Vol. 414 No. 3
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £15,872,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1991, for the payment of sundry grants and grants-in-aid and in respect of Third-Level and Further Education.
As the Minister has indicated, we are seeking the approval of the House for two Supplementary Estimates on the Votes for Second-Level and Further Education and Third-Level and Further Education.
The position with regard to gross expenditure for the four Education Votes is that we expect an overall saving of over £1 million on total gross expenditure of some £1,490 million. The House will agree that a variation of 0.1 per cent on expenditure of this magnitude represents extremely good management.
The saving on gross expenditure is made up of a saving of £4.5 million on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education partly offset by deficits of £1.9 million and £1.2 million respectively on the Votes for Second-Level and Further Education and Third-Level and Further Education.
The arrangements prescribed by the Department of Finance in relation to European Social Fund aid require that provision be made in the relevant Votes for the full cost of European Social Fundaided 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 European Social Fund aid has been received. The Estimates for the Votes for Second-Level and Further Education and Third-Level and Further Education envisaged receipts from the European Social Fund of £172.55 million in 1991. Due to delays in processing payments in Brussels receipts to date amount to approximately £135 million. It appears unlikely at this stage that any further significant receipts will be received before the end of the year. However, if further appropriations-in-aid are received they will reduce the actual charge on the Exchequer and the additional money voted will be returned as savings.
The Supplementary Estimates now sought for the Votes for Second-level and Further Education and Third-level and Further Education will provide £23.52 million and £14.138 million respectively in Exchequer funding to meet payments which the approved estimates envisaged would be funded from ESF receipts. All of the expected shortfall will be received in early 1992 and will have the effect of reducing the charge on the Exchequer in that year.
The two Supplementary Estimates amount to £40.855 million and comprise: £24.983 million for the Vote for Second-level and Further Education; and £15.872 million for the Vote for Third-level and Further Education.
On the Second-level and Further Education Vote an additional £2 million is sought for secondary teachers' salaries. Delays in school amalgamations reduced the expected number of teachers transferring to the payroll for community and comprehensive schools. In addition the number of teachers redeployed under the terms of the redeployment scheme for lay teachers in Catholic secondary schools was less than originally estimated.
The provision for miscellaneous post-primary services has proved insufficient because of much greater activity in the area of teacher inservice training. Quite apart from normal ongoing inservice programmes three days special inservice training have been provided this year for some 17,000 teachers relating to the new junior certificate programme and this has necessitated an additional provision of £450,000.
The cost of running the certificate examinations in 1991 is expected to be £700,000 greater than originally estimated due to a number of factors. The fees for examiners and superintendents were increased by 4 per cent. In addition a greater number of superintendents than anticipated were appointed, due to an increase in the number of school candidates and an increase in the number of special centres for sick and disabled candidates. Travelling and subsistence and stationery costs were also greater than expected.
An additional £48,000 is required for subhead L — Miscellaneous. This will meet among other things a grant of £25,000 to the post-primary tier of the National Parents' Council and the costs of purchasing and distributing to all second level schools a safety video produced as a result of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989.
Capital expenditure on second level schools is also expected to exceed the original estimate by £1.4 million. It was necessary to proceed with a number of projects to address the unsatisfactory condition of existing accommodation. Additional expenditure was also necessary to meet the exceptionally high demand for prefabricated units as replacements or to meet temporary increases in enrolments in the 1991-92 school year.
I have already referred to the position in relation to aid from the European Social Fund. Provision is made here for a shortfall of £23.52 million in ESF receipts, offset by increased receipts of £0.935 million from teacher superannuation contributions and exam fees. The net shortfall is £22.585 million. There are offsetting savings on other subheads of the Vote which are due to overestimations on salaries for teachers in community and comprehensive schools and grants to vocational education committees. Payments to local authorities in respect of the superannuation of vocational education committee personnel is also expected to be £400,000 less than the original Estimate.
On the Third-level and Further Education Vote an additional £1 million is required in subhead A1 to cover the cost of recouping local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in 1990 on fees and maintenance grants to students under the higher education grants scheme.
A further sum of £102,000 is required on subhead A2 for university scholarships and grants. The uptake of certain scholarships was greater than expected and in addition it was decided to award double the usual number of Easter Week 1916 Commemoration scholarships to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Easter Rising and to grant two special awards to mark the centenary of the death of Charles Stewart Parnell.
The policy of the Government to encourage students with the necessary aptitudes, abilities and commitment to participate in third level education has been particularly successful. This has resulted in a larger than expected increase in student numbers, giving rise to the need for an extra provision of £1.6 million for grants to students on ESF-aided courses. The number of students in receipt of vocational education committee scholarships is also greater than expected with the result that expenditure will be £1.05 million greater than anticipated.
A further sum of £182,000 is required by the Higher Education Authority in respect of pension gratuities and the extra cost of the undergraduate expansion programme in a number of third level institutions. An additional provision of £300,000 is sought in subhead D to cover the payment of salary to certain former staff of Carysfort College, pending their redeployment to other suitable employment.
Provision is also necessary in this Vote for the shortfall of £14.138 million in receipts from the European Social Fund. It is expected that both this shortfall and that on the Second-Level and Further Education Vote will be received in early 1992.
There are offsetting savings of £2.5 million on the capital provision for the Higher Education Authority due mainly to late commencement of works and slower than expected progress.
I commend the Supplementary Estimates to the House
Politicians on all sides of the House welcome investment in education as being commendable because it is investment in people, young people in particular. Education is, after all, recognised as the key instrument of social policy. A Supplementary Estimate is, however, an acknowledgement that somebody somewhere did not do the book keeping correctly and that there was inaccuracy and an under-estimation of elements when the Estimate for Education was originally presented to the House. I appreciate that one of the reasons for the current shortfall is the tardiness of the EC in coming forward with money, but nevertheless the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate is an acknowledgement of a miscalculation.
