On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates in respect of the Department of Education and Science. The Revised Estimates, which have been referred to the select committee by the Dáil, are as follows: Vote 26 — Office of the Minister for Education and Science; Vote 27 — First Level Education; Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education, and Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education. A proposed timetable for their consideration has been circulated. The arrangements proposed are the same as those proposed last year. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I now invite the Minister to make his opening statement.
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 26 — Office of the Minister for Education and Science (Revised).
Vote 27 — First Level Education (Revised).
Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education (Revised).
Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education (Revised).
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the education Estimates for 2001. This committee provides an important forum to reflect on education policy, priorities and the allocation of resources. The period in which the Government has been in office has been a momentous one for education. For the very first time a statutory framework for much of the education sector has been put in place.
There have been major breakthroughs in key policy areas and all levels of education are benefiting from significantly increased investment. Many issues which had lain unresolved for decades have been addressed and we have seen very definite progress on others which were often viewed as being intractable. Progress on Government education commitments and priorities made within the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, national development plan and An Action Programme for the Millennium is bearing fruit.
There has been substantial progress in educational supports for children with disabilities and recent developments in the areas of dyslexia and autism are very significant. A range of strategies have been put in place to address the literacy problem in primary schools and tackle adult literacy. There is much left to be done but we are moving in the right direction and rapidly.
As Minister for Education and Science, I am deeply committed to the development of education, one of the engines of our economic growth. It is through education that we, as a people, now have the skills, wealth and resources to develop a truly inclusive society.
That is what the Government is doing. For the first time ever we have given top priority to tackling problems in the areas of literacy, numeracy, special needs and disadvantage. The 2001 Estimates provide additional resources at all levels of education to tackle educational disadvantage. The new programme, Giving Children an Even Break, which I launched earlier this year, is a significant intervention to address educational disadvantage at primary level. Schools selected for support under the three year programme were identified through a comprehensive independent survey of educational disadvantage in schools. The programme will cost £26 million over a three year period and involves the immediate creation of over 200 new primary teaching posts and the allocation of cash grants to over 2,300 primary schools in respect of disadvantaged pupils.
The additional teaching and funding resources being provided under the new programme must be used for the provision of holistic supports for pupils from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. This is a key objective of the programme. Under the urban phase of the programme I am committed to supporting schools with the highest concentrations of disadvantaged pupils by achieving a maximum class size of 20:1 in junior classes and 29:1 in senior classes.
In rural areas a teacher/co-ordinator will work with clusters of four or five schools. Prioritised schools that could not be clustered with other similar schools will receive financial supports as an alternative to teacher/co-ordinator support. In addition, all participating schools receive extra funding to be used in the provision of a range of in-school and out-of-school supports for the pupils concerned.
A programme of school and teacher supports that aims to maximise the benefits of the new programme for the targeted pupils is being put in place. Teachers will be supported and developed to adapt their teaching styles and strategies in order that their pupils will derive maximum benefit from the significantly reduced pupil-teacher ratios. Schools and their staff, including new local co-ordinators, are being supported in the effective use of the new teaching supports and new financial allocations in providing enhanced services that meet the needs of at-risk young people both in and out of school. The action I am now taking under the new programme will have a significant impact in addressing educational disadvantage in primary schools and enhance the life chances of many young people who might not otherwise reach their true potential.
I will now discuss the school completion initiatives. Despite the very substantial increases in investment in education in recent years levels of early school leaving remain unacceptably high. As there is a link between non-school attendance and early school leaving, my Department has initiated a programme comprising both legislative measures and special targeted initiatives to combat the problem of non-attendance and early school leaving.
The recently enacted Education (Welfare) Bill, 2000, will replace and reform current school attendance legislation. The Act provides for the introduction of a comprehensive school attendance service with responsibility for school attendance being given to a newly established body, the National Educational Welfare Board. The focus of the board, which I launched last week, is the provision of assistance and support, through locally based educational welfare officers, for schools and families rather than on penalties for non-attendance at school. The board will also put in place specific measures for the early identification and support of children at risk of dropping out of school. It is vitally important that we encourage and support schools in retaining pupils to completion of senior cycle. In this regard the eight to 15 year old early school leavers initiative was introduced in 1998. One of its key objectives is to test models of response to the problem of early school leaving with a view to integrating them into mainstream policy and practice. I have decided to extend the existing 17 projects in 14 areas for a further phase until September 2002. I have provided an additional £4 million in this year's Estimates to extend the initiative and planning is under way for the selection of the new project areas.
The stay-in-school retention initiative at second level was launched in June 1999 in 58 schools. This marks a significant departure from traditional policy in that funding of up to £40,000 per annum is being granted to targeted schools on the basis of plans they helped to design themselves. The initiative's purpose is to prevent early school leaving and raise senior cycle completion rates. At the end of May 2000 I extended the initiative to an additional 59 schools, bringing the number of pupils involved to 70,000.
Both the early school leaver's initiative and the stay-in-school retention initiative involve targeted schools working on a multi-agency and cross-community basis allowing us to draw together the resources needed to address this complex problem. Plans are under way for the completion of a primary pupil database which, with the post-primary pupil database, will provide a state-of-the-art system for tracking pupils through their education. We must also ensure the curriculum provided in our second level schools meets the needs of all pupils. The leaving certificate applied and junior certificate schools programme are examples of measures which have a real impact.
The 2001 Estimates provide for significant improvements in the area of school transport. The school transport scheme was established in 1967 and designed to cater for children in rural areas who, if living a long distance from school, might otherwise have difficulty in attending regularly. I found that very little change had taken place in the scheme since its inception and felt that this needed to be addressed. I have obtained an extra £2.85 million for this year's Estimates in order to permit a range of improvements to the scheme. In January I announced major improvements which will significantly improve matters.
