Vol. 456 No. 6
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Education to fulfil her promise to provide 1,000 additional places on the Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme in the 1995-1996 academic year.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Coughlan and Flood.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
We table this motion in a positive and constructive spirit. We seek to persuade the Government to reverse the decision taken by the Minister for Education not to proceed with the 1,000 additional VTOS places promised in the budget for the 1995-1996 academic year. This decision was mean, cynical and unnecessary. It represented an unacceptable attack on the long term unemployed and an undermining of an education programme that is both innovative and effective. It sent the wrong signals to those on the dole queues wishing to return to full-time education. It told them that they were last on this Government's list of priorities.
This motion is about priorities. We are saying that the educational needs of the long term unemployed come before the total abolition of undergraduate third level fees or the building of a third level college in the Minister's constituency. Even in the context of the necessary curtailment of public expenditure the last sector that should be hit is the long term unemployed. The Minister for Education had choices last June. She made the wrong choice.
The vocational training opportunities scheme was established to enable unemployed people to return to education and to progress to employment or further training and education. Since its establishment the number of participants has grown dramatically from 247 in 1989 to 613 in 1990 to 1,649 in 1992 and to over 4,000 in 1994. My source for these figures is the report by Helen Keogh, national co-ordinator of the VTOS, the expansion of which has been facilitated by considerable funding from the European Social Fund. Of the £29 million spent this year on VTOS, £19 million will come from the ESF.
It is generally agreed that the scheme has been an unprecedented success despite the reservations of people at the outset, many of whom doubted its potential. The White paper on education stated that the success and achievement of VTOS are widely recognised. The Economic and Social Research Institute, in its evaluation of the Community Support Framework from 1989-1993 describes the scheme as a "high quality programme which attempts to provide a bridge back into the education and training systems for the long term unemployed". The National Economic and Social Council's report Education and Training Policies for Economic and Social Development, 1993, endorsed the role of VTOS. In the Programme for Government a commitment was given to expand “an improved” VTOS scheme “from the current level”. Tonight we are asking the Government to honour this commitment.
As Helen Keogh pointed out in her report on VTOS, unemployed people are a relatively new target group in adult education in Ireland and elsewhere:
In practice, in Ireland at any rate, unemployed people tend to share certain characteristics, viz., low levels of educational attainment, poor or outdated occupational skills, discontinuity in the labour market history or, in the case of under 25s, no experience or only very limited experience of paid work.
Long-term unemployment reduces income and potential for development, lowers morale and creates insecurity and low levels of self esteem. Helen Keogh, in her report, divides applicants to VTOS into three categories: those who have completed most or all of primary education only, those who have completed most or all the post primary junior cycle only and, in the minority, those who have completed some or all of the post primary senior cycle.
In my capacity as chairman of the City of Cork vocational education committee, I have had first hand knowledge of the success of the scheme. Coláiste Stiofán Naofa, with Coláiste Eoin Naofa and the College of Commerce, have played a pioneering role in the development of the programme to date in Cork. The full range of courses from the junior certificate to a wide range of post leaving certificate courses are on offer. A considerable number of students over the years, having completed these courses, went on to third level education.
About one third of VTOS students in Coláiste Stiofán Naofa last year completed their leaving certificate — the other two thirds secured places on PLC courses on merit. No preferential treatment was given to them. VTOS students on post leaving certificate courses in this college performed well. Coláiste Stiofán Naofa's student of the year in art and design this year was a VTOS student. This year, also, the college will watch with pride its first generation of VTOS students graduating from UCC, with more students to follow next year. This illustrates the wonderful and extraordinarily positive impact the programme has had on many individuals. I witnessed this as chairman of Cork vocational education committee and as a member of the respective boards of management of the colleges involved.
So successful was the follow on to third level education, that Coláiste Stiofán Naofa was planning to provide a new access to third level education course for VTOS students to equip them with the necessary research skills to successfully complete a third level course. Figures I obtained from the school illustrates the success of the scheme to date. Of 155 VTOS students in the 1993-1994 academic year, 24 went on to third level, 25 went to FAS, 45 went on to a second year course, seven emigrated and 37 went back on the live register.
Teachers involved in delivering the programme all commented on its impact on the students' self-image and selfesteem. They felt this was the most important benefit deriving from the programme. Students felt a new sense of identity and sense of purpose in life. One teacher told me that within weeks one could see visible changes in the demeanour and attitudes of students. Coláiste Stiofáin Naofa is but one example. Its experience is similar to that of colleges throughout the country delivering the VTOS programme.
The most recent research carried out by Helen Keogh, national co-ordinator of VTOS, illustrates the success of the scheme. The data is based on returns from 24 out of 38 vocational education committees and refers to 1,707 participants who were registered as VTOS students in the two years prior to November 1994 and who left the course before its completion, completed a one year course in June 1994 and completed a two year course in June 1994.
Of all the 1,707 participants, 31 per cent returned to the live register while 69 per cent progressed to further activity. Of this 69 per cent, 22.22 per cent found employment, 2.5 per cent became self-employed, 11.83 per cent went on PLC courses, 9.25 per cent went on third level courses, 7.6 per cent went on community employment schemes, 3.7 per cent engaged in further training; and other activities accounted for 10.83 per cent. Of the 1,083 participants who completed a VTOS course, 25 per cent returned to the live register while 75 per cent progressed to further activity. There are separate but similar statistics for participants who completed a one year VTOS course and a two-year VTOS course, which confirm the positive impact that the programme has had on individuals. The Minister had no real excuses for cutting back. The data was readily available to justify the continued expansion of what has been the most successful interventionist strategy of dealing with the problems of the long term unemployed and returning them to mainstream education and the workforce.
It is regrettable that in preparation for this debate the Minister did not see fit to forward me a copy of a consultants' report commissioned by the Department in 1993 and handed to the Minister in February 1994. The report was entitled Developing Educational and Vocational Provision for the Long-Term Unemployment and included an evaluation of VTOS. I asked for a copy of this report last Wednesday but received a faxed message stating that the question of publishing this report was “under consideration and a decision will be made shortly.” Why was this report not published in February 1994? Surely all those involved in VTOS and in the education debate were entitled to see its contents and learn from its findings? Why under this Minister has there been such a lack of transparency in the Department of Education? Why is there such secrecy? Why are reports suppressed for so long? I can count four reports which I have had difficulty securing from the Department. We need more transparency from the Minister and greater accountability to the Members of this House.
