582 million and comprise: a token £1,000 for the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education; £0.442 million for the Vote for First Level Education; £28.439 million for the Vote for second level and further education; and a Supplementary Estimate for £9.7 million for the Vote for third level and further education.

A token Supplementary Estimate of £1,000 is sought for this Vote. This is required to make available a grant-in-aid of £670,000 to Dublin Zoo in 1990. This will put the zoo in a satisfactory financial position pending consideration of the report of the committee established by the Government. This additional expenditure from subhead B.15, the grant-in-aid fund for general expenses of cultural, scientific, and educational organisations, is offset by savings on other subheads of the Vote. On subhead A.6, savings of £0.118 million arise on consultancy services due to delays in commencement of some projects. Consultancy services are not always as they appear — that is the terminology used. I do not, nor do I intend to, engage in public relations consultancies of any kind, that is consultancies with regard to various measures of computerisation, reports with regard to unit cost studies and matters of that nature.

On subhead B.9, grants amounting to £0.551 million under the grant scheme for the provision of recreational facilities will not be paid this year as certain projects have not progresed to the stage where the grants are payable. I want to assure the House and particularly Deputy Deenihan, that grants will be paid as soon as these projects reach the stages when they become eligible for grant payments. As regards the recreational grants scheme and the money from the national lottery for national and regional sports centres, my colleague, who is on Government business today and is unable to be here, gave the assurance at oral Question Time two weeks ago and I reiterate it here today, that the moneys as needed from the lottery will be drawn down as the national and regional sports centres come on course. The reason for the delay with the national sports centres has been well documented at oral Question Time. The regional sports centres are on target with their various plans.

An additional £1.1 million is sought for special services for children in care — subhead H. Gross expenditure will be greater than expected and contributions from the health boards and local authorities will be less than expected. An extra £600,000 will be needed for staff costs, particularly the cost of relief staff and overtime. Repairs to buildings, furniture and equipment and increased compensation claims, will cost a further £250,000. An extra £250,000 is needed for capital expenditure to provide for final payments in respect of the major project in St. Joseph's, Clonmel which had been expected to be paid in 1991 — good weather led to the work being concluded earlier — and the refurbishing of the Oberstown Centre, the girls' remand and assessment centre.

A further sum of £486,000 is sought for the superannuation of national school teachers — subhead J. The cost of building, equipment and furnishing of national schools will be £500,000 greater than expected. Provision has to be made — I was glad to be able to do so — for classrooms and necessary furniture in a number of schools in major urban areas and for new accommodation and a security system for the central model school in Marlborough Street following a fire.

These additional provisions are largely offset by savings in other subheads of the Vote. Due to fluctuations in teaching numbers during the summer there will be savings of £1.379 million on the provision for the salaries of national school teachers — subhead A. Due to demographic changes, the cost of the capitation grant scheme in 1990 was less than the estimated cost by £103,000. There will be a surplus of £162,000 in miscellaneous appropriations-in-aid related to refunds of salaries of teachers.

The provision for salaries of teachers in comprehensive and community schools has proved inadequate for two reasons. A greater number of new schools came on stream than had been anticipated. The additional cost of implementing the new terms and conditions of certain part-time teachers was underestimated. A sum of £1.35 million is being provided for this purpose in subhead E.

An additional £1.2 million under subhead M is being provided for a number of projects in the post-primary school building programme which are currently in various stages of construction. There was an under-estimate for miscellaneous — subhead L — and an additional amount to meet payments including a grant to the National Parents Council is now being provided.

I have already referred to the position in relation to ESF aid. For technical drafting reasons, the Supplementary Estimate for the Vote assumes that no further ESF aid will be received before the end of the year and, consequently, provision is made for a shortfall in appropriations-in-aid of £28.438 million. There are offsetting savings on other subheads of the Vote which are due to over-estimations on salaries and allowances of secondary teachers and grants to vocational education committees. Payments to local authorities in respect of the superannuation of VEC staff will be £600,000 less than expected due to overestimation.