The qualifying distance for primary school pupils aged ten years or over has been reduced from three miles to two in order that all primary pupils will be treated equally for eligibility purposes. The number of eligible primary pupils required to establish a new school bus service has been reduced from ten to seven. There is a reduction in the threshold for maintaining a service to four eligible pupils provided there is also a minimum of six fare paying pupils using the service. The combined maximum daily travelling and waiting times for post-primary pupils have been reduced from three hours to two and a half. The distance requirement for primary pupils to qualify for remote area grants has been reduced from three miles to two and the grants will be paid to each family. The qualifying distance for grant aid for post-primary pupils residing far from a school bus route has been reduced from three miles to two. The rate of grant payable is being increased and the question of two or more families sharing a grant will no longer arise. I commend the work done in the area of school transport by the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy O'Dea.
The quality of our teachers is central to the standard of our education and these Estimates provide for increases in teacher pay under the PPF as well as for significant increases in teacher numbers at all levels. The general pay increases under the PPF, with the early settlers agreement, amount to a cumulative total of 22%. In addition, take-home pay will be further increased by tax concessions of up to 10%. Our teachers must be remunerated fairly and equitably in order that they can maintain the enthusiasm and motivation to do a challenging job in changing circumstances. It is important to ensure salary scales for teachers are sufficiently rewarding to continue to attract young people of the highest calibre into a profession which is at the centre of our country's well-being.
The benchmarking process in the education sector is now well under way. Submissions have been made to the public service benchmarking body which is carrying out an independent comparison of jobs and pay rates for graduates across the economy. My Department's submission to the body has focused on the role and importance of the teacher, the changes occurring in education, the supports provided by my Department and the critical issues for the effective delivery of education in our schools. The benchmarking process will ensure the pay and conditions applying to teachers will be objectively assessed in comparison with other graduate professions. As Minister for Education and Science, I wish to see pay and conditions that are attractive to the profession's new entrants and adequately reward serving teachers.
The establishment of the Teaching Council recognises and copperfastens the professional status of teaching. In passing this legislation the Oireachtas has provided for the future quality assurance of teaching in a manner long sought by the profession. It means future responsibility for the qualifications of new entrants, accreditation of teacher training courses, promotion of in-career development for teachers and the addressing of disciplinary problems within the profession will largely lie with teaching working through the Teaching Council. We have written to the nominating bodies inviting them to submit their nominees and I expect to be in a position to establish the council shortly.
The 2001 Estimates provide for substantial additional funding to develop the schools IT 2000 programme. Progress in all aspects of the programme in the last two years has been remarkable. There are now approximately 60,000 multi-media computers in our first and second level schools while 75% of our teachers have taken ICT skills training courses. The ratio of pupils to computers has fallen to 17.7:1 at first level and 13:1 at second level and all schools have been provided with an Internet connection. Over 90% of schools have used e-mail. It is my objective to have a permanent infrastructure of hardware and software in our schools with the necessary teaching skills to put us at the forefront of international developments.
Subhead B22 of Vote 26 contains an additional 30% allocation for national certification in 2001. This additional funding provides for the establishment of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland and two awarding bodies, the Further Education and Training Awards Council and the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, which will make national awards available for all education and training in the State. I launched the NQAI on a designate basis last November in order that it could commence work on a number of issues, including the development of the qualifications framework. I established the council on a statutory basis in March this year. The awarding councils were established on a statutory basis on 11 June. The development of the qualifications framework is central to the Government's education and training programme. There is a high level of participation in further and higher education and training. Never before has the learner had such a multiplicity of opportunities in an increasingly diverse range of areas. Having broadened learner participation the priority now must be to ensure quality and flexibility of access, not alone to education and training but to awards and qualifications also. It is only through the development of a comprehensive, coherent and transparent national framework of qualifications that this objective can be successfully achieved. The NQAI and awarding councils are a crucial component of the Government's initiatives to tackle inequality in higher and further education and training. They will facilitate lifelong learning and promote access, transfer and progression for all learners.
The importance of monitoring and identifying national skill needs has also been acknowledged by the Government through the establishment of the expert skills group. In response to the recommendations of the group's reports a new scheme of accelerated technician programmes was introduced in 1998. Since the introduction of these programmes more than 2,000 people have enrolled in the designated skill areas of manufacturing technology, computer and IT support, industrial science, precision engineering and mould-making. Over 50% of these participants are mature candidates. Completion rates for accelerated technician programmes are also high in comparison with national norms.
A further response to the recommendations of the various reports of the expert skills group was the introduction of a number of 11 week summer computing courses in the technological sector. Since the introduction of these courses in 1998 training has been provided for over 800 students. Completion rates for these programmes are also high in comparison with national norms. Many students completing the summer programmes avail of further educational opportunities through a number of follow-on courses such as the national certificate in information technology.
The new institute trainee programme, launched in May this year, will be work and study based. It involves close partnership and co-operation between industry and employers, the third level technological sector and my Department. Institute trainees will be recruited through an industrial partner and combine employment with formal educational components conducted in an institute of technology. Participants will be able to study to NCEA or Dublin Institute of Technology certificate level. Institute trainees will work a shorter week in industry to facilitate attendance at the institute, thereby aiding retention rates and raising levels of academic success.