The timing of this Supplementary Estimate has a rather ominous ring to it. We recall that about this time last year, on 18 December, a similar Supplementary Estimate was brought before this House and we were asked to provide £9.7 million for the purchase of Carysfort. In this Supplementary Estimate there is provision for pensions, redeployment of staff and on going costs associated with Carysfort. All the Opposition parties voted against that Supplementary Estimate on 18 December last year. The then Minister for Education assured the House, in her usual mellifluous tones, that the purchase of Carysfort represented good value for money. It turned out to be bad value and a very shady deal, as revealed in a sequence of events which gradually unfolded subsequently. We were asked to endorse something which was effectively an under-the-table Fianna Fáil stroke. It was a shady deal by any standards. It was a wrong deal which directly involved the then Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, and the Taoiseach. The usual procedures and safeguards, the time-honoured constraints in regulating the spending of public money, were all dispensed with. All the time-honoured procedures were set aside. Public officials and agencies trying to do their job and adhere to the law of the land were told by their political masters in no uncertain terms to get lost.
This debate must be confined to the contents of the Estimate. Standing Order 128 states that in the discussion of a Supplementary Estimate the debate shall be confined to the items constituting the same. I do not want to open the Carysfort issue in this debate; it is not the proper debate in which to do so. There will be other opportunities for Members. Perhaps the Deputy would confine his remarks to items in the Estimate which refer.
There is an element in the Supplementary Estimate which refers to Carysfort in terms of the redeployment of staff arising from the closure, and the running costs of Carysfort. Had Carysfort not been acquired by University College Dublin 12 months ago, necessitating the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate in the sum of £9.7 million which the Opposition voted against, then it would not be included in this Supplementary Estimate.
That is incorrect; it would still be included.
I am referring to the element in relation to Carysfort College and I will be very brief.
It will still be included.
How would it be included?
I will tell the Deputy later.
The Minister should have told the House at the outset. All of the normal procedures were dispensed with in this case. Three of the elements of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, which is clear and specific in assigning to the Higher Education Authority the functions of planning, monitoring, regulating and assessing expenditure on third level education, were dispensed with. By going over the head of the Higher Education Authority, sidelining them and relegating them to mere dumb spectators while all of this unfolded in front of their eyes, the Minister acted ultra vires and the law was broken. Furthermore — and I hope this happens in relation to all expenditure from now on — when the Valuation Office make a recommendation to the Department of Education for any purchase — as the Minister knows, this applies to a vocational school in County Mayo — we must take cognisance of that. In August 1989 the State Valuation Office——
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but clearly this is completely outside the scope of the Supplementary Estimate.
It comes within the Supplementary Estimate. I am addressing the Carysfort element in it.
The Deputy cannot open up the Carysfort issue in the debate on a Supplementary Estimate. I would ask the Deputy to confine his remarks to the items in relation to pension and wages in the Supplementary Estimate as they relate to Carysfort.
In relation to the pensions and other costs associated with Carysfort, there would have been no need for this Supplementary Estimate in the first place if the Roebuck complex had been proceeded with at a cost of £5 million because it would have cost the taxpayer nothing. Not alone was Carysfort purchased at the behest and instigation of the former Minister for Education, involving the Taoiseach, but the Taoiseach, as Dr. Masterson has confirmed, returned a telephone call to Dr. Masterson telling him "not alone will we buy Carysfort College for you but we will run it for you as well".
I have allowed you to make a passing reference to this matter but I must now ask you to return to the items in the Supplementary Estimate.
On the Supplementary Estimate, I wish to refer to the shortfall in European social funding. This shortfall is regrettable because one of the things we were told when we joined the EC was that European social funding would be a key element in getting the social cohesion we all yearn for so that we can achieve equilibrium in the standard of living in this country. While I welcome the net amount coming in by way of funding for education, this is basically dedicated to training which very often does not lead to jobs. This is exceptionally regrettable. As a society where the top level of graduates coming off our educational conveyor belt provide the brains for the running of the European Community we are entitled to (1) get more money from the European Social Fund and (2) get money in time. Everytime there are arrears, as there are in this case, and a slowing down and tardiness in paying what we have been promised from the European Social Fund, interest is added on which costs us additional money.
We have to insist that this aspect of our involvement in the EC is honoured in full. The EC is the main beneficiary of the brain drain from this country. This should be pointed out to the EC in making a case for additional funds from the European Social Fund. We should also point out that our graduates who can be described as Euro graduates, are on a par or better than the best in other EC countries. It should further be pointed out at the talks now going on and at the Maastricht Summit to the people who pull the purse strings that our minimum expectation, as a country which has a brain drain, is that adequate resources would be made available to ensure that every person here who has the ability to undertake third level education should be so funded. If we do not get this next week or at the talks which are now taking place, we will not get it. Deputy Bruton made this very clear in this contribution to the debate on European affairs last week.
On the issue of funding I want to say in no uncertain terms that we have to set out our priorities in regard to education and target resources at first, second and third level education into areas of highest disadvantage. There is no use applying an equality of resources across the board such as an equality in the pupil-teacher ratio, equality of capitation and equality of grants, as equality does not mean people derive the same benefits. It is obvious that we have to target and discriminate in favour of areas of high social disadvantage. When one looks at the sad scenes in Neilstown and Ballyfermot two weeks ago, one can justifiably ask how many of the young people who were graphically depicted on television and in the newspapers were in school in the previous week. I spoke recently to the principal of one of the schools in those areas. He was saddened to say that not alone did he know every face in the newspaper but he could look at at classes and tell which children would have their photographs in the papers in two years time. It is a sad indictment of our system that areas on the periphery of this city are not getting the type of funding required to unravel the social consequences of bad planning. We are lucky in the sense that these happenings are warning shots. However, if we do not tackle these problems immediately, they are merely the bush fires of the inferno which will follow.