In any event it is clear that VTOS has proved to be the most effective interventionist strategy adopted by the State in its attempts to reduce the unacceptably high level of long term unemployment and of reversing the cycle of poverty. The national plan recommended its continued expansion. Instead of running the scheme at last year's levels the Minister should not have cut back on this year's provision for an additional 1,000 places but should have maintained it and planned for future expansion. This programme reaches out to the most educationally disadvantaged groups in society — people who for a variety of reasons had to drop out of the education system early. It is a socially progressive scheme and genuinely broadens access to education to include people who heretofore had been alienated by the system.
The manner and timing of the decision to cut back was also deeply disturbing. In the letter to the chief executive officers of the vocational education committees throughout the country advising them of the cut-back in places, they were told "It is necessary to deal with this on a confidential basis for the present. In other words, do not tell your committees. This is a most reprehensible development. The chief executive officers are the employees of their vocational education committees and legally must inform their members of all matters pertaining to the committees' business. The Minister in a reply to a Dáil question tabled by me last week stated that the correspondence was only preliminary and hence confidential. The real reason of course was a desire on the Minister's part to try to prevent news of the cut-back from emerging. Since the Government's decision to curb public expenditure in June we have learned of cut-backs through leaks to the media or through our own contacts within the educational system. In a reply to a Dáil question tabled some weeks ago by me, the Minister refused to specify where savings in the education budget were realised. She evaded the question. The Minister has not been accountable to the House and refuses to provide information when specifically asked to do so.
Some providers of VTOS only learned about the cut-backs in the last week of August, having just come back from holidays. This has caused immense problems for administrators. It has also generated waiting lists throughout the country as original expectations have been, of necessity curtailed. The City of Dublin vocational education committee has experienced particular problems as a result of the timing of the decision. In June of this year it organised 18 feeder programmes which essentially operated as introductory briefing sessions for participants. Commitments were entered into with the applicants which cannot now be fulfilled. The offer of the second level allowance by the Department of Social Welfare to some of these applicants is not an acceptable solution. VTOS is an integrated programme which from day one takes people off social welfare altogether and from the psychological perspective is much different from other educational programmes operated by the Department of Social Welfare. Schools operating VTOS are also, of course, entitled to administrative support and extra teaching provisions.
Another success story is the Liberties Vocational and Continuing Education College in Bull Alley. Of the 21 students who finished in the 1993-94 academic year, 17 went into further education. This college, as a result of the Minister's cut-backs has 40 applicants on a waiting list.
I have spoken to representatives of the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed on this matter. It told me in no uncertain terms that in unemployment centres throughout the country there is deep and bitter anger at the decision. The wrong signals have been sent out to our unemployed. Today, I received faxes from the Mallow area resource centre, from County Kildare and from various centres throughout the country conveying their disillusionment, despair and bitterness at this wrong decision. Unemployed people now feel that the programme itself is under threat and that this decision could be followed by further decisions to cut it back even further. They also feel they are the first to suffer when it comes to cuts in Government expenditure. Some 1,000 unemployed people have been denied an opportunity to avail of VTOS this autumn. More than that, they have, in the words of Fintan O'Toole writing in The Irish Times recently, been reclassified “from the category of individuals with needs and goals to the category of the anonymous and forgotten mass of the unemployed”.
The decision is also cynical and has more to do with interdepartmental and interministerial conflict than educational priorities. According to a reply from the Minister last week in the Dáil, the net saving of 1000 places in VTOS to the Exchequer in 1996 will be £2.5 million. The Department of Education, however, will show a saving of £5 million by transferring the costs of the VTOS allowance back to the Department of Social Welfare and will claim that it is bearing its full share of Government cut-backs. Again in the words of Fintan O'Toole "it is, in other words, a bureaucratic sleight of hand".
I am simply amazed that the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Proinsias De Rossa, did not try to prevent this from happening. Given his responsibility for the long term unemployed and the eradication of poverty, the Minister should have intervened and cried halt. Did the Minister for Education consult with the Minister for Social Welfare on this issue? Did she have his agreement prior to making this decision on VTOS? I would appreciate if the Minister for Education could provide clear answers to these questions and if the Minister for Social Welfare could clarify his role in the process.
In the current issue of Democratic Left's party bulletin Forum, this cut-back is described as “a retrograde step” and the bulletin says Democratic Left wishes to reverse it. It also makes the following observation:
The decision on where spending cuts would be applied in their Departments was a discretionary one for each Minister. Applying the cuts entirely on VTOS indicates a marked lack of commitment to educational deprivation and high unemployment on the part of the Minister and contrasts markedly with the vigour of her pursuance of the proposal to abolish third-level fees.
Obviously Forum's sources are impeccable and its observation would indicate a lack of cohesion within the Cabinet generally in the decisions on cut-backs and the lack of any clear defining philosophy underpinning Government policy. It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify the manner in which these cut-backs took place.
I note also in today's newspapers that the Democratic Left's executive chairperson, Councillor Catherine Murphy, has called on the Minister for Education to reverse her decision not to allocate the promised 1,000 extra places on the vocational training opportunities scheme. In recent newspaper articles, Democratic Left Leader, Deputy De Rossa, Minister for Social Welfare, was described as being angry at the decision. Clearly Democratic Left have let their opposition to the decision be known to all and sundry. They have clearly distanced themselves from the Minister for Education, Deputy Niamh Bhreathnach.
This motion provides an excellent opportunity for Democratic Left Deputies to effectively reverse the decision to cut back on VTOS. There is little point in articulating one's opposition to such cutbacks through party bulletins if one is not prepared to take the next logical step and vote against them and in favour of a Dáil motion which calls on the Minister to reverse her decision. Without Democratic Left the Government would not be in power. It should use its position to protect the long term unemployed from such decisions and vote accordingly in the Dáil.
As I have stated previously in the House, the Minister for Education is primarily motivated by electoral gain and her initial attempts at cutbacks reflected this. We on this side of the House were successful, through political pressure, in having a number of the cut-backs reversed, for example, the reprehensible decision relating to the 30 child care assistants in special schools. Due to the combined threat of legal action by the successful applicants to those positions and substantial political pressure the Minister made the welcome decision to reverse that cutback. She also reversed the decision to reduce the number of places on the Youthreach programme. I call on her tonight to go further along the road and reverse this cutback.