The institute trainee programme will aim to provide qualified graduates in identified key skill areas such as construction, electronics manufacturing and manufacturing technology, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, food technology, e-business and computing. The 2001 Estimates provide funding for an intake of up to 1,000 institute trainees this year. In an era where lifelong learning has assumed significant importance this initiative will provide appropriate foundations and opportunities for many non-traditional students to reap the benefits of combining formal third level education with the practical experiences of modern working life.
The Government is determined that economic development and growth will not be inhibited by key skill shortages and that the contribution of any individual will not be limited by lack of access to education. Partnerships between industry and the technological sector have already attracted new types of non-traditional students to acquire essential qualifications. It is in everybody's interest — industry, third level institutions and individuals — that these partnerships deepen. In modern Irish society the ongoing involvement and commitment of industry to these special skill initiatives enable us to develop a professionalism, flexibility and collaborative approach in adapting to the modern challenges of the knowledge based global economy.
Since taking office the Government has invested massively in capital projects at all levels in the education sector. The capital allocation in these Estimates of over £400 million is almost four times the corresponding amount provided in 1997. In addition to the £400 million Estimates allocation, a further £85 million will be spent from the scientific and technological (investment) fund in 2001. This fund is parallel and additional to the normal Estimates process. It is an innovative measure that has maximised efficiency without lessening accountability and financial controls.
A further innovation, which will impact significantly on the development of capital projects, is the initiation of public-private partnerships in the education sector. My Department is to the forefront in participating in the Government's initiative on public-private partnerships, PPPs, specifically the pilot programme of infrastructural projects. PPPs in education infrastructure have significant potential in developing new ideas on school design which are encouraged from the output based approach, testing value for money over the life cycle of the projects, rather than just on construction costs and making better use of educational facilities outside of school hours, allowing educationists to concentrate on their core functions and optimising allocation of risk in areas such as planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of facilities.
To date my Department has included three projects in the Government's PPP pilot programme. These are the Cork School of Music, five new post-primary schools in Ballincollig, Clones, Dunmanway, Shannon and Tubbercurry, which are grouped as one project, and the proposed National Maritime College, Ringaskiddy, County Cork. Following an EU tendering process I announced the selection of a preferred bidder for the Cork School of Music and the post-primary schools project in March. The post-primary schools are due for completion in September 2002 and the School of Music in September 2003. The estimated capital cost of the School of Music is £46 million while the cost of the grouped schools is estimated at £56 million. The National Maritime College will cost approximately £40 million.
Under the PPP model my Department will not begin payment for these facilities until they are fully completed and operational. All the projects are being developed on a design, build, finance and operate basis. The educational management of all facilities will remain with the existing education authorities.
Change and innovation have been recurring themes in this presentation of the 2001 Estimates which have been framed in a context where change is occurring throughout the modern world at an enormous pace that has rarely before been experienced in the history of mankind. Social and family values are changing; economies have developed in recent years beyond all expectations; environmental issues place new demands on societies; improved travel has led to levels of human mobility never before experienced, and technological developments have provided new challenges and opportunities. The level and pace of change have significant implications for schools and colleges. The world in which we live needs educated citizens and a well-educated and highly skilled workforce. In turn, this educated populace has high expectations for the next generation and expects that schools and colleges will respond to their needs. An educated body of parents will demand their rightful involvement in the education of their children, both directly and indirectly. Students are themselves becoming increasingly sophisticated and aware of their rights.
These Estimates are a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to addressing the many challenges facing education today. We must be more inclusive through involving pupils with a disadvantage, disability or other special needs. We must protect and promote quality for all. We have to target our resources and yet invest in education generally. Real commitment and real resources amounting to over £3.7 billion in these 2001 Estimates are making a difference. I commend the Estimates to the select committee.
I apologise for the absence of Deputy Creed due to a family illness.
I welcome the Minister's change of attitude in one area, the remuneration of teachers. Despite the fact that since last September or October the Minister dug in his heels and said they were adequately paid and had adequate conditions, he has finally changed his mind. This is very welcome given the importance of teachers and the other partners in education in the delivery of a proper service at all levels.
Listening to the Minister and recognising the contents of the Estimates it is true to say we are poles apart. The Minister says there is much left to be done and that we are moving rapidly. I do not know if any other Deputy would find his rate of movement in solving the many problems in education agreeable. Like his predecessor, he gave an undertaking that substandard national schools would be eliminated over a short period. Only last week I received replies from national schools in my area. Due to the enormous amount of planning work involved and the various procedures required they were unable to state when the required work would be carried out. Three of the schools in question were among the 40 listed at national level as unsuitable for habitation and the delivery of a proper education service. Paper never refuses ink, but when the Minister is supposed to be moving rapidly towards the elimination of substandard national schools I wince.
In relation to school transport, the provision in the Estimates states there is an increase of just £4 million — from £51 million to £55 million — for the annual running of both the primary and secondary school bus service. If there is one thing that is quickly noticed when one is travelling around the country, it is the poor quality of the school buses with which the service is provided. In north Galway earlier this year the window fell out of a bus and a student was seriously injured as a result.
The Minister told me earlier this year that it would take a long time to find out the ages of the school buses in use in County Galway. I know well, without the Minister telling me, that they are 30 years old on average. If he expects to deliver a proper service with buses of that quality, he is making a mistake. Are we satisfied with their safety? We must admit that they are substandard and should not be on the road. The engines might be running properly in some cases, but conditions inside are substandard and dangerous.
We received a report on the matter, but the recommendations were not implemented, apart from one which was aimed at reducing the limit for the eligibility of students from three miles to two. However, we are ignoring the main problem — the bus service. How many buses are overcrowded? To facilitate a shortening of the route one bus will travel an extra distance and carry many additional students. There is overcrowding. If commercial bus owners were to act in this way, they would lose their licences.