One way we can tackle these problems is through the provision of education of a particular sort. There is absolutely no use in telling a child in Neilstown or Ronanstown that there is a standard curriculum which applies in Clondalkin and some of the better-off areas in the city, for example, large tracts of Dublin 4, because they cannot see the connection between education and the reality of life. This is why we need to get educational and other services into these areas. We need to keep these children in school for as long as possible. As Deputy Mac Giolla said in his contribution on the Youth Services Bill, we need to get youth services and continuation education into these areas if we are to solve the problems. This is why I do not think the resources being directed into these areas at present are anything like adequate. The tiny initiatives out there which give a spark of hope in those areas have to be nurtured. The principal of one of the schools in those areas is now providing Garda transport to bring children to the library, to the museum, to Croke Park, to the theatre, etc. to show them that there is a bigger and more worthwhile world out there. All these initiatives are worthwhile but they will die unless we provide additional resources. Anyone who listened to the Marion Finucane programme yesterday and heard the distraught mother who has to look after her mentally handicapped child 24 hours a day with no help whatever will realise the foolishness and social inequity of lashing out indiscriminately as we did this time last year, £9.7 million for the purchase of Carysfort College.
This Supplementary Estimate is welcome in that it makes up for a shortfall in education, which by and large, is underfunded, and provides additional resources to enable the show to be kept on the road but, it is not adequate to do the job education should be doing, that is providing the type of social infrastructure to give young people a decent start in life.
The Supplementary Estimates deal in the main with two areas: first, with some housekeeping adjustments which come up throughout the year and, second, with ESF funds which have not arrived as yet. That is becoming an annual event. Will the Minister say what action can be taken to ensure we are not back here next year dealing with a similar Supplementary Estimate to provide funds that have not arrived from the Community?
In relation to Community funds, and the Dublin Institute of Technology sector, I would like to draw to the Minister's attention the position of the ordinary leaving certificate alternative mathematics course. This course was introduced by the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, in the context of a high failure rate in mathematics in the intermediate certificate and leaving certificate. The course was intended to be of equal standing but of more practical content than the existing course. It has come to my attention because of the manner in which this course is being dealt with by the Department of Education that it will seriously disadvantage 5,000 students. That approximate number relates directly to the grants we obtain from the European Social Fund.
The National Council for Education Awards are not prepared to validate or recognise this course for acceptance on to their courses. Only 13 out of an approximate 200 courses are recognised. On the other side of the coin, the universities recognise this course for matriculation. Therefore it seems that this is an extraordinary discrimination against young people seeking funding from the European Social Fund.
Carysfort keeps cropping up in our Estimates and it is listed here under a special provision. A general point I would like to make on the Supplementary Estimates concerns the question of accountability and full disclosure. My major criticism of the Estimates last year — on that occasion I was the only Deputy who took issue on that — was that there was not full disclosure when an Estimate came before the House. The late Micheál Mac Liammóir travelled around Ireland with a one man show entitled, "I must be talking to my friends". If and when the Taoiseach decides to retire his own poet laureate can write a similar version for him to take on tour except that it would have to be entitled, "I must be doing favours for my friends". This is the central and core issue in relation to Carysfort. The only conclusion we can draw is that the whole operation was a scam conceived and executed principally by the Taoiseach or at his insistence.
I refer the Deputy to Standing Orders. Only the payment of salaries for former staff of Carysfort College is covered in this Supplementary Estimate. What happened subsequently in regard to the college is not relevant, it is a matter for another debate on another occasion. The Deputy should accept the ruling of the Chair in this matter.
I do not want to be in conflict with the Chair on that issue but I would point out that the Supplementary Estimates deal also with the Higher Education Authority. In that context we are entitled to address our remarks to the Higher Education Authority and there is a link, be it an indirect one, with Carysfort. Last year we dealt with an Estimate, the one and only purpose of which was to help a friend make a substantial profit out of the public purse. When any Supplementary Estimate is introduced here it should be clearly put on the record that everything that happened is totally in conformity with procedures laid down — Deputy Higgins referred to this — in the Higher Education Act, 1971. It was not pointed out to the Dáil on the previous occasion that that Act had been by-passed and that the Minister's statutory responsibilities were not carried through on that occasion.
There is an enormous problem regarding credibility particularly among the young people. The unemployment rate among them is 27 per cent and 30 per cent of them have been unemployed for over a year. What happens in this House, what happens in Government Departments and how Government money is spent should be clear and in every sense should be above board. Because the operations underlying the Supplementary Estimate for Carysfort last year came in for criticism——
I have allowed the Deputy make a generous passing reference to last year's Supplementary Estimate but we are dealing with this year's Supplementary Estimate and I ask him to keep to it.
I will abide by the Chair's direction. The other point I wish to raise relates to leaving certificate mathematics and the new programme which was sent to the Department by the National Council for Curriculum Assessment earlier this year. There are four new programmes contained therein: one higher mathematics programme, two ordinary programmes and a senior certificate programme. Officials from the Department of Education served on the National Council for Curriculum Assessment course committees that approved these courses. It is vital in view of the very unsatisfactory element in relation to the examination in mathematics at second level that these courses be sanctioned at an early date.
Part of the Supplementary Estimate applies to an under-provision for third-level grants. This is something about which we all hear a great deal from our constituents. Income levels are much too low and young people are not being given the opportunity to pursue the third-level course they desire because their parents are means tested for eligibility on their gross income rather than their net income. In the context of the Book of Estimates and the forthcoming budget I ask the Minister to honour a commitment given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to seriously re-examine income limits for these grants and to consider families with more than one child attending a third level college. Socioeconomic factors prevent people from taking up their rightful places. All parties agree on equality of access. It should be fundamental to our education system but we are falling sadly short in terms of realising this aspiration.
I accept that the Primary Curriculum Review Body did not recommend the inclusion of a European language at first level, but that was in the context of the subject load at first level. The Minister took the view that extra funds that would be available would better be used in the area of disadvantage. That is a laudable aspiration, one on which the Labour Party would not take issue with the Minister; but there is an underlying problem that is not properly understood. Roughly two years ago the National Parents' Council carried out a study and one of the findings was that some 27 per cent of primary schools provided tuition in a European language. These were schools in areas that could provide the necessary finance for extra tuition. The Minister should not lose sight of the fact that pupils from disadvantaged areas can be very competent or brilliant academically. Environmental factors and socio-economic factors can cause lower levels of performance, but bright children in these schools are endowed with the same basic attributes as others.