The Minister is a Minister for the well off in our society. Securing votes is now more important to the Labour Party than providing help for the long term unemployed. What would Larkin and Connolly make of this? The Labour Party has strayed far from the ideals and principles of its founding fathers. It is unbelievable that the decision to cut back on the number of places for the long term unemployed was made by a Labour Minister for Education. This decision should never have been made and the Minister should be ashamed. I commend the motion to the House.
Ba mhaith liom mo cuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Flood.
While preparing for this debate over the weekend I looked at the many suggestions put forward to deal with the awful problem of long term unemployment. As politicians we should take note of the statement in the Green Paper on European Social Policy to the effect that it would be wrong to reduce investment in people to a simple economic calculation. Such a move would be fundamentally, politically and socially flawed.
The decision to reduce the meagre number of places on the VTOS by 1,000 has political and social implications, is very wrong and exemplifies a total lack of caring and disregard for the unemployed by the rainbow coalition. What we are talking about is the decision to remove hope, ability and opportunity from those who most need our help. For many years elected representatives have been accused of not giving a strong voice to the unemployed and, in particular, the long term unemployed. I hope their voice will not go unheard tonight by the Minister.
The long term unemployed are relatively disadvantaged as many of them lack the necessary skills in education to compete for the new jobs we have created in the economy. In its interim report, the Task Force on Long Term Unemployment indicated that VTOS was a very useful model for tackling long term unemployment and recommended that the number of places should be increased to meet demand. Yet the Minister and her Department took the easy option and retracted the increase in the number of places announced in the budget. It makes absolutely no sense to transfer money from the Department of Education to the Department of Social Welfare merely to give credence to a mathematical calculation. It has been rumoured that the Department of Education will save £5 million through this cutback but I believe the amount will not be very great.
The cancellation of the approved courses on the scheme not only affects the people but means that 600 of the 4,600 places given out to vocational education committees this year must disappear by February 1996. In addition, approximately 50 teachers will lose their jobs. This means that more money will have to be found in the Department of Social Welfare to help those people who will lose their jobs. This is a regressive economic step.
County Donegal vocational education committee advertised for and recruited people for VTOS and 30 people on the waiting list hoped to commence their course last September. This scheme was built up as a result of a great deal of voluntary effort by the vocational education committee which commenced a recruitment programme as it was not led to believe that the expansion of places was impossible or that any cutbacks were intended. We read about the cut-backs in The Irish Times. It is horrendous that we should learn about departmental decisions in the newspapers.
We should be used to it by now.
During the summer we read about many of the catastrophic decisions made in regard to, for example, inservice courses, the introduction of the curriculum, the reduction in the part-time teacher equivalent etc. One cannot manage an education system by making decisions willy-nilly in the month of August when people are away on holidays. Given the two year debate on the future of education I hoped that sort of practice would be eliminated and that we would at least know where we were going with regard to education policy.
The population of County Donegal is 130,000 which represents 3.71 per cent of the total population. County Donegal should have received an allocation of 155 places and not the 100 places we thought we would be allocated for the academic year 1995-96. What will the Minister do for the 30 people on the waiting list in County Donegal who are disappointed that they have not been given an opportunity to acquire skills which would enable them to obtain employment or further education?
Is it not very ironic that we can afford to abolish university fees while at the same time slashing 1,000 places on the vocational training opportunities scheme? The Minister described Wednesday, 13 September 1995, as University Day with the welcome announcement of an increase of 2,000 to 3,000 university places. I would like to know from where the money to cover the cost of those places will come and I hope she will find it. When will we have a day for the unemployed in the context of educational opportunities?
Níl ciall nó cáil leis an rud ata déanta ag an Aire agus tá suil agam go mbeidh athrú ar a intinn anois mar níl fhios agam cén fath nach bhfuil sé ábalta leanúint ar aghaidh leis an méid a bhíle rá aici i mí Aibreán.
This is a regressive step and an easy option. As a young person, a member of a vocational education committee and a member of a party, who is doing her best to give a voice to the unemployed, I cannot support a whim to write off 1,000 places under that scheme on the basis of a mere economic calculation.
I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this debate. It is an important issue as decisions were made during the summer when our eyes were off the ball and it has taken some time to focus on the real and dramatic effects of the Government's decision on the matter we are discussing.
When addressing the Dáil Select Committee on Social Affairs, of which I am a member, the Minister, on 8 June 1995, said provision had been made for an average of 5,000 places under the VTOS this year as against the participation of an average of 4,000 last year. That figure may be slightly inaccurate as I understand the average participation last year was around 4,500 to 4,600. The Minister went on to say the VTOS addresses the low level of education among the long term unemployed. She also said it is an essential element of the strategy for helping such people access employment or education and training which would lead to employment and it complements the other measures to combat unemployment being undertaken by the Government. If that is the case, I do not understand why the Minister would feel compelled to target this vulnerable section of our community to save approximately £5 million.
I recognise the Minister is bound by financial constraints and must manage budgets, but I fail to understand why in a series of announcements made in June or late July this year, she initially targeted 1,000 places under the VTOS scheme, 450 additional places under the Youthreach scheme and 30 special childcare assistant places in special schools. I do not understand why the Minister, who comes from the Labour element of the Government, would target specifically those areas because if those cutbacks were fully implemented they would have a considerable impact on those affected.
I accept the row-back by the Minister in respect of some of those measures but I am disappointed that 1,000 VTOS places have been cancelled. In the interim report of the Task Force on Long-term Unemployment published by the Office of the Tánaiste in March 1995 two references are made to the VTOS scheme. Regarding education provision for the adult unemployed, it states:
In this regard, the number of places on Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme (VTOS) should be increased on a phased basis, to meet demand.
The provision of educational programmes, including VTOS, and the manner in which they are delivered must ensure that the most educational disadvantaged among participants should have the opportunity to achieve the same result as those less disadvantaged.
There should be more widespread availability of pre-VTOS provision to provide transition routes into VTOS for the most educationally disadvantaged.