There is a serious problem and a need for a root and branch investigation of school transport by the Department of Education and Science. In that investigation I hope the issue of catchment areas is reviewed. There is not one part of the country where there are not serious problems concerning the definition of boundaries. There is an urgent need to reassess them because when free bus services were first provided the situation was very different in terms of population and the requirements of students.
I hope departmental officials will re-evaluate the entire bus fleet and catchment areas. While waiting and travelling times have been reduced from three hours to two and a half hours, a substantial number of students spend at least five hours travelling to and from school, between leaving their house in the morning and arriving home in the evening. This is not adequate.
I want to raise the issue of higher education grants. The provision in the Estimates indicates clearly that there will be no change in the level of maintenance grants for third level students. If there is any, it will only be in the top-up mentioned on various occasions in the Dáil. As we approach the return of students to education in September and October, this is the time for action to be taken. Otherwise, many students may be put off. They may be accepted into one of the various third level courses, but will be put off by the level of grant available which is totally inadequate.
It is said that students can work for the summer and that their parents can pay, but that is not an answer. If students are attending third level education, they are entitled to a grant that will maintain them at a reasonable standard of living. Much of the media criticism of students has focused on their appearing to have money for entertainment, but that is not the issue. The majority of students cannot make ends meet, especially those studying in cities. The average third level student in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Maynooth receives totally inadequate maintenance grants due to the cost of putting a roof over their heads, food and other living requirements.
Considering the number of weeks for which third level students have to maintain themselves, £2,000 is totally inadequate. I hope there will be a substantial increase and that the maintenance grant will be brought on par with that for student nurses who receive in excess of £3,000. Added to this, student nurses receive a book grant and additional payments towards costs. I ask the Minister as a matter of urgency to assist the many students who find themselves in this situation in order that they will not be turned away from third level education because of an inability to pay their way. Any grant received will be heavily subsidised by parents and the students themselves working over the summer holidays.
Since their establishment the institutes of technology have had a major impact on the improvement of the economy. However, in the past five years there has been a substantial deterioration in the delivery of the service in many, but not all courses at institute level.
This has been clearly manifested in the number of students, particularly first years, who have dropped out. If one considers the number of entrants to first year and compares it with the number who proceed to second year, one will discover that there is a substantial and frightening drop-out rate. Some of the students to whom I refer transfer to other courses because they may have made the wrong choice initially. There is, therefore, a need to consider whether the career guidance advice being provided at second level is adequate in this regard. It is extremely worrying that when students enter third level institutions they discover they do not have access to career guidance advice and realise the only direction they will receive will be from their tutors.
When the third level institutes to which I refer were in operation it was considered imperative that students approaching the end of first year and those in their second or final year were granted placements in the workplace. Great rapport developed between employers, industrial interests and the authorities running these institutions in the areas in which they were located.
The Minister referred to manufacturing technology. One would have thought there would be ample opportunities for students involved in relevant courses to obtain placements in companies involved in this area. The reality is, however, that there are few such placements. If such placements are to be found, students must find them themselves. Nobody in the institutes cares whether they obtain placements and they must do so on their own initiative. Even if they do obtain placements, they are not given credit by the institutes for so doing. I say that with great regret, rather than engaging in criticism merely for the sake of so doing. The position vis-à-vis the third level institutes must be reappraised.
My final point relates to grants. Why is it that there is a substantial decrease in the allocation for general grants to universities? The allocation for University College Galway has been cut from £42 million to £24 million and the allocations to all other colleges have been reduced on a pro rata basis. I do not know the reason this has happened at this stage, particularly when we are trying to develop the university sector. The position is similar in relation to grants for secondary school authorities, which have been reduced from £56 million to £42 million. The grants for primary level schools have also been reduced. It is unacceptable that the grants for primary and second level schools and third level institutions have been reduced. There is nothing left for us to do but vehemently oppose these Estimates.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Estimates for the Department of Education and Science. I had hoped we might have a discussion on education issues rather than simply discuss sums of money. Obviously, sums of money are important but if we merely adopt the approach to which I refer and discuss inputs into the system without addressing the output from it, we will not tackle the underlying problems.
There is a tendency on the part of all Ministers to boast about the increase in expenditure between this year and last year in respect of any particular area or project or, more commonly, to boast about the increase in the allocation this year compared to 1997 when the rainbow Government was in office. Such an approach does not get us very far. In the light of the huge increases in the cost of living, etc., major increases in spending across a range of areas would have been expected in the past three or four years. I am concerned that the approach to which I refer does not help in terms of throwing light on the issues relevant to education. We would have been better using this meeting to address some of those issues and consider what we are trying to achieve by means of our education system.
One of the fundamental issues which arises in respect of education revolves around funding. While it is easy to refer to increases in funding, the fact is that we are now spending less as a percentage of GDP on education than we did five years ago. Unless we at least try to keep up in percentage terms all we will do is run very fast in an attempt to stand still. Surely the Minister's main job at the Cabinet table in the run-up to the introduction of the Estimates should be to ensure an increased allocation, in terms of the percentage of GDP, to be spent on the important area of education provision. This is particularly important in the light of the high proportion of young people in the population.
It is fair to state that for most young people the education system is reasonably good. Most get on fairly well, albeit it with assistance from their parents who contribute to fundraising in schools, make so-called voluntary contributions at second level and meet the costs incurred as a result of having a child at third level. Most manage reasonably well. However, I am concerned about the fact that we refer to an education system which is reasonably good in a country with the fastest growing economy in Europe. We have reached the point where we should be considering the proposition of the State meeting the full cost of education. It does not do so at present. It is only meeting approximately 50% of the costs involved in running primary and second level schools. I will refer to this matter in greater detail when we consider the different Votes.