In the context of a developing Europe, Irish people will be playing a much greater role in the Community, so it is absolutely imperative that we introduce a European language in primary schools at an early age. We have a reputation here for being great verbalisers, but down through the years we have not put sufficient emphasis on verbalising. There have been welcome changes in recent years. I recall having a student at one stage whose father was from the Continent and whose mother was Irish. The child was fluent in both his parents' languages and at eight years he was the best at Irish in the class. There is such a thing as language aptitude. Psychological research shows that our ability to absorb language is in decline from the age of five onwards. In the context of any Education Estimate we should provide for the teaching of a European language in all national schools. In the under 25s there is an unemployment rate of 27 per cent and 30 per cent of those are long term unemployed. A European language would improve the employment prospects of these people.
The Estimate also deals with retirement, an issue which comes up again and again in the House. The teaching profession is an ageing profession. That is not good. It is necessary to introduce young blood into any profession. The Minister should consider introducing an early retirement scheme. If we spend a lot of money training people to teach we should ensure that opportunities are available, because otherwise it is a waste of money. I am glad that people should be qualified, but we must find a way of employing these teachers who will be so necessary to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio and to provide more resources for the disadvantaged in our society. The teachers must be able to play their full part in the system.
The Supplementary Estimate refers to the Irish language in the context of one of the universities. As a supporter of the language who looks forward to it being used more throughout the country, I believe that in the context of the Green Paper and the Education Estimates we have to analyse how we use the considerable funds for the Irish language in the Education Vote. Whereas the population in general are favourable to the language and to its restoration, we have not had a wide ranging Education debate to once and for all identify why it is important that the Irish language be maintained and be in more common use. Society has developed in a way that tries to ape to too great an extent an Anglo-American culture. Individual self image and national image is harmed by that. Our culture and all that goes with it is a very rich culture which can compare favourably with any other culture. We need to understand what the Irish race has developed from and we need to re-assess the values we have held. We need to restate our values and they must form a fundamental part of the education system which emerges after the Green Paper, the White Paper and the Act. If we cherish social justice, honesty, compassion and tolerance we need to clearly say so. It must be fundamental to our education philosophy in all our schools.
With regard to the area of disadvantage, there is a great need for an education welfare officer to be appointed to each vocational education committee area. A question which my party put down for Education Question Time last week was not reached, but it related to the very large underprovision for a school psychological service. That is something that we will neglect to our cost.
The Estimate, broadly speaking, is in the area of housekeeping. There are adjustments. It is regrettable that again this year the House must make good money that has not arrived from the Community. However, I will say that there is a cleanliness about the debate this year and that something that happened last year, by way of Estimate, which I will not mention by name, is not happening this year.
I am surprised at the very strict attitude of the Chair to any mention of Carysfort. I assumed that by now I would not have to say anything about it because Deputies Higgins and O'Shea would have said so much about it that there would not be anything left for me to say. I am surprised that the Chair has restricted all reference particularly when Carysfort is specifically mentioned in the Estimate. I recall that some years ago when a Supplementary Estimate came in one could say what one liked in regard to the Department concerned, the matter being wide open for debate; one was not confined to the particular Supplementary Estimate. However, the Chair has ruled on this and has probably been instructed to so rule. I must say the Taoiseach was very tetchy this morning when the issue of Carysfort came up.
I wish to advise the Deputy that the Chair does not take instructions from anybody.
I am sorry, I thought there were certain Standing Orders that might cover this. I suppose the new Minister for Education does not have to answer for the previous Minister for Education. For that reason it becomes more difficult to tackle the issue. I do not propose to go into the Carysfort issues which have a long way to go in the future. There is plenty more to be said. There are plenty more questions to be asked and answered by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education.
I would like to agree with the previous speakers that delays in European Social Fund grants coming through is becoming an annual event. Why are such huge amounts of European Social Fund grants not paid? What is the cost to the Exchequer in interest rates when they are eventually paid in the New Year, when it is expected that they will be eventually paid? Must that extra cost be offset by the vocational education committee when these grants are eventually paid? Obviously somebody is bungling.
There are delays in many local authorities in the payment of higher education grants, and students have complained about this. These delays cause great inconvenience and problems for students. However, I cannot understand why there should be this bungling in Brussels in paying European Social Fund grants. Is it that the Department of Education are slow in getting the relevant information and applications to Brussels? There must be some problem at one end or the other that stops the flow of European Social Fund grants. I would like the Minister to explain what it is.
Let me make a very important point in regard to European Social Fund grants. There are no European Social Fund grants for post-leaving certificate courses. By their very nature they are third level courses, because second level ends at leaving certificate. They are specifically training courses, recognised in the EC as training courses, and as such should be the first to get European Social Fund grants. They used to qualify for European Social Fund grants a few years ago, but now they get nothing. About 15,000 students are doing post-leaving certificate courses and are not entitled to a grant. Many of these students cannot afford to attend the colleges where the post-leaving certificate courses are held. There are constant letters from parents and constant withdrawals of students as a result of the lack of support in the form of a grant for the post-leaving certificate courses.
This is a very serious anomaly in the administration of European Social Fund grants to students who are on training programmes because these grants are available to approximately 20,000 students on certificate and diploma courses in regional technical colleges. Even post-graduates on research courses, of which there are over 1,500, enjoy European Social Fund support and that cannot be considered training in the sense for which the European Social Fund grants were designed. Post-leaving certificate courses are vital for people who have completed their leaving certificate, who have not got into third level and need further training and development to get into the workforce. Yet there is nothing available for them.
The senior college in Ballyfermot have about 700 students on post-leaving certificate courses who come not just from Ballyfermot, not just from Dublin West, not just from the whole Dublin area but from any place in the country. They come from Wicklow, Kildare, all along the east coast, and some come from further afield in the midlands to courses in Ballyfermot. As with students in other schools they have to travel to where the post-leaving certificate courses are available, and there is no grant for these students for that. I cannot understand why the Department of Education, even at this stage, have not ensured that European Social Fund grants are available for post-leaving certificate courses. They should be in the first line. Before grants would go to regional technical colleges or any other third level courses they should go to the post-leaving certificate courses which are the very first line of training. Yet they are not available.