I want to direct attention to that reference in the report because there is a direct link between poor education, a lack of education, and the long term unemployed in the minds of professionals and others who study long-term unemployment. Those who are knowledgable about the operation of this scheme suggest that it has been a tremendous vehicle particularly in helping to ease the long term unemployed back into the workforce, and the number of participants in that scheme confirm that. In 1989 247 participated in the scheme, in 1993 the number rose to 293 and the figure quoted for 1994 indicates a total of 4,604. On the basis of available evidence, I cannot understand why, to make financial savings, the Minister should seek to cut back the number of places available to the most seriously disadvantaged in our community. The 5,000 places allocated under that scheme in the 1995 budget were welcomed in the House and many Members said it was a good decision. What happened within a period of four to five months that will result in a return not only to a standstill position but to a significant cutback in the number of places provided under that scheme? What happened to the Government's thinking in that regard? Having regard to the interim report of the Task Force on Long-term Unemployment why are we introducing serious cutbacks in the scheme?
I am aware of the impact of such cutbacks in my constituency. I represent a constituency in which there are areas of significant unemployment, particularly long term unemployment; I acknowledge that areas in other constituencies are similarly disadvantaged. I am aware of the benefit of the VTOS scheme in my constituency and I equate those benefits to other areas also. Bearing in mind that the Minister has changed her mind about some of the other cutbacks announced in July this year, and I appreciate her doing that, in supporting my colleague, Deputy Martin, I ask her to reconsider the proposed changes to this scheme.
The proposed cutbacks severely impact on the most disadvantaged who, because they are unemployed for such a long period, do not have a real reason to find their way back to a work ethic. Those people are grossly disadvantaged when they go in search of employment. Employers often pass over job applicants who are long term unemployed in favour of others who have been unemployed for a shorter period or those who are employed. That is the problem faced by people who are affected by the cutbacks in this scheme. I was surprised by the Minister's decision in mid-summer which slipped through when we had our eye off the ball. What changed so significantly and dramatically since budget day when we were all applauding the Minister and the Government for their work in this area? Why is it that over 96,000 of the 135,000 long term unemployed have been unemployed for three years or more? Why is the number of places on this scheme — the only lifeline for these people — being reduced significantly? Why is this Labour Minister doing this to the unemployed? She should not do this. She should fight back if the attack on her budget is coming from the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann
—commends the Minister for Education for doubling the number of places on the Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme from 1992 to the current year;
—notes the various initiatives taken by the Minister to tackle problems of disadvantage, such as the Early Start programme, additional resources for schools in disadvantaged areas, smaller classes, extra resource teachers, more home-schools links teachers, additional places for early school leavers on the Youthreach programme and substantial increased funding for adult literacy and numeracy programmes; and
—reaffirms the commitment of the Government in line with the Programme for a Government of Renewal to take various measures to enhance the prospects of the long term unemployed by continuing to increase their access to educational opportunities".
I welcome this opportunity to indicate my continuing commitment to disadvantaged groups and individuals and to show how education is being made more accessible to them. I am pleased to place before the House the abundant evidence of my targeting effort and resources towards disadvantaged and marginalised groups since I became Minister for Education.
Disadvantage can result from missed educational chances, early school leaving due to economic or social pressure or a disability which makes it difficult to get the full benefit from education. What is certain is that those who leave school early are likely to find their life chances severely restricted.
Early school leavers are more likely to leave education without qualifications, and become long term unemployed. That is why we must ensure young people are encouraged and supported in education and that adults who missed out on education are given a second chance.
Tackling disadvantage in education requires a combination of several different approaches. The strategies I have adopted to remove barriers to educational participation include: early intervention and prevention measures to provide additional support for young people at risk aimed at optimising their participation in and benefit from the education system. These include initiatives such as pre-schooling, remedial and home school links services, guidance services and targeted services and resources for schools in disadvantaged areas; curricular reform to ensure a diverse range of options which will encourage a larger number of young people to remain in school and get full benefit from education; second chance education and training through the provision of programmes such as Youthreach for early school leavers, provision of the vocational training opportunity scheme for long term unemployed adults and provision of adult and community education measures for those who did not benefit from education in the past; improved quality of education through investment in in-career development of staff, with special attention paid to responding to students with special needs, to the needs of adult education and literacy programmes and to the needs of pupils in areas of disadvantage and the provision of national certification which has been strengthened through the recent establishment of TEASTAS, the Irish National Certification Authority.
Many of these strategies are designed to encourage young people to stay in education, to benefit from the opportunities offered and to enhance their life chances. Other strategies are targeted at those who have already left the system through a variety of schemes aimed at second chance education. They form the most comprehensive, far reaching and targeted set of measures ever aimed at alleviating educational disadvantage.
I will outline the evidence of targeted policies in action. I have implemented measures aimed at adults who need to avail of second chance education and specifically with the vocational training opportunities scheme. The Opposition has wept crocodile tears about this scheme. They paint a picture of cutbacks, allege denial of access to education and accuse me of compounding deprivation, yet nothing could be further from the truth. I remind the Opposition that when its party had responsibility for the Department of Education, there were approximately 2,000 places on the vocational training opportunities scheme.
It increased by 269 in its first year.
Through my commitment to this scheme, that number is now 4,000.
Who was in the Department of Finance?
The Minister, without interruption.
I have every confidence that the figure of 4,000 a doubling of the number since I came into office, can be sustained in 1996.
The previous Minister left office only last December.
I remind them also of the increase in financing of the vocational training opportunities training scheme since I came into office from £7 million in 1992 to £18.5 million last year.
What about the European Social Fund?
Unlike the Opposition, who provided only half the present number of vocational training opportunities scheme places when they were in office, who provided a mere £7 million for the scheme and who are now criticising without making positive suggestions, I have taken steps to secure this scheme.
Restore the 1,000 places.
I have planned ahead and developed policies for the vocational training opportunities scheme. I have received recommendations from Work Research Co-Operative Consultants about the effectiveness of the scheme and its future development. The evidence indicates that the vocational training opportunities scheme is making an important contribution in helping people who are unemployed. It is addressing in a unique way the low levels of education among this group. There is also evidence that attention needs to be paid to facilities for people on the scheme such as guidance services and personal support such as creches.