It is not acceptable at this point in our economic development that there should be such a shortfall between the real cost of operating an education system and the amount of funding being provided by the State. This gap must be bridged and I would like the Minister to make a commitment or statement of intent in respect of his proposals in this area.
My concern about the State failing to bridge the gap to which I refer and leaving the school system, to a large extent, to fend for itself through fundraising and the collection of voluntary contributions arises from the fact that there is a danger that those who can afford to do so will opt to place their children in the private education system. It is increasingly the case that those who are better off are choosing to remove their children from State funded or semi-State funded schools and send them to private schools or institutions such as "grind" schools which reside completely outside the State system and are growing in number at a phenomenal rate. Those who have real options in life are making the type of choice to which I refer. The main aim of the education system should be to strive towards establishing a high quality, fully funded public education system which everybody, rich and poor, can be confident will meet the needs of their children.
The current system, under which those with adequate finances opt to buy in services on a private basis while those without money opt out, should not be allowed to remain in place. I do not know if figures are available in respect of the percentage opting to avail of private services. However, it is definitely on the increase. At the other end, there is a figure of 18% to 20% opting out from the system at various stages. They are left behind because they cannot meet the cost of basic things like uniforms and school books, nor can they afford to contribute to fundraising or to make voluntary contributions. That 20% has left the system long before the leaving certificate. That has obvious knock-on effects in terms of participation rates for this group in third level which remain abysmally low. I would like the Minister to address some of these points. It is a healthier approach than talking about providing an additional £100 million in this or that area.
We have tried in our education system to provide equality of opportunity. We have managed to do that to some extent and that would be fine if everyone entering the system was on an equal footing, but they are not. As a result of the huge divergence in individual pupils' circumstances, such as their family backgrounds, financial circumstances and even geographical circumstances, it is not enough to provide a basic level of education which is available to all. We need to examine and aim towards equality of outcome for all young people in our education system. The outcomes are extremely unequal. I would like to hear the Minister's views on how we might move towards a system where we have equality of outcome.
There is a basic problem with underfunding of the education system in that, as a percentage of gross domestic product, funding is not increasing but is decreasing. We are behind our European partners in the spending we allow for primary and second level, whatever about third level. The fact that the funding provided is in inverse proportion to the need that exists, that we spend less than most European countries at primary level, about 80% of the European average at second level and more than 100% at third level has a negative impact on those who come from lower income backgrounds. Those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to drop out at second level or even primary level. The question of having a share of the cake for third level does not arise for them.
There is the issue of the need to increase overall funding and also the approach being taken about which I am concerned, namely, the proliferation of pilot projects in the Department. Where problem areas exist in the Department's remit, a limited pilot project is established. We have seen that where the former Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, established a number of worthwhile pilot projects in 1995 on pre-school education and breaking the cycle of disadvantage which have not been extended. This year additional money has been provided for disadvantage which is to be distributed using the scattergun approach. We have not learned from the success of the pilot projects and extended them.
I am concerned about the approach taken in the programme, Giving Children An Even Break. It smacks of throwing money at a problem. Some 25% of schools invited to participate did not reply and the likelihood is that many of them are schools which need additional resources but were not in a position to respond to the questionnaire. Some 25% are outside the loop. Schools received additional money with no clear indication what they were supposed to do with it. It was money thrown at schools and they were told it had to be spent on disadvantaged children. What are schools supposed to do? Are they supposed to devise schemes which identify the disadvantaged children, label them and provide a special scheme for them? It is unworkable from a principal's point of view. There is no clear indication of what outcome is expected from that.
It is a fault of an overly centralised Department that it does not have clearly defined policies on various aspects of education and that it throws money at schools asking them to devise something to solve the problem. Bottom up proposals are fine but guidelines must be given and targets set for what we are trying to achieve. Is it a matter of keeping schools and teachers quiet on the issue of disadvantage by throwing money at them, money which was announced to them by TDs of the Government parties? A number of principals said to me that the minute they got the call from the local Fianna Fáil TD, they knew this was a political scam.
It would not happen in the Deputy's party.
Clear guidelines and targets were not set down and put in place. Schools do not know what they are supposed to do with the money.
A more coherent and intelligent approach to tackling educational disadvantage would be to put in place the type of services children require, beginning with equal opportunities to participate fully in the education system from start to finish — "from start" means from pre-school stage. The Minister has spoken about pre-school and produced the White Paper and we have had endless debate. Despite this, not one single additional pre-school place has been provided by the Government in more than four years.
In disadvantaged areas, children begin school at four or four and a half and they are already way behind some of their peers they meet in junior infants. We all accept the first five years are the most important in a child's development. Unless the potential of young people is tapped into during those first five years, there is a huge missed opportunity. Large numbers of children from disadvantaged areas begin school without early reading, writing or numeracy skills and in a classroom with children who have had the opportunity of early education experiences because their parents could afford to pay for them. Those children who have not had this opportunity attend school in run-down buildings, poor conditions and classrooms that are overcrowded, given the nature of the social problems with which they must cope. They are not compensated for the disadvantage they have experienced in their family backgrounds. Unless we devise a system that compensates for that, involving parents in developing parental literacy skills and in their children's education from an early stage, we might as well throw our hats at the problem.
Too often children in disadvantaged areas begin school at a disadvantage and work in poor quality buildings that are not adequately funded. I am talking about the dependency on the inadequate capitation grant and on local fundraising. It is difficult for schools to raise funds in disadvantaged areas because the potential does not exist. The money is not in the parents' pockets. The parish has dwindling numbers attending mass. The basket collections in churches are diminishing. Many disadvantaged children end up doubly disadvantaged because of the lack of targeted approaches to educational disadvantage.