A Supplementary Estimate is now required for the Vote for third level and further education to allow for the payment of an additional capital sum of £9.7 million to the Higher Education Authority under subhead I.1. This is to provide a grant-in-aid to supplement funding from private sources to allow for the purchase by UCD of the buildings and part of the land of the former Carysfort College and to adapt and equip it for use as a commerce and business education facility. This purchase by UCD will facilitate the intake of a substantial number of additional under-graduate students per annum on a range of courses, especially the commerce and computer studies disciplines. I understand that private funding will amount to approximately £2 million. We have received £1.75 million from the religious authorities which has gone into the general treasury fund. Deputy Gilmore received an answer on this matter recently in reply to a Dáil question. That can be taken as an overall perspective of what is happening to Carysfort College. Indeed, other matters will perhaps bear fruit in the months ahead with regard to arrangements for Carysfort College.

I am happy to confirm to the House that it is the Government's intention that Carysfort College will remain in full use as a valuable educational resource. I would like to express my personal satisfaction at what is a reasonably happy outcome to what was a long and contentious matter. I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the House.

I welcome the proposal to provide £9.7 million towards the purchase of Carysfort College for use as a graduate business centre. I understand this centre will serve not only as a business school but it is expected that final year commerce students in UCD will be accommodated there also. This will provide much needed space for students, which I welcome. I would like to refer to a speech I made in the House last week about over-crowding in colleges. I said that buildings in most of our third level institutions are crammed to capacity. In Trinity College, UCD, UCC, Maynooth, UCG and our regional colleges, there is serious concern that over-crowding of lecture theatres, canteens, classhalls and laboratories constitutes a serious safety risk.

The quality of academic research is also suffering. There is a major shortage of technicians and laboratory staff to back up academic research initiatives. Many routine academic tasks have to be postponed and, in some cases, abandoned due to the cutbacks. Basic research in Ireland is grossly underfunded. This will affect not only the quality of teaching but also the future competitiveness of Irish industry. As a result we will fall further behind.

The libraries in many of our third level institutions are grossly underfunded and understaffed and have been forced to reduce holdings due to lack of space and to have shorter opening hours due to lack of personnel, which is a major disadvantage to many students who do not have alternative study facilities. In this environment increased student numbers have come into the regional technical colleges and universities. The Minister has made a commitment to provide further places, which is welcome. However, unless proper funding is provided study places in the libraries will become even more crowded, lecture halls will overflow and there will be longer queues at canteens, for books at the libraries and at computer terminals. I am sure this move will help to alleviate some of the over-crowding at UCD, but I should like the Minister to indicate the number of extra places she hopes will be made available by this move. Will she also guarantee that this will not be an élitist institution? It amazes me that Carysfort College had not been already purchased by the State for use as an RTC——

I gave the reasons for that: structurally it is not suitable.

I am sure it could have been adapted for use——

It could not be adapted.

We urgently need an extra RTC in Dublin, preferably in somewhere like Blanchardstown, but Carysfort College could easily have been developed as a third level information technology and business centre offering degree, diploma and post graduate courses.

I have other plans.

This may have been the easy way out and I hope it was not taken to satisfy any particular individual. However, if it is worked right it could be a welcome departure but I would prefer to have seen a different use for the building.

It is rather strange that there were savings in second level education at a time when second level schools are packed to capacity. I should like to refer to the ASTI survey of 578 schools in May 1990. It showed that of the schools which have prefabricated buildings, 80 per cent have had them for four years or more; 26 have had them for ten years or more and 42 have had them for 16 years or more. With regard to funding, 55 per cent of schools indicated that parents were asked for a voluntary contribution towards the running costs of the school; 56 per cent of schools have regular fund-raising activities for the running of schools. With regard to facilities, 20 per cent of the schools did not have a library and only 11 per cent of schools had a librarian; 28 per cent of schools did not have a gymnasium or PE facilities, 31 per cent did not have economics facilities and only 515 schools had a qualified remedial teacher. This is all happening in our second level schools at a time when the Minister made savings, a fact which she emphasised today. Instead of making savings in this regard, we should be spending more money.