We must emphasise not only the number of places in the scheme but also the quality of provision. I have taken action to address these recommendations.
One strand of the action is to plan, within the financial provision for education, to address these specific recommendations of the report. A second strand, one which is of major significance, is sitting the vocational training opportunities scheme firmly within the framework of the area based partnerships.
The Task Force on Long-Term Unemployment report, published in June of this year, led to the establishemnt of a countrywide network of local employment services. These services will operate as part of the functions of area-based partnerships. Statutory, voluntary and community groups and employers in the various areas will be involved in the operation of these bodies.
In a parallel initiative, the Government decided in 1994 to expand the number of partnerships from 12 to 35, as well as expanding the areas covered by some of the existing partnerships.
Fianna Fáil again.
The aim of establishing the partnerships and local employment services is to co-ordinate and integrate the existing measures under various Departments for the benefit of unemployed people. The services provided will include the provision of information and guidance on the opportunities available to unemployed people and their placement in employment and in education and training. The intention is to provide contact points for unemployed people which will enable them to get all the help available by making one call.
I envisage, therefore, that the future expansion and development of the vocational training opportunities scheme will be very much integrated into the partnerships. This will include identification by the partnerships of vocational opportunities training scheme programmes and use of the support services offered by the partnerships.
The value of the vocational training opportunities scheme will be greatly enhanced through operating in this environment. The partnerships and services are being developed.
I pledge here that my Department will co-operate fully with the other agencies involved in the partnerships and that the vocational training opportunities scheme will develop in future to contribute to the integrated action taken by the area based partnerships to tackle disadvantage and long term unemployment. That is what I mean by planning for the future provision and quality of the vocational training opportunities scheme and by building on the achievements so far — a doubling of places on this scheme in three short years.
Under Fianna Fáil.
That is what I mean when I say that Opposition comments on this issue have been bankrupt of policy and devoid of initiatives——
We actually started it.
——in contrast with the way the Government is planning for the future of the vocational training opportunities scheme. The vocational training opportunities scheme is only one of the educational provisions for people who have left education and who require a second chance.
As we consider my planning of the vocational training opportunities scheme, let us remember that it is one element of a comprehensive range of measures aimed at supporting disadvantaged and marginalised communities by making access to education available and welcome. Let us remember the adult and community education scheme and the special initiatives for disadvantaged adults. The vision of second chance education which underpins all these schemes is expressed in the White Paper, Charting Our Education Future as follows:
the recognition of the central importance of adult education for personal development, for updating knowledge and skills, and for overcoming disadvantage suffered during initial education.
Poor literacy skills are ofter a source of severe disadvantage among adults. The adult literacy and community education scheme is the Department's main instrument in helping adults to overcome this problem. It is the first step for many in getting back on the education path. Since I became Minister, funding for this scheme has expanded from £1 million to almost £2 million this year — a doubling of the provision. That is evidence of my personal committment to adult literacy, and it demonstrates that I appreciate and value, in a very practical way, the work being done in adult literacy nationwide.
In addition, I have provided funding for the National Adult Literacy Agency to enable it to provide additional support for the scheme. This includes the provision of training courses for literacy tutors and organisers to improve the quality of the service.
The special initiatives for disadvantaged adults scheme has experienced an even more spectacular expansion since I became Minister. Funding has increased more than fourfold, from an expenditure of £273,000 in 1992 to a provision of over £1.2 million this year. This scheme is also aimed at the most disadvantaged adults in our community. It provides intensive literacy and basic education courses and builds on the work done under the adult literacy and community education scheme. The provision for the two schemes to which I have just referred — the adult literacy and community education scheme and the special initiatives for disadvantaged adults scheme has increased by almost two and a half times over the 1992 expenditure. The aim of all these measures, including the vocational training opportunities schemes, is to build a framework of opportunities for adults which will enable them to progress from a basic education level to third level.
There are also young people who have left the formal education system too early. The Youthreach programme is targeted at these young people who need a second chance. I am committed to the expansion of the Youthreach programme which offers integrated education, vocational training and work experience to young people who have left school as young as 14 years of age, without any qualifications, any junior certificate or any vocational training. In 1994 alone, I expanded the programme by 400 places bringing the total number in the education sector to 2,000
This year, I am providing a further 450 places. What more evidence is needed of my commitment to second chance education, both for young people and for adults including those who are long term unemployed?
Prevention is better than cure. Research has shown time and again that retaining young people in education is more effective, more successful and more life-enchancing than trying to remedy the situation in latter years. We have to concentrate resources on those who missed out on education the first time around. I have done this, as is abundantly clear from the record of this House. I have also worked and planned, targeted and provided to encourage young people who suffer from disadvantage, great or small, to continue in education.
I have concentrated on prevention of dropout from school and on helping young people to succeed. I have concentrated on these aims at first, second and third level, from the infant at playschool to the student in further or higher education.
At first level, I have, for the first time since the State was founded, provided concrete and official recognition of the key role of early childhood education and its importance in combating disadvantage.
I have already provided for eight pre-schools under the early start programme in 1994 and a further 25 this year, giving a total to date of 33. These pre-schools are located in areas of severe disadvantage. The progress made in initiating the early start pre-school pilot project is being monitored by a committee charied by a distinguished Irish expert on early childhood education whose work is internationally recognised. Thus I have not only begun an initiative in combating disadvantage, I have also ensured that the early start programme is implemented wisely and well.
And in full consultation with the employers.
There were lots of problems in Ballymun. Blanchardstown and Cork.
The early start programme is not, of course, one which stands alone. It is part of early childhood education for children in disadvantaged areas which is continued and developed within the ordinary primary school system. A very important feature — perhaps the most important — of strategies to combat educational disadvantage is the involvement of parents in the education of their children. For this reason I have placed great emphasis on the development of the home-school link scheme. I have increased the number of home school links teachers in primary schools from a mere 45 in 1992 to 105 today — an increase of more than 130 per cent.
Literacy problems are often associated with educational disadvantage. Research has shown that restricted access to books contributes to reading difficulties and that library facilities can help to greatly improve reading skills.