I wish to mention two other areas. One is autism and the Minister's intentions in that regard. A group in Kilbarrack, which is in his constituency, has been in touch with him about setting up a CABAS project in the Dublin area. It is keen to get going and to model it on the Cork project. What is the Minister's response and will he agree to meet the group again at an early stage?
I raise the issue of the inadequate provision for primary and second level schools in terms of support staff, such as secretarial and caretaking staff. The Minister signalled that he intends to phase out the community employment scheme in schools and transfer the funding from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to his Department. This has raised huge concerns in disadvantaged areas where, for example, a community employment project might employ 15 people to do all types of worthwhile work. This work will never be profitable or self-sustaining in the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment's book, but it is essential to the running of schools. The work could include caretaking, locking up the premises, repairing broken windows or green areas, or cleaning the school yard in the morning if staff discover a cider party had been held there the night before. Schools in disadvantaged areas experience such problems on a daily basis and they depend on the community employment scheme.
Such schools are most concerned about the Minister's intentions in relation to ending community employment schemes in schools. The Minister has been asked to meet representatives of some of the schools before they break up for the summer. The Minister indicated that he hoped the new system would be in place by September. This is causing real concern among many schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas. I urge the Minister to make time available in the next week to meet representatives of principals of schools who have genuine concerns.
I am glad to have an opportunity to respond to the Minister's comments. Although the Estimates contain significant sums of money, there are shortfalls and reductions. They make sad reading for people involved in education who display large levels of commitment, but who are experiencing considerable pressure. I am referring in particular to teachers, but also to the type of work that must be undertaken by boards of management. Chairpersons of boards of management are spending an increasing amount of time trying to make ends meet and undertaking the administrative work associated with their responsibilities.
Teachers at all levels face huge pressures and they are becoming increasingly involved in cleaning and repair work and administration in addition to out of hours sports coaching and outings. Much of this relates to a problem which is not particular to education, but which is acute in that sector — the difficulty of retaining staff, particularly support staff in schools such as caretakers, cleaners and school secretaries. I am aware of a number of schools where the school secretary earns a salary of approximately £8,000. As people earning that amount of money would testify, secretaries find it difficult to make ends meet. They are tempted to apply for jobs as special assistants for which they might earn £12,000, although the pressure of work as secretaries is arguably equal to or even greater than the work of special assistants. There is a huge lack of consideration for the needs of people who are making the system work and who are involved in education in its most practical sense. The pay levels of cleaners make it difficult to keep such workers and an increasing number of teachers find that they must roll up their sleeves and do that work. Is the Minister satisfied with that? Has he a response for teachers who feel that he does not care?
Regarding the support structure in schools, money is paid to the board of management. If the school is reasonably well resourced and is located in an area where the tradition of helping the school on a voluntary basis is strong, a treasurer, who may or may not be an accountant, takes control of the money. He or she effectively does the job of the paymaster general regarding the support staff. However, schools in disadvantaged areas find it difficult to get parental co-operation at the best of times. The board of management receives the inadequate sum of money and is responsible for employing people to keep the school running. Such schools are even more disadvantaged because of the stand-off position of the Department. It hands out the money and expects schools to get on with it.
Regarding classroom assistants, as Deputy Shortall said, FÁS, which is under the Tánaiste's Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, is changing its modus operandi and bringing in social economy employment rather than community employment schemes. Schools are finding themselves caught in the middle and they are not sure about how their future staff requirements will be met. The Minister should be more active in providing some level of assurance to schools that they will not be even worse off than they are at present.
Another issue that increasingly arises at this committee and the Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport relates to school buses. Although the Minister referred to school transport, people's real concern is not the distances involved, although that is of concern to particular families, but the condition of the buses. Teachers have told me that when they visit the United States for either leisure or professional reasons, they discover that the best buses are school buses. The Minister may claim the vehicles are in working order, but they are not the best buses in the country — not even Bus Éireann would claim that. It appears school buses are at the bottom of the heap.
A bus carrying children from Limerick recently went off the road in Mayo. Due to the lack of safety belts on the bus, there were a number of spinal injuries. This was a lesson and a warning. We must introduce a law and pay for the provision of safety belts on school buses. Another case which demonstrates the urgency in this regard is that a principal recently spent three hours on the telephone trying to get a bus with seat belts. Parents would not allow their children to go on a school tour unless the bus had seat belts. A coach without seat belts would have cost £200 to hire, but a coach with seat belts cost £250. Schools that are in a position to meet the cost can get safer transport.
The law must be the same for everybody and safety belts must be provided in buses. If that happens, the one to each seat rule will have to be enforced. If a decision in this regard has been made, has it been fully considered? If a decision has not been reached, when will it be made? Has the amount of money involved been quantified and has it been sought? I cannot find a reference to it in the Estimates. If no changes are proposed in this area, as a number of teachers have predicted, they will not be able to bring children on school tours. This relates not only to school transport on a day to day basis, it affects every school.
There are private arrangements made by the school. It does not involve the school transport system.
This is a wider issue than school buses. It involves children and their transportation and ensuring that, if an accident happens, it does not have catastrophic effects. School tours will be a thing of the past in a number of schools where parents have said that if the school cannot get a bus with seat belts, their children will not be allowed to travel. This is the bottom line in a number of schools.