This week the Government announced that 10,000 new training places will be provided within industry and that students in those training places will be paid a weekly allowance. I know people will say they are jobs, but they are still called training places and they will get a weekly allowance. However, there is nothing available for the approximately 15,000 students on post-leaving certificate courses. I would particularly ask the Minister to take this up. These real training courses are not getting grants where what would seem to be academic training courses are getting ESF grants. This is what this Estimate is about. It is all about ESF grants and about ensuring that the Government get the ESF grants on time. Mostly it is about where these grants go and post-leaving certificate courses are becoming an increasing part of our education system. They are not regarded as either second or third level courses; they are in a vacuum. They are of vital importance to thousands of young people, particularly those who come from a working class background. However, no grants are available for them.
The Minister of State was at pains to point out the Department expect to make a marvellous overall saving of £1 million on total gross expenditure of £1,490 million. This will represent a variation of 0.1 per cent on expenditure which, he said, was an excellent out-turn. I do not know who the Minister of State present in the House is representing. Is he representing the Minister for Education or the Minister of State at that Department?
Myself.
The Minister of State at that Department was very vocal during the past week in relation to the riots, troubles and problems encountered in Ronanstown, Fortlawn, Cherry Orchard, Ballyfermot and Gallanstown where young children set cars on fire and then threw stones at firemen and gardaí. He caught the imagination of many people when he said that if he had been brought up in those areas he would have turned out the same way and would have been out with those young people. He have many people the impression he knew what he was talking about but I hope it was not all bluster and bluff.
There are two very important schools in Ballyfermot and Ronanstown, neither of which has a sports hall. Ballyfermot Senior College which was built in 1980-81 still has no sports hall even though the designs for one had reached stage five when the project was stopped in 1987. It was designed to cater for 500 students but the college now has 1,100 students, 900 of whom are doing post-leaving certificate courses and 200 doing leaving certificate courses. Indeed the college does not even have a gymnasium even though pupil numbers have more than doubled since 1987.
In the more deprived area of Ronanstown, where all the trouble began and to which the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Deputy Higgins referred, the most important facility is Collinstown Park College, which is under the aegis of County Dublin Vocational Education Committee. This college is a hive of activity at night when it is attended by womens' and mens' groups. It is the most valuable facility for the community in the area, yet that college has no sports hall. It was built in 1984 and was the last college to be built without a sports hall. A number of colleges with a lower enrolment have been built since then in non-disadvantaged areas — I am talking here about the Dublin area — yet they include a sports hall. I understand provision must be made for a sports hall in each building programme submitted today. However, these two colleges in disadvantaged areas to which the Minister of State at the Department of Education has constantly referred and to which reference was made in the Programme for National Recovery and in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, have no such facility.
The Minister of State with responsibility for youth affairs, Deputy Fahey, warned on 28 November, as reported in the Irish Independent of Friday 29 November, that the Government had to face up to the fact that there were too many children in the country who had been given no chance and that if money was not put into Dublin's disadvantaged areas the cost of curing the problem would be horrendous. I hope the Minister of State, present in the House, will bring to the attention of the Minister of State at the Department of Education the fact that two of the most important facilities in those disadvantaged areas to which he referred, the colleges, have no sports hall which could be made available to the community.
I understand that the principal of Collinstown Park College, which is under the aegis of County Dublin Vocational Education Committee, Mr. Brian Fleming, who has done a fabulous job in this disadvantaged area has written to the Minister. I hope the Minister will consider his letter and do what he can to provide a sports hall for Collinstown Park College and the Ballyfermot area. Given that £1 million has been saved, it should be possible to assist those areas.
I would like to draw the attention of the new Minister to one other problem to see if he can be of assistance — the previous Minister was aware of this problem — having regard to the savings made or, in the event of ESF grants being made available before the New Year, to any funds that may be available under this Supplementary Estimate. A total of 1,400 children in Cherry Orchard have to be bussed to six different schools in Ballyfermot and Inchicore at great cost to the parents who have sought a grant which I imagine would amount to no more than £50,000 a year but would be of help in transporting children to and from these schools. This is a very small point which the Minister should deal with. I accept that this cannot be done under the school transport scheme but I am sure the Minister could find some other way to make a grant available to parents living in Cherry Orchard. As I am sure the Minister of State at the Department of Education is aware, this is a severely disadvantaged area.
I want to make one last point and it is that the Mary Queen of Angels School has not had a caretaker since 1985 although it has 500 pupils and is in a disadvantaged area. I have written to the Minister in this regard. The cost of replacing the damage by vandalism is much more than the cost of a caretaker. The time of teachers and principles is taken up doing jobs which the caretaker should be doing. This school of 500 pupils has been without a caretaker, SES scheme or anything else since 1985.
I should like to raise on this Estimate a number of matters in relation to my constituency. First I refer to the comment the Minister made in relation to the safety, health and welfare at work for second level schools and to the provision in the Estimate for capital expenditure to address the unsatisfactory condition of existing accommodation in second level schools. We have all seen in the course of the past week articles, photographs and television reports of the appalling conditions in some second level schools. Some of the teaching staff in those schools have had to take industrial action to draw attention to the appalling conditions in which they are required to work and teach.
St. Kevin's primary school, Sallynoggin, is a matter which I raised here on a number of occasions. In 1985 the Department of Education, in discussions with the school, made arrangements for the amalgamation of three primary schools, St. Kevin's boys', St. Kevin's girls' and St. Kevin's infants' schools. As part of the amalgamation it was agreed that the school buildings would be refurbished which would enable the infants' school to be discontinued for use as a school building. About three years ago agreement was reached between the board of mangement of the school and the officials of the Department of Education about the works required to be carried out. Details were sent to the Office of Public Works and were under consideration by the Department for some time.
In fairness to the former Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, when I raised this matter in the House on a number of occasions she agreed to progress matters as quickly as she could. In March this year approval was given to the board of management to go to tender, apply for planning permission, by-law approval and so on, for the necessary works. That was all done, a tender was submitted in July of this year for approval to the Department of Education and there it has rested. There has not been a response from the Department of Education; Deputy Seán Barrett and I raised the matter here at Question Time in October and we were told by the former Minister that she would do everything in her power to try to advance matters. Since then a decision has not been made. In the meantime the children are still being taught in his old, prefabricated building, and they have to use a toilet at the end of the school yard. The school is in an appalling condition; it should not continue in this state and, through the Minister of State, I should like to convey to the Minister for Education that we want a decision on this before the winter is over. It is appalling that children should have to be taught in these conditions.