I have taken steps to provide school library facilities throughout Ireland. This year alone I doubled the school library grant. Since I came into office, the fund to provide textbooks for disadvantaged pupils in primary schools has increased by more than £1 million pounds or by over 70 per cent. In the face of this evidence, how can anyone on the Opposition benches cast doubt on the commitment of this Government to make education accessible to all? There has been a doubling of the library grant in one year alone and a 70 per cent increase in the free books fund in three short years. Surely this is evidence to convince any impartial observer.
There is much more evidence of my commitment to combating disadvantage in our primary schools. Capitation funding is targeted specifically at disadvantaged schools. Since I became Minister, the grant per pupil has risen by almost 50 per cent, from £45 to £65 per pupil. What a stark contrast to the previous years, from 1990 to 1992, when the grants to disadvantaged schools did not increase by a penny.
In our primary schools, remedial teachers are needed to ensure pupils do not suffer permanent school failure. Since becoming Minister, I have increased the number of remedial teachers from 947 to 1,188. In addition, I have almost doubled the special education equipment fund, which provides remedial equipment, increasing this fund from £274,000 to £514,000 this year.
The disadvantaged fund, which is targeted at communities in most need has shown another spectacular rise, being more than doubled, from £1.6 million to £3.37 million. The number of additional teachers in schools designated disadvantaged has risen from 947 to 1,188 this year. The number of child care assistants, a miserable 70 when I came into office now stands at 229. Perhaps most significantly of all, the maximum class size in disadvantaged schools has fallen dramatically from 39 to 29 since I became Minister for Education. It is not enough. We have never enough for the vital task of education, but it is a massive improvement on the legacy at primary level which I received from those who now sit in Opposition. That is why I am proud to propose this motion and to point to the real improvements achieved in three years.
Ridiculous.
At second level the story is the same. The same targeting of disadvantaged groups has taken place.
Were we not in Government during the past two years?
When I came into office there were a mere 13 home-school links teachers — now there are 55; there were 252 remedial teachers — now there are 353; there were only 359 guidance teachers — now there are 568, an increase of 209 or more than 50 per cent, an increase of 100 guidance teachers this year alone.
I am especially pleased that I was able to increase the number of guidance teachers so dramatically since I firmly believe that a professional guidance service can combat disadvantage, raise expectations and open pathways which would otherwise be closed to some young people.
Capitation funding for disadvantaged secondary schools has increased from £150 to £180 per pupil since I came into office. The second level disadvantaged fund has increased almost threefold, from £340,000 to £850,000. The free books fund has increased by more than half, from £2.6 million to £4.2 million this year.
I defy any Member of the Opposition to criticise this record. I defy them to say when this record was ever equalled.
We were part of it. It was a Fianna Fáil-Labour Government.
I defy them to dispute the results. In three years, retention rates in senior cycle have risen from 73 per cent to 80 per cent approximately, which sees us well on the way to our goal of 90 per cent by the year 2000 as identified in the White Paper Charting our Education Future.
This success in retaining young people at school is due in part to the major restructuring of the second level curriculum which is now taking place so as to adapt it to the needs of more pupils with a wider spread of abilities and backgrounds.
We are working actively to provide an alternative school programme for pupils whose needs are not met by the main junior certificate programme; the transition year programme available to all schools; the leaving certificate programme with three orientations — the leaving certificate vocational programme, the leaving certificate applied and the ordinary leaving certificate programme.
The House will be aware, too, that the syllabuses at senior cycle are undergoing changes in virtually all subjects.
A comprehensive in-career development package for all teachers underpins the progress we have made in adapting the curriculum to the needs of all our learners, both young people and adults returning to education. Between 1991 and 1992, when the Opposition was in the Department of Education, the provision for teachers in career development actually fell, from £1.69 million to £1.49 million.
Did the Minister ever hear of European moneys?
So much for a commitment to quality in education and to meeting the needs of our students. The current provision for in-career development is £6.6 million this year alone, more than four times what it was when I came into office. I assure the House of my continuing commitment to ensure that this massive provision will be specifically targeted at providing for the needs of those students who need it most — a targeting which is clearly spelled out in the White Paper Charting our Education Future.
Promises.
I have already outlined the huge increase in the amount of teachers in the home school programme aimed at breaking the cycle of disadvantage. This programme encourages parents actively to participate in their own child's education, to encourage their children to stay in school, to enhance their children's life chances.
Who set it up?
The Minister is loath to give credit to the then Minister, Deputy O'Rourke.
The programme is backed up by other practical initiatives. Programmes being delivered by the National College of Industrial Relations are aimed at enhanching parental involvement in their children's education. These programmes develop parents' effective participation and involvement in their childrens' education and are targeted at parents of children in disadvantaged areas.
At third level, access to college has been placed within the grasp of all our young people by my success in replacing a highly regressive convenant system which favoured the better off, especially those earning in excess of £60,000 per year, with abolition of third level tuition fees. Free tuition will redress this imbalance, will encourage young people to stay in further and higher education and will help us to ensure that education contributes both to the benefit of each individual and our nation as a whole. Of course, free tuition alone is not enough. That is why I have supported a range of other initiatives to encourage and advance retention of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds right through the education system, including third level education. This includes the development of links between disadvantaged schools and third level institutions which have been strengthened and encouraged since the first day I took office. The huge increase in the disadvantage fund I referred to earlier, an almost threefold increase, has allowed these initiatives to flourish.
These initiatives include arrangements between Ballymun comprehensive school and Dublin City University, between the Southhill area in Limerick and the University of Limerick, between schools in Tallaght and the regional technical college, between Trinity College and Dublin inner city schools.
They are not the Minister's schemes.
I have increased the number of third level places. Only last month, I was able to announce a further 6,200 places in the university sector between now and the year 2000 in partnership with private sector funding.
Investment in our universities and regional technical colleges has never been so high. From European and matching Exchequer funds alone, we will invest more than £70 million in the regional technical colleges and more than £40 million in university buildings.
These initiatives will help us to realise the White Paper commitment:
The Higher Education Authority, in consultation with third level institutions, will be asked to advise on the most appropriate and effective means of achieving an annual increase in participation of 500 students from lower socio-economic groups in third level education over the next five years.
The post-leaving certificate sector is expanding and 18,000 people now study in this sector. Comprehensive plans to set up a further education authority to plan for the future expansion of this sector will be helped by the estsablishment of TEASTAS. This last point is of special importance for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. It means that people can start from relatively modest courses and build on their achievements to proceed to further study. It means that there will be no cul de sacs in State education; all courses will carry the appropriate credits.