Regarding the retention of teachers, I have received many representations from schools that are heartbroken when they hear the Minister saying that he is proud of the average number in each class. For example, St. Patrick's senior school in Skerries will lose its 13th class assistant although it will have a sufficient number of pupils in September. Its view is that it qualifies under the growing school criteria for the retention of its 13th assistant. I repeatedly encounter such cases and in terms of the Minister's statements about the average number of children per classroom, he should ensure schools are able to meet the average because many schools do not do so at present.
A report was prepared by the committee on the shortage of primary school teachers. Is anything happening in that regard? There does not appear to be much in the Estimates in terms of whether any of the recommendations will be implemented. The sum for capitation grants towards operating costs of national schools is substantially lower in the Estimates, from £72.5 million to £32.25 million. Some schools depend on race nights and other fundraising activities and that figure suggests their needs are being ignored. I am sure the Minister would have much explaining to do if he brought that figure to the attention of many national schools around the country.
Regarding the special needs area, in common with Deputy Shortall, I wish to refer to the comprehensive application of behaviour analysis to schooling scheme, known as CABAS, in the education of autistic children. The Minister's predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Martin, made much of a national network of CABAS centres. Not surprisingly, as a wily Deputy, he started one in Cork and looked after his home base. Will the Minister continue that programme because it appears to have stopped in Cork?
The comparison between outreach projects and the CABAS is stark and damning in terms of hours of attendance. The rate was four and a half hours for the outreach projects, but six hours and 45 minutes for CABAS. In terms of the number of days, the number for the outreach projects was 183 days while it was 230 for CABAS. Regarding one to one tuition, it amounted to 30 minutes a day in the outreach projects but five and a half hours a day under CABAS. Parents feel involved in the CABAS project, but they feel totally uninvolved and that there is little or no accountability in the outreach projects. There is huge apartheid in terms of the facilities in Cork and the rest of the country. As the Minister has responsibility for all parts of the country, I hope he will ensure that matter is addressed.
There is a reference to handicapped and disadvantaged children in the salaries section of the primary Vote. I thought we had moved away from such terms and that words such as "disabilities" and "special needs" would be used instead. Is there a slippage back to old ideas and terminology in that regard?
An ASTI survey showed that 69% of secondary schools experience difficulties finding teachers to fill vacancies. This indicates low morale and a lack of attractiveness in the teaching profession, but also a lack of involvement by the Department in addressing the problem. The grant to school authorities was £56.864 million last year, but it has been reduced this year to £42.171 million. This suggests that the low morale in education will not be helped by the Estimates. I appeal to the Minister to have a change of heart and to introduce morale boosting measures.
Does the figure in the Estimates take account of the guidelines produced by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in relation to school buildings? In common with houses etc., school buildings must be of a certain density that makes provision for space around them rather than be sprawling extensions of existing buildings. As the Minister will be aware from our discussions, it is an issue in Malahide where the school authorities and the local community feel an extension to the school will not serve the needs of the growing area for which it caters. A larger, stand alone school is required to replace the old school.
The announcement on 15 June by the Higher Education Authority that its grant will be cut from September 2001 was shocking. It resulted in advertisements for extra staff to meet needs at third level being withdrawn. Staff for positions that were to be advertised will not now be sought. I was in college 20 years ago, but I understand from staff at third level that there are twice as many students as then but the staff numbers and library and general facilities for students are the same. There is talk of a Celtic tiger, but third level must operate with the same number of staff as 20 years ago. This brings home to me that although millions are being spent, in reality, the education system is tottering under huge stress and strain. The morale of people involved in education is very low, but that is not surprising. For example, the third level grants system is the worst supported system in Europe according to a German survey. It stated that Ireland has the worst record in Europe in that regard. A huge amount of improvement is needed, but the Estimates will not address the needs in this area.
I thank the Minister and the spokespersons for their contributions. In accordance with the timetable, we will proceed to consider the Revised Estimate for Vote 26.
Regarding subhead A1, there is an estimated increase of £8 million for this year in comparison to last year's outturn. How much of that is due to the national pay increases and how much is related to additional staff? There is an increase under subhead B6 for in-career development. Is it the Minister's intention to move towards a system that will provide such training outside school hours? Subhead B19 relates to the Commission on Child Abuse. Does the figure of £1.8 million include an allocation for the compensation tribunal? Is it the Minister's intention to provide compensation for those who were victims of abuse in day schools?
The Minister referred to student exchanges when discussing foreign activities. The number of people taking up places on the ERASMUS programme has been decreasing which is unfortunate, given the opportunities it provides for students. One of the main difficulties is that there is no funding provided, other than a travel grant. Has the Minister considered the possibility of providing financial support for students who wish to participate in the ERASMUS programme?
Subhead A7 relates to consultancy services. Will the Minister indicate whether the consultants covered under this subhead were appointed by the Department internally or whether they were appointed by him for personal reasons to carry out research? Will he identify the areas in respect of which they have been working?
Subhead B5 relates to research and development activities. The allocation for this is probably among the five largest, in monetary terms, in the Department's Estimates. Do these research and development activities relate to the making of reports, such as the school transport report etc.?
Like Deputy Shortall, I am interested in subhead B19. Does this relate solely to the costs incurred by the commission in carrying out its work?
With regard to subhead B21, on Question Time in the Dáil last week the Minister indicated that there would be a substantial increase in the number of psychologists operating in the education service. He stated that the figure nationally would be increased from 20 to 72, which is a welcome development. Is provision for this increase reflected in the allocation provided under the subhead or does the 173% increase relate to matters separate from the salaries of and payments made to the personnel involved?