I should also like to draw attention to a second matter in relation to my constituency, the question of the Dún Laoghaire School of Art and Design, which I raised during the debate on the Colleges Bill. The Department of Education have effectively been sitting on a very good building, Carriglea House, which is part of the campus on which the Dún Laoghaire School of Art and Design is located. Much of Carriglea House is falling into disrepair. Some of it has been vandalised and I have seen evidence of an attempt to set the building on fire. The building could be put to good use by the school authorities who would like to expand. Indeed they have already taken over part of the building and are making very good use of it as the demand for student places is very high, there being about ten applicants for every place. It is an appalling waste of a public resource that the Department of Education have allowed this building to fall into disrepair, have not put it to good use or allowed the Dún Laoghaire School of Art and Design to expand to enable them to provide much needed additional third level places in this area. I appeal to the Minister for Education to pay attention to that issue.
The third matter to which I should like to refer is mentioned in the Estimate and in the Minister's contribution. I refer to Carysfort College. There is a reference to payment in——
I am sorry, Deputy, I understand that the Chair has taken the view that a discussion on Carysfort is not in order on this Supplementary Estimate.
There is provision in this Estimate for matters relating to Carysfort. I have already discussed two matters in relation to my constituency, St. Kevin's primry school in Sallynoggin and the Dún Laoghaire School of Art and Design, neither of which is mentioned in the Estimate and you now tell me that a matter referred to in the Estimate cannot be mentioned.
Is the Deputy telling the Chair that because the Chair allowed a passing reference——
I have spoken for ten minutes.
We will apply the rule in regard to Supplementary Estimates and the Deputy will refer to matters provided for in the Estimate.
I intend to address myself to what is provided for in the Estimates. The Minister said in his speech that an additional provision of £300,000 is sought in Subhead D to cover the payment of salaries to certain former staff of Carysfort College pending their redeployment to other suitable employment.
The Deputy may refer to that particular provision.
I intend to. I do not normally take issue with you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I am surprised that you should have sought to rule me out of order before you had heard the subject matter which I intended to address. It is almost as if mention to Carysfort in this House produces a kneejerk reaction.
Deputy Gilmore, resume your seat. The Chair does not have a sensitivity to anything apart from what is provided for in Standing Orders agreed to. Any insinuation in that respect will not be accepted by the Chair.
On a point of order, I was permitted to make a limited reference to Carysfort although, admittedly, I was cut off at a certain point.
I do not have a responsibility for any other occupant of the Chair and his adjudications. It is well known that a Supplementary Estimates debate is confined to matters provided for in the Estimate. I do not know whether Deputy Jim Higgins referred to staff in Carysfort. If he did he was perfectly in order. If he made a passing reference to another matter he was so entitled but he was not entitled to elaborate on anything other than the question of staff and the provision that is made here.
I spoke on Carysfort for four minutes and I made salient points in relation to it. In view of the fact that this matter is mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate I cannot see why Deputy Gilmore is not allowed to raise it.
Deputy Higgins, what you cannot see is entirely a matter for your own interpretation or your own vision. There is provision in the Supplementary Estimate for staff in Carysfort and any Member is entitled to refer to that provision for the full 20 minutes if he or she so desires.
I propose to address two matters which are provided for in the Supplementary Estimate: the issue of staff in Carysfort and the reference to the capital provision for the Higher Education Authority. In relation to the staff at Carysfort, there is provision for £300,000 for the payment of salary to certain former staff of that college pending their redeployment to other suitable employment. I am aware that agreement was reached, when Carysfort closed, with regard to the redeployment of staff. That is an agreement I fully support and endorse. I say that as somebody with experience of negotiating those kinds of agreements in the past. It is correct that the position of former staff of an institution which has closed down is protected either by way of redeployment or security of their employment and conditions.
When the Minister is replying he should give the House some indication as to the number of former staff involved. He should give some indication as to the efforts that have been made in the last couple of years to secure the redeployment of those staff. He should also give some information on the position of one member of the former staff who, I understand, has been engaged in an advisory capacity to the former Minister for Education — I am not sure if the arrangement still applies. The question of the position of former staff of Carysfort College arises directly from the decision to close Carysfort College in 1986. As we now know, as a result of the decisions which have been made subsequently, a college is now operating on the Carysfort campus. I do not know whether arrangements have been made with regard to the redeployment of former staff in that institution. I think it is relevant to raise a question that arose yesterday at the Committee of Public Accounts.
It is not relevant.
It is, because it relates to staff.
In so far as it relates to staff the Chair will listen to you. He is not going to listen to matters which were raised at the Committee of Public Accounts yesterday unless they refer to staff, and I saw no reference to staff in what I read about that committee yesterday.
There is an extraordinary sensitivity to any mention of Carysfort in this House. Normally in an Estimate debate Members of the House are allowed a degree of latitude.
In an Estimate debate but not in a Supplementary Estimate debate.
I am not going to continue repeating myself. Repetition is not in order. Deputy Gilmore referred earlier to his knowledge of certain matters. I am sure Deputy Gilmore can differentiate between a Supplementary Estimate and a general Estimate. In a general Estimate on education a Deputy is entitled to refer at random to anything connected with education but in a Supplementary Estimate the Deputy is confined to what is provided for the Supplementary Estimate. There is no sensitivity to this matter or to anything else.
I want to refer to the Higher Education Authority who are referred to in the Supplementary Estimate. At the Committee of Public Accounts yesterday it was advised to that committee that it was intended that there would be continuing arrangements and continuing provision of finance through the Higher Education Authority for the operation of the UCD business school at Carysfort. I would like the Minister to address that point when replying. I would also like him to address the continuing concern with regard to the capital allocation for the Higher Education Authority as it relates to Carysfort, particularly the payment in the course of this year of £9.7 million for the purchase of Carysfort.
Deputy Gilmore, that is not referred to in the Minister's speech.