As has been pointed out the pupil-teacher ratio in second level schools is now the highest in Europe at 20 to 1. In Italy the pupil-teacher ratio is 10 to 1; in the UK it is 13 to 1. On average, in Ireland, there are 30 students in most classes in second level education and this overcrowding puts tremendous pressure on teachers and students because teachers just cannot give the individual attention needed in many cases. I call on the Minister to seriously consider the provision of a six year cycle in second level education in all our schools. At present Irish students spend less time in second level schools than most of their European counterparts. For example, the time spent in secondary schools in Germany is nine years and the average in the rest of Europe is six years. If a six year cycle is not made available in all schools, our students will suffer a distinct disadvantage compared to their European counterparts. I know it was not mentioned in the Estimate but it is a point worth making.

I welcome the contribution to the refurbishment of Oberstown Centre for Girls Remand and Assessment. However, as the Minister has responsibility for juvenile offenders under 15 years of age, I should like to specifically refer to the matter in view of the Supplementary Estimate. I am very concerned about the recent happenings in our prison system and the way young offenders are treated by it. The system is in a shambles and it is immoral to commit teenagers to prison, where they are tagged as criminals. Certainly some of these teenagers need to be placed in a secure unit but the approach must be therapeutic rather than punishment. The aim must be rehabilitation, not incarceration. Most of these young people are already socially deprived and need a firm but supportive atmosphere to rehabilitate them so that they can take their place in society.

Our remand system for young offenders needs an immediate review and indications are that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. We are beginning to experience the fall-out of many years of social deprivation and chronic unemployment. We need a number of small units for unruly teenagers who are in conflict with the law but these units should be located in a regional context. I urge the Minister to look again at the system of care for young offenders, which needs to be improved.

I welcome the allocation for Dublin Zoo, which is very important. However, we will have to decide whether we want a zoo——

I do not want to be in charge of it.

If we want a zoo it must be funded adequately because, up to now, we have not been serious about this very important facility for young people in our city. The Minister's attitude suggests that she is cynical——

I am not cynical but it is not within my statutory remit to look after the zoo.

The Deputy's time is up.

I should first like to refer to the Third Level and Further Education Supplementary Estimate. Inasmuch as the purchase of Carysfort College would provide extra third level places it is welcome as it is fundamental to all Labour Party policy that there should be access to education. Obviously, if more places are provided they will help to further this ideal.

The Estimate before us includes the provision of £9.7 million to enable UCD to purchase, adapt and equip Carysfort College in order to use it as a college of graduate business studies. This is a most mysterious allocation and one for which I can only find one rational explanation because the facts are as follows: Carysfort College has been on the market for many months and is the subject of a number of planning restrictions, to such an extent that its market value, from the point of view of development, is very little. It is certainly not worth the £7 million which I am informed it will cost any developer. The only potential purchaser who could be found for the college is another educational establishment. There is no educational establishment in Ireland with the funding available to enable it to pay £9.7 million to purchase the college, to adapt and equip it, when the property is worth considerably less.

The situation in regard to UCD, on the other hand, is that the governing body of the university have made no decision to purchase Carysfort. The matter of purchasing Carysfort, or the resiting of part of the commerce faculty to Carysfort, has never been discussed. There is a strong feeling in the college that it would not make educational sense to break up the faculty and that the college should consolidate as far as possible in Belfield.

Why are UCD being force-fed with £7 million to buy a property which they neither want nor need and which in any event is worth considerably less than £7 million? There is only one possible explanation. This is yet another example of Fianna Fáil moving covertly to help a property speculator who has bitten off more than he can chew. In the best of all possible worlds it might be argued that the property at Carysfort might be kept and stored for educational use at some time in the future, but it is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money to spend it buying Carysfort now, with no independent valuation and no clear proposal for its use other than the one being foisted on UCD by the Government. This is particularly scandalous at a time when education provision is so underfunded generally. In the light of the recent review on primary education which highlighted a crying need for extra teachers and resources at that level, it makes a nonsense of any approach to education policy to divert money to entirely spurious purposes.