I have demonstrated a record of achievement in education which I can confidently say is without parallel. The annual education budget has increased by some £350 million — more than one fifth in three years. This immense increase has been targeted at the most disadvantaged members of our community. This targeting of resources towards marginalised and disadvantaged groups is clearly laid out by the Government in the White Paper.
In the White Paper Charting our Education Future, the Government has endorsed the policies which will allow me, as Minister for Education, to continue the work for the disadvantaged, the early school leavers and the long term unemployed which I have outlined today.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Haughley and Noel Ahern.
The cuts which the Minister inflicted on the vocational training opportunities scheme are penny-pinching, extremely short-sighted, and cast serious doubts on the Government's commitment to its own national anti-poverty strategy announced with fanfare and the usual PR operation earlier this year. This strategy was signed by the three leaders of the parties in Government, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare. It stated in lofty terms that for the first time an Irish Government was committing itself to an across-the-board national strategy to address all aspects of poverty and social exclusion and that under the strategy all Government Departments and State agencies would be expected to include the reduction and prevention of poverty as key objectives in the development and implementation of their policy programmes.
Bearing this lofty sentiment in mind, will the Minister for Education explain how the cuts in the VTOS will contribute to a reduction in poverty? The national anti-poverty strategy also states that all Government Departments will be required to consult and involve people affected by poverty. Will the Minister for Education explain what consultation processes were entered into prior to the surreptitious announcement of cuts in this scheme which, to a large extent, simply involve the transfer of responsibility from one Department to another? Persons who do not now participate in the VTOS will simply remain on the live register and become the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare; expenditure will simply be transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Social Welfare but fewer people will be able to avail of the excellent opportunities offered by VTOS, and considerable damage will be done to an imaginative, innovative and worth-while scheme.
These cuts fly directly in the face of all the advice the Government has received from international bodies such as the European Union and the OECD who have emphasised the need to switch from passive labour market measures, that is, paying people money not to work, to active labour market measures which involve spending money helping people to get back into the labour market.
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, has been strangely silent during the debate on these savage cuts. Does he, with his party colleagues, agree with such policies which effectively relegate more people, particularly younger people, to the live register? The Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed put it succinctly when it said that this decision was even more appalling, given the direct relationship between lack of educational qualifications and unemployment, more specifically, long term unemployment. This is one of the few programmes which gets very good feedback from unemployed people and various evaluations, including a recent consultant report on educational provision for the long term unemployed, carried out on behalf of the Minister for Education, show that a very high proportion of people participating in the VTOS successfully obtained educational qualifications and that a considerable number got employment or went on for further training and educational courses.
In a nutshell, this is a tremendously good scheme which provides people with additional educational opportunities and shows some light at the end of the tunnel rather than the misery of the dole queue. It cannot be ignored that the VTOS helped those who are among the worst off in society, the long term unemployed. With the help of this scheme they had a chance of obtaining good qualifications and getting back into employment. These cuts are a slap in the face to them.
An information leaflet from the Department of Social Welfare on educational opportunities schemes highlights the importance of schemes such as VTOS, the second level certificate allowance scheme and the third level educational allowance scheme. The introduction to the educational opportunities scheme leaflet issued by the Department of Social Welfare states: If you are getting an unemployment payment or a long parent's allowance you may want to resume your education and improve your chances of getting a job". What will happen to those people now? Their chances of getting a job will be further reduced. These circulars are current, but they are hypocritical. It is a disgrace to cut one of these schemes.
The fact that 46 per cent of school leavers under 25 years of age are unemployed testifies to the extremely strong relationship between lack of educational attainment and the chances of being unemployed. This is a stark and depressing figure. There is no excuse for cutting this scheme and it is deplorable to do so. In all fairness, and in all the circumstances, I ask the Minister to look again at this scheme. Slashing the funding for such a scheme is no way to save a few thousand pounds for the Minister for Finance. Savings should not be made at the expense of the worst off in society. Without question the Minister for Education, backed by the Minister for Social Welfare, should reappraise this appalling decision and seek to ensure that this beneficial and profitable scheme is restored to the people who most need it.
Deputy Bhreathnach is the Minister for Education, but that is not the full story; she is first and foremost the Minister for Dún Laoghaire. The steering committee of the Higher Education Authority strongly recommended that a regional technical college be established on Dublin's north side. That body felt there was a genuine need for a third level institution in this part of the city which includes many areas of disadvantage.
We are going to get it.
I am hearing good news. That has not been officially announced by the Minister.
It has been proved conclusively that there is higher participation in third level education where the institution is nearby. However, the Minister has ignored the report of the Higher Education Authority and, as Cabinet Minister for announcements, has announced the establishment of a new regional technical college for Dún Laoghaire on the south side which already has several third level institutions.
There are more middle class people there.
This is a scandal. The Labour Party, in particular, has failed Dublin's north side.
We have DCU.
I call on Deputies Ryan, Broughan, Kenny, Derek McDowell, Shortall and Costello to seek to reverse this decision in the interests of their northside constituents. Dublin's north side is entitled to its fair share. We heard much from those Deputies on the Aer Lingus crisis.
Why did Charlie not establish one?
Charlie did enough for the north side, including the provision of Beaumont Hospital and several other institutions.
What about a regional technical college?
We heard much from those Deputies regarding Aer Lingus but nothing about the regional technical college. It is a scandal.
The announcement of the abolition of third level fees, while welcome, came as no surprise either. This too benefits the Minister's constituents in Dún Laoghaire but ignores the real issues of maintenance, inadequate third level places and — despite everything the Minister said tonight — a poorly financed primary and secondary education sector. The Minister could claim to be the Minister for the middle classes.
The cutbacks in places on the vocational training opportunities scheme, saving £2.5 million, is the greatest kick in the teeth of all for the long term unemployed. All summer the Minister cut back and we got more of the same — giving to those who have. Reports are also circulating about cuts in the Youthreach programme which aims to help those whom the education system has failed. Nevertheless, my advisers informed me that in the last few days there was a flurry of activity about the Youthreach programme because this motion was being taken tonight. Fianna Fáil should table more Private Members' motions because that appears to be the only way to get matters dealt with in this House.