There is some extraordinary trap-door that descends on us every time somebody in this House mentions Carysfort. Why is the matter of Carysfort so sensitive that every time a Member of this House attempts to question the Taoiseach on it the question is transferred and if we attempt to question the Minister for Education the question is not answered or it is jumbled in with priority questions?
Deputy Gilmore please resume your seat.
If we attempt to raise the matter in an Estimates debate we are ruled out of order. What is so sensitive about Carysfort?
If you sit down I will tell you.
I wish somebody would tell me.
The Deputy should resume his seat. As it happens, in a position different from the one I hold, I am very familiar with what went on in Carysfort. I spent years applying myself to what I thought was the position that should obtain. That is only by the way. What the Chair is telling Deputy Gilmore is that the Chair has no sensitivity to any matter — it would be very wrong if it had — other than that provided for in Standing Orders. As long as I occupy the Chair nobody will, by insinuation or in any other way, attribute to the Chair anything other than doing what is in accordance with Standing Orders.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, before you came in I indicated my wish to raise a number of matters relating to my constituency.
Your indication does not make it in order.
I referred to three matters, two of which are not referred to in the Supplementary Estimate but were deemed to be in order. However, the question that is referred to in the Supplementary Estimate, the Higher Education Authority and Carysfort, is deemed to be out of order. It is extraordinary that Members of this House are not allowed to raise a matter that is of public concern. A number of different versions have been given of this matter. Some months ago the then Minister for Education and the Taoiseach said that the initiative to purchase Carysfort came from UCD and that the Taoiseach had no involvement in it. As recently as yesterday it was confirmed that the Minister for Education initiated the attempts to repurchase Carysfort and that the Taoiseach had a number of meetings with officers of UCD in connection with that.
Deputy Gilmore, you are doing no justice to yourself or indeed to this House by the manner in which you insist, for whatever reason, in challenging the Chair. If you continue I will ask you to leave the House.
I am an elected Member of this House.
The Deputy does not have to tell me that.
It is my duty——
To obey the order of the House.
——to represent in this House the concerns and views of the public, particularly in my own constituency.
At the appropriate time.
It is correct and appropriate for me to raise in this House matters of public concern relating to Carysfort College which is located in my constituency, particularly as Carysfort is specifically referred to in this Supplementary Estimate, as is the capital provision for the Higher Education Authority.
The Deputy's time has concluded.
It has not concluded because I was interrupted so many times by you, and some allowance should be made for that.
The Chair is indicating to the Deputy now that he was interrupted because he insisted on being out of order and there is no compensation for that. The Deputy's time is now concluded and he will resume his seat or leave the House.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
The Deputy will resume his seat or leave the House.
There is a massive cover-up in relation to this matter.
The Deputy is entitled to think any way he likes. He will resume his seat or leave the House.
I regret that it appears as if the cover-up applies to this House as well. It is very regrettable that a Member of this House cannot raise a matter of public concern which refers to a matter in his own constituency without being interrupted.
Deputy Gilmore, do not belittle the House.
It is a disgrace.
Deputy Gilmore, you are a disgrace to this House and, indeed, to your constituents, if that is the way you will persist in representing them.
Sir, I think you should withdraw that remark.
I will not.
It is an outrageous remark to state as you have that I am a disgrace to this House and to my constituents. I ask you, Sir, to withdraw that remark.
I will do no such thing. The Official Report will show that the Deputy persisted in defying the rules of this House.
I did not defy the rules of this House.
Anybody who knows anything about the rules will know.
I attempted to raise a matter which was perfectly in order——
And when the Deputy was told it was not in order——
——and I think it is a disgrace that you, Sir, did not permit me to do so.
The Deputy may think any way he likes.
The public will draw their own conclusions.
The Chair is not terribly pushed except in so far as the rules of the House must be carried out irrespective of from what side the challenge to the Chair occurs.
It is all coming out.
No matter what they try to do, it will come out.
If there was an inference by you, Deputy Higgins, that the Chair was doing anything other than which it is entitled to, the Chair would resent it very much.
There is no inference, Sir, in respect of yourself, but the dogs in the street and the media can talk about it, yet we cannot talk about it in this House.
The Deputy, as a former Whip, realises there is a time for talking about everything.
I did talk about it.
I was not in the Chair when you spoke about it or you would not have talked about it.
First, I will deal with the Supplementary Estimate for Second-level and Further Education. While I am pleased to see the revised Estimate under the heading, incremental salary grant for secondary teachers shows an over-spending of less than 1 per cent, nevertheless the facts behind the figures do not indicate a healthy situation. As we all know there is a surplus of highly qualified trained teachers who are standing in dole queues and being paid by the State to do nothing, whereas Members all agree that class sizes at both primary and second level are too large. Would it not make common sense to increase the Vote under this subhead to enable secondary schools take on more staff. The overall net cost to the Exchequer would be minimal when we bear in mind the extra PAYE and PRSI generated and the indirect tax payable by the newly employed teachers. The difference between a teacher's salary net of tax — and allowing for the extra contributions through indirect taxation — and what he would get in social welfare assistance is slight. Of course, a scheme of guaranteed basic income as advocated by the Green Party would remove this ridiculous restriction and put the services of these talented young people at the disposal of the nation instead of condemning them to the dole queues or the emigrant ship. This is another example of the nonsense of having 265,000 people unemployed when there is so much useful work to be done.
To turn to a constituency matter, I note that £1.4 million has been provided under subhead M, for second level schools — building grants and capital costs which includes a sum of £600,000 for secondary schools. Once again it is a cause of great regret to me that nothing has been provided to cover the cost of a secondary school at Knocklyon, a burgeoning new community with hundreds of houses. Hundreds of pupils who are ready to enrol in secondary school have to travel great distances or be bussed to school. This is an absolute disgrace.
On a point of order, Sir — and I apologise to Deputy Garland for interrupting him — may I ask if Knocklyon is provided for in these Estimates?
Deputy Garland to proceed without interruption.
Anything but Carysfort.
A community of this size should have the right to have its own secondary school. It reflects the degree of centralisation here when a large community is denied this right.