The business of third level education as far as my party are concerned relates to equality of access. A sum of £9.7 million is being flogged here. The college do not want it. What a great difference that money would make if it were used to improve student grants for third level education. On many occasions in the House I put it to the Minister that the income limit of parents of third level students should be based on net rather than gross income. This £9.7 million would make a great difference here and would provide places in third level education for many students who are either disadvantaged because of their socio-economic position or their geographical position.

The money could be used at first level in regard to which the recent report of the review body has come out strongly and showed what needs to be done at first level. The whole business of early retirement needs to be considered. Teachers today are subject to great stress in the classroom and many of them are burned out well in advance of the statutory retiring age. Teachers at second level must have 40 years service to retire and teachers at first level must have 35 years service. This is too long a career for teachers in the present milieu because there is not an effective system to implement discipline in our schools. This problem tends to worsen as time goes on. Apart from early retirement, there is a need to bring in an effective discipline system to our schools in the interests of all.

I have been puzzled about the Supplementary Estimates. We had a Supplementary Estimate for third level a fortnight ago. The problem again was the substantial shortfall in ESF moneys. We have a second level Supplementary Estimate today which relates to a shortfall at second level. What is happening here? Last year there was one Supplementary Estimate before Christmas which related to school transport. Looking back at the Estimates, a sum of £7 million came in as ESF money after 1 January. Why the huge shortfall this year? Are we not getting our returns? Is there a problem in Europe? Is there some problem regarding the provision of ESF moneys for us?

If money is being provided from the Exchequer to make good moneys that have not yet arrived from Europe there must be some cost to the Government and the Exchequer in terms of borrowings which may accrue. I would like the Minister to clarify this. Is it costing the taxpayer money and why is the money from Europe not materialising?

Like Deputy Deenihan, I welcome the money provided for Dublin Zoo. The zoo needs to be expanded. They need more space but I welcome the money which will help the zoo to get over a very difficult problem.

I would reiterate my deep concern regarding the proposal in this Estimate to purchase Carysfort College at such an exorbitant price. The principle of providing extra college places is welcome but it is absolutely incredible that this project could have been proceeded with when it has never been discussed at UCD level. This is something that is absolutely mind-boggling and all the facts demonstate that the value of that building is a great deal less than the purchase price being presented here.

The £2 million from a private source is welcome. Any money that can be put into education is welcome. Indeed, the £1.75 million which was retrieved from the religious authorities is also to be welcomed. At the end of the day, on the basis of the proposal to purchase, adapt and equip Carysfort College, unless there are explanations that we have not got, my party will oppose this Estimate.

I have one question to put to the Minister regarding the zoo. When does the Minister intend to publish the report of the committee which was established by the Government to look into the zoo? Will the Minister give a straight answer to that when she is replying?

I will confine the remainder of my remarks to the Supplementary Estimate for third level education which is to provide almost £10 million for the repurchasing of Carysfort College and part of the grounds. I welcome the fact that the State is purchasing Carysfort, that it is to be used by UCD as an education facility. I have always expressed the view that Carysfort should be retained in education and I am glad to see that this is being done. I have a number of questions about the kind of education for which it is to be retained: to whom will it be available, what will be the degree of access to it and will there be exorbitant fees? These questions should be clarified because it is important that Carysfort continues to be a facility open to the general public and not confined to one sector of society based on finance.

I welcome the knock-on effect that the repurchasing of Carysfort will have in terms of releasing additional space in UCD because, as Deputy Deenihan said, we are all aware of the extent of over-crowding in third level colleges. However, the repurchasing of Carysfort raises a number of questions which the Minister should address when replying. We are being asked to approve the payment of almost £10 million of taxpayers' money to re-purchase a facility which was built and provided in the first place by taxpayers' money and which was sold only 18 months ago by the Sisters of Mercy in what now must be regarded as the sale of the century. That gives rise to a number of questions. First, why did not the Minister take the opportunity when Carysfort came on the market 18 months ago to buy the whole lot? It was then on offer for £20 million. She scoffed at the idea when I suggested in the House that the State should avail of the opportunity to purchase the entire Carysfort College and grounds. Had that opportunity been availed of, the State would have got better value for money than what it is now getting for £10 million and the local people would have been saved the agony of seeing what was a fine facility being destroyed by a major unwanted housing development.