The Deputy's party was in power not long ago.
Motions put down by Deputy O'Donoghue resulted in the Minister finally confronting the drugs crisis.
The Minister failed to mention that the VTOS was introduced by Fianna Fáil, particularly by Deputies Woods and O'Rourke. It has been an outstanding success, providing the long term unemployed with a real opportunity. A constituent of mine, who is in his 20s and has never worked, was one of the first to avail of the VTOS. He did his leaving certificate and this year was conferred with a degree in law from one of our national universities, thus illustrating the success of the scheme.
A VTOS course in metal sculpture proposed for the North Strand vocational college has been cancelled. During the summer applications were made, interviews were organised and places were even offered for the course. This is the only course of its type on offer, but the school was informed on 31 August that the course could not go ahead. Those who applied for the course were disappointed that the opportunity to learn a skill was taken from them. In that regard, I received a letter from a constituent in St. George's Avenue, Dublin 3, which states:
I am a lone parent and I genuinely want to do this particular course — there is no alternative available anywhere. I have nothing to gain financially from it as I would have to pay someone to mind my child but what I would get is a chance to learn a skill and something to occupy my time. I don't want to sit around all day doing nothing and this setback is very demoralising to say the least. I feel that just as I was getting back into the real world, meeting new people, I have — along with many others — been given a kick in the teeth. The teachers at the school are excellent, they know we applied for places because we want to learn, it is entirely our choice.
I cannot express properly in writing the disappointment and disgust I feel over the way both students and teachers have been treated over this cancellation.
I also received a letter about that course from another constituent which states:
This is the only course of its kind in the country. I feel that as I had been awarded a place on this course I am entitled to same or to some explanation for this treatment of people whose hopes have been raised only to be frustrated by this appalling decision.
When did the Deputy write those letters?
I will give the letters to the Clerk who can assess their authenticity. Those are two genuine cases of people who are disappointed at the cutback in the number of places on the VTOS.
As Deputies, we received submissions from members of the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed who are also flabbergasted at this cutback. They want all Deputies to support their campaign to have the cutback reversed by making representations to the Minister for Education on their behalf. They believe this decision is scandalous given the Government's stated commitment to tackling unemployment.
This raises a wider issue. It appears unemployment is no longer on the Government's political agenda, but that will be rectified following the next election.
It was not on the agenda when the Deputy's father was Taoiseach.
The area based partnerships established under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress between the then Taoiseach and the social partners for the first time devised a strategy to tackle long term unemployment.
That came from ICTU.
That was when Fianna Fáil was in Government and, as Deputy Broughan is aware, many of his constituents benefited from those partnerships. It is pleasing to note that specific commitment by a Fianna Fáil Government is to be expanded by the Minister for Education using EU Structural and Cohesion Funds. Unemployment is not on the Government's political agenda, it raises environment or social issues instead. People from middle and working class areas who do not have jobs are seething with anger because they are not being represented by the Government parties, but that will be rectified at the next election.
The area based partnership schemes were a successful Fianna Fáil initiative under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and I am delighted the Minister is expanding that scheme.
It was a Labour movement.
The Minister dealt with everything in her speech except the specific issue raised by Deputy Martin, namely, the cutback of 1,000 places in the VTOS, a saving of £2.5 million to the Exchequer. She gave us a very good overview of education generally but, unfortunately, did not deal with that issue. Many people are disappointed and bitter about the position and I call on her to reverse that wrong decision.
I welcome the opportunity to support Deputy Martin's motion. The Minister's decision in this regard is disgraceful and an insult to the unemployed. It is a dreadful decision from a so-called Socialist Minister. It will not entail a great saving to the Exchequer because those involved are already receiving unemployment benefits. It is merely the case of a bureaucratic row between two Ministers, Deputies Bhreathnach and De Rossa, who pretend to be Socialists. They should be able to sort out their petty interdepartmental rows without the unemployed suffering.
Why will the Minister not give those people the dignity to which they are entitled by allowing them to qualify for the VTOS? If affects 300 to 400 people in Dublin alone and many others, if given the opportunity, would apply for the scheme. Is it necessary to put them through the wringer by signing on every week? Does the Minister not have respect for their dignity? They are entitled to qualify for the scheme.
There has been a great deal of talk in the past week or so about a second chance for those whose marriages break down. What about giving a second chance to those who do not have a career? What about giving a second chance to those who did not fully avail of the education system first time round? How can the Minister turn a blind eye to those people? How can she make lofty statements and give commitments to the disadvantaged and not follow them up? Is it necessary for the unemployed to be permanently set aside? Are they not entitled to a second chance? Traditionally, irrespective of whether I agreed with the sentiments of members of former Labour Parties, I always found them to be decent people with a genuine commitment to the unemployed, but this decision is pathetic. The Minister makes all the right noises, statements and promises and plays to the militant dinosaurs in her party — such as the Member behind her — but she does not deliver on the issues. What is the end result?
We all know that job prospects are linked to education. Yet, we heard Deputy Haughey campaign for a regional technical college on the north side of the city. The priority afforded it by the Higher Education Authority has been ignored. The Minister could look after Minister Lowry in terms of the college in Thurles and her own constituency with a college in the middle class area of Dún Laoghaire, but she does not give a damn about a college on the north side of the city which was afforded priority by the Higher Education Authority.
What did the Deputy's party do about it?
The report produced by the Higher Education Authority has been ignored by the Minister who has promised to build colleges in constituencies which are represented by a Minister. The constituency of Dublin North-West is represented by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, but he has no clout. The policy seems to be to give him a few bob and let him rant and rave.
I wish to raise a local matter, the need to have repairs carried out to the roof of the comprehensive school in Ballymun. The poor and disadvantaged are entitled to the same conditions as anyone else. This project, which was approved by the previous Government, has been taken off the list by the Minister. How can students from this disadvantaged area be expected to motivate themselves when water is seeping through the roof?
The Minister mentioned the early start programme which was introduced with intellectual arrogance. It may well be a good programme, but the Minister is refusing to consult with anyone. She should at least explain to people what she is doing and listen to their suggestions. For weeks people from Ballymun, and other areas, have waited outside the gates of Leinster House, but the Minister has refused to speak to them. She should at least agree to meet with them.