I will now deal with the Supplementary Estimate for Third Level and Further Education. I am pleased to see an increase of £2.65 million in the grants to vocational education committees in respect of grants and scholarships to students. The school and colleges controlled by the vocational educational committees are frequently regarded as the cinderella of third level education. This is very much to be deplored. The State's investment in this area represents much better value for money in my view than the huge amount spent on university education.
The serious delays in the receipt of moneys from the European Social Fund affects the Estimates for both second and third level education. I note that the Minister said he expects the outstanding amounts to be received "in early 1992". I hope, for the sake of the hard-pressed Irish taxpayer that the moneys will be received not later than the end of January next year, and that the Minister will be able to give some assurances on this when he responds to the debate. I hope the receipt of these grants is kept under permanent review by the Department as I will certainly be monitoring the position next year.
Before the Minister of State replies I should like, for the information of the House, to indicate the Standing Order which governs Supplementary Estimates. Standing Order 128 states:
In the discussion of a Supplementary Estimate the debate shall be confined to the Items constituting the same, and no discussion may be raised on the original Estimate, save in so far as it may be necessary to explain or illustrate the particular Item under discussion.
That covers me.
The Deputy's imagination is baffling.
I will have to put myself in your hands, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because as the subject has been raised, I should also be able to respond and make a passing reference to it. Carysfort is mentioned only in relation to the payment of certain teachers. The capital provision voted by the Dáil for the purchase of Carysfort by UCD in the Supplementary Estimate of December 1990 has no relationship at all to the provisions in this Supplementary Estimate which relates to the payment of salaries to former Carysfort staff pending their redeployment to other suitable areas. The necessity to redeploy the Carysfort staff arose from the decision of the last Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government to close Carysfort College.
A Fianna Fáil Government closed it.
The decision was taken by a Government, of which the then Senator Higgins was a supporter, to close Carysfort in a precipitous manner and without regard to the need to secure alternative employment for the staff.
That is a total smoke-screen.
In direct contrast to the Fine Gael-Labour Government, this Government have sought in a rational and sympathetic manner — and I acknowledge Deputy Gilmore's gracious comments in relation to what has happened — to secure alternative employment for the former staff. The total staff on 1 July 1988, when Carysfort was closed as a consequence of a decision taken by the former Coalition Government, was in excess of 100, comprising academic and non-academic staff. At the beginning of this year 18 staff remained to be redeployed and at present ten staff remain to be redeployed.
The European Social Fund receipts were mentioned by Deputies Higgins, O'Shea, Mac Giolla and Garland. Provision is made in the Estimates in any one year for the Department of Education's entitlement to receipts in respect of the programmes they operate.
The necessity for the Supplementary Estimate in relation to European Social Fund shortfalls is due entirely to delays in Brussels in processing payments. It has been argued that we should anticipate such shortfalls and provide for ESF receipts accordingly. I feel that attitude to be completely unacceptable. The receipts indicated for any one year are this country's entitlement. We must proceed on the basis of seeking our entitlement. To do otherwise would be to undermine our own case for securing the receipts in time. We process those receipts. Unfortunately, despite continual representations to Brussels, each year we find ourselves with shortfalls.
Deputy O'Shea introduced the subject of European languages. The Government are well aware of the need to prepare our young people for the Europe of the future and, in particular, of the need to examine the area of European languages. The new Junior Certificate programme takes account of the European dimension in the various new syllabi already prepared and in the course of preparation.
In the teaching of languages the emphasis has changed from the former preoccupation with grammar and the written language to developing the student's skills in the spoken language, which is something for which we will all be thankful and appreciative. Moreover, initiatives have been taken in recent years to increase the uptake of languages such as German, Spanish and Italian by the provision of additional teaching forms on a targeted basis.
Deputy O'Shea also talked about maths. Maths is an optional subject for leaving certificate. The Department were asked to provide a syllabus for low achievers, which was done by the provision of the alternative maths syllabus. Schools were advised to check with their third level colleges regarding recognition of the course. Some universities allow matriculation, providing mathematics is not part of the course which the student proposes to pursue at third level.
The matter of disadvantaged areas was raised by several Deputies. The Government recognise the need to examine that problem on a cross-sector basis. In the educational area, several initiatives have been taken: the provision of additional disadvantaged teaching posts at primary and second level; disadvantaged funding at both levels; significantly increased funding in recent years for the free books scheme; and development of a pilot home/school links programme at primary level.
European languages at primary level was another subject raised by Deputy O'Shea. The review body on primary curricula decided against recommending the provision of a foreign language at primary level because of time constraints, curriculum overload and the demands on pupils in learning the two existing languages, Irish and English, in the present curriculum.
In reply to Deputy Higgins's question about the European Social Fund, the total sum being provided this year is £172,550,000. The House might be interested to know that the number of third level students in 1986 was 56,000 and that there is a projection for 1991 of approximately 74,000 students — an increase of about 31 per cent, which, in itself, is an indication of the advances that have taken place under the Fianna Fáil Government of 1987-89 and the present Government of the past four years.
Deputy O'Shea and other Deputies talked about third level grants, an issue that all of us as public representatives come across. I do not consider that all is bad. In 1986-87 a total of 11,350 people were on grants; in 1990-91 that figure had risen to 13,438 — an increase of approximately 17 per cent. That is another indication that the position is improving, although we would all like to see more improvement. The Government will certainly try to ensure that the improvement will be ongoing.
Deputy Mac Giolla asked about the £1 million savings. Deputy O'Shea put that issue in perspective when he said that it was mainly a question of housekeeping and that there would be no way of spending the £1 million between now and the end of the year. I do not propose to go into some of the questions raised, as they do not relate solely to the Estimate and, unfortunately, I do not have that information on me. I shall try to get the information for both Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Mac Giolla on the questions they raised.
Deputy Higgins may well have missed the first few lines of my contribution. He spoke about bad management and also about an anomalous Estimate. I do not consider the Estimate to be anomalous. It is a very clear Estimate and one that states the exact position. I repeat for the Deputy that I am sure the House would agree that a variation of 0.1 per cent on expenditure of such magnitude represents extremely good management. I put that point very strongly to the House. All I can say is that I, as a Member of the House, deplore the shameful and despicable way in which certain innuendoes are being spread around.