The second question the Supplementary Estimate gives rise to is why the State did not secure its original investment in Carysfort? In reply to a Dáil Question to me some time ago the Minister confirmed that as early as 1977, when the State committed over £2 million to extensions and the provision of facilities in Carysfort, her Department wrote to the Sisters of Mercy asking them to conclude a legal agreement under which Carysfort would have to continue in education or, in the event of its ceasing to be an educational facility, would return to the State. Twelve years later when Carysfort was eventually sold that legal agreement was not concluded. What was her Department doing in those 12 years that they did not secure the investment which was made with taxpayers' money in Carysfort in the late seventies?

We are now in the absurd position where the State has to come back — 12 years later — and spend another £10 million to buy a facility which was provided with taxpayers' money in the first place. We are entitled to an answer to that question. I know the Minister succeeded in getting back £1.75 million of the money originally invested but £1.75 million is a long way from the £10 million we are now being asked to re-commit to the repurchase of Carysfort.

Why did the Department of Education, in the knowledge that a decision was made to close Carysfort as a college of education in 1986, not conclude that legal agreement with the Sisters of Mercy? Why did her Department allow a situation to arise whereby the Sisters of Mercy were literally able to rip off that facility and sell it to the highest bidder 18 months ago? There is a fine distinction between legality and morality. It was certainly legal, as no legal agreement was concluded, for the Sisters of Mercy to conclude that sale but there are very serious questions to be raised about the morality of putting for sale and selling on the public market a facility which was provided by the public.

While we are on the subject of morality I would also like to ask the Minister a question which relates to this issue. A number of weeks ago, I drew to the Minister's attention the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which showed that £800,000 of public money which had been given to Carysfort in the form of education grants, over a number of years, literally had gone missing and that in addition her Department, from as far back as 1984, had not sought or obtained audited accounts from Carysfort College. There are two questions that must be answered here.

There is less than a minute left of the Deputy's time.

There are questions to be put to the Minister. First, what is the state of the inquiry which the Minister said she would hold into the missing £800,000? Second, does she not agree that what we are talking about here is fraud? Third, and most importantly, why were her Department, which has been so generous in allowing Carysfort not to conclude a legal agreement for the earlier investment, so lax in the management of public funds that they did not require the authorities in Carysfort College to account for moneys which had been paid to them over a period of years and why had they not got audited accounts going back to 1984?

Acting Chairman

May I ask the Minister to move Votes Nos. 39 and 30.

I know they are the Votes for Foreign Affairs and the Marine.

Acting Chairman

This is an Order of the House and I must uphold it.

May I, through your courtesy, have one minute to reply.

It is very important.

I welcome the debate today and the general approval which has been given for the purchase of Carysfort, with the exception of Deputy O'Shea to whom I must reply now. He made spurious comments which are untrue. He said that the college had never engaged in discussions. I had four separate meetings with the college authorities with regard to the proposal they put to me for the purchase of Carysfort. For the Deputy to say that I had no such meetings is utterly untrue.

Was it discussed by the governing body?

What the governing body does is their business, not mine.

Acting Chairman

The Minister must conclude now.

Excuse me, I had four separate meetings so that what Deputy O'Shea said is untrue.

With whom Minister?

It is extraordinary that the Labour Party in their policy of access for more third level students would say they did not want extra places to be provided.

Acting Chairman

Minister, I do not have any discretion in this matter. The Order of the House has been decided——

By the Government.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry, Minister——

Why did other Ministers have five minutes?

Acting Chairman

I must and will implement the Order of the House. I now ask the Minister to move Votes Nos. 39 and 30.

Barr
Roinn