The policy of the Department is not really reflected in subhead B21. It is important to clarify that the psychological service seems to focus on catering for children of lower intelligence rather than those who are in need of psychological help. These two are not always the same. Does the allocation under this subhead reflect a change in that policy or is it still the case that the delivery of psychological services is based on levels of intelligence as it is on the need for psychological help? It could be the case that some very intelligent children could be in serious need of such help, but I understand that they fall between two stools and cannot benefit from what the service has to offer.
With regard to increasing the number of psychologists, those working in the system at present inform me that it relies heavily on psychologists working in private practice. Is the Minister confident that the money provided under the subhead will ensure an increase in the number of psychologists employed by the Department or will we continue to depend on those in private practice? Is there any guarantee that sufficient psychologists will be available to work with children, even if the amount of money provided is adequate?
I thank the Minister for the major increases he has provided. I am also interested in subhead B21. I welcome the 173% increase in the allocation for the national educational psychological service. In light of this and the huge increase already provided for the remedial education service, will the Minister indicate when the number of psychologists working in my county — there is one at present — will be increased?
Subhead B13 relates to the Royal Irish Academy of Music. I never begrudge money being spent on the area of music and the Minister referred to the Cork school of music in this regard. When will a pilot scheme be put in place in County Donegal to provide schools of music there? Perhaps provision will be made in the Vote in this regard in the coming years.
I should reply to the general questions first.
Unfortunately, we must adhere to the timetable, Minister.
Does the Chairman wish me to reply to the specific questions?
Yes. Perhaps we could deal with general comments later. We will just deal with Vote 26 now.
I have sympathy with the request to provide in-service training outside school hours. Many parents are concerned about that matter. However, we will have to consider that issue with the unions involved to see how progress can be made.
The £1.86 million provided under subhead B19 for the Commission on Child Abuse relates to it alone. Whatever is required by the commission will be made available. In comparison, the tribunal will be extremely expensive and the costs involved will run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
No provision is made for it this year.
The Government's position is that the money will be provided as soon as the tribunal comes into operation. If possible, we want it to be up and running before the House rises for the summer recess and we are hoping the Opposition will co-operate in that regard. If the tribunal gets under way before the recess it will be able to carry out its preparatory work from September onwards. It is likely that, if they are made, awards will be dealt with under next year's Estimates. However, the main thing is that we get the tribunal under way. A schedule of fees must be drawn up and I have just approved the appointment of the people who will be responsible for doing this. A great deal of the information they require is already available and this matter will be dealt with in line with the legislation. The money provided under this subhead relates only to the existing commission and its investigations.
Deputy Shortall inquired about financial support for ERASMUS students. I will certainly consider that matter because we should encourage participation in the ERASMUS programme as much as possible.
Deputy Burke inquired about consultants. I do not have any personal consultants or advisers.
There are no matters on which they could put a spin at present.
One would have thought the Minister would have found one.
The anticipated expenditure under this subhead for IT related consultancies is £150,000, for the general public relations aspects of the Department's work it is £80,000, for the strategic management initiative and management changes it is £50,000, for research at third level it is £10,000 and for other miscellaneous activities it is £50,000. That gives a total of £340,000.
The next matter to which the Deputy referred was subhead B19. I have already outlined the position in this regard.
Deputy Sargent referred to subhead B21 which relates to the NEPS, the national educational psychological service. We are moving rapidly ahead of what was the original target in that area. By the end of the year we plan to have 128 psychologists in place, whereas there were only 48 ready to take up positions when we established the NEPS and began the process of recruitment. I accept it has taken time to get matters up and running but this is due to the process which must be undergone in terms of public service and Civil Service appointments. I hope there will be 128 psychologists working in the service by the end of the year. The original plan was to have 200 psychologists working in the service within five years, but we are already well ahead of schedule in that regard.
The Deputy inquired about assessment procedures. In the first instance, urgent assessments are carried out on children with a wide range of learning difficulties. The procedures are based on the needs of children. I accept there are children with high IQs who can also have behavioural problems. The new psychologists will carry out assessments on these children. The problem to date was that there were not enough psychologists available. The new recruits will deal with behavioural problems in children with high IQs.
Deputy Shortall asked a question on Question Time earlier today, but I did not have an opportunity to reply. I can inform her that two weeks ago I provided £1.25 million to pay for assessments to be carried out and for the associated costs involved. The details of this will be published shortly. I received approval to make this additional provision of capital only a couple of weeks ago and we hope to issue guidelines in respect of it shortly.
Deputy Keaveney asked when the NEPS will expand its operations in County Donegal. I hope to be in a position in the near future to outline what NEPS intends to do in the coming year. I want to be in a position to clarify matters as soon as possible. I am conscious of the fact that County Donegal must be included in any expansion and I am sure that will be the case.
With regard to a pilot music scheme for Donegal, the Deputy is probably leading the way in that regard in the county at present.
I am a solo violinist.
We do not want to merely have an academy in Cork, we want music to reach many other areas also. It is important that music is promoted in schools and we are moving in that direction. Some of the money I managed to procure at the end of last year was spent on this, while the remainder was spent on providing computers for the pilot study in 31 schools of students with dyslexia or learning difficulties. I am anxious to extend the teaching of music in schools because it has been shown to aid children in terms of their self-esteem and development.
Did the Department issue a press release recently about the use of psychologists in private practice in the NEPS? Did it state that people who paid for the services of these individuals could obtain tax relief?
I referred to that matter while the Deputy was absent from the meeting. Under this year's Finance Act, tax relief is payable in respect of payments for private assessments. The £1.25 million under the subhead is additional to that.
That is the point I wanted to make. In addition to the money being provided under this subhead, further funding is being provided through the taxation system for this service.
Tax relief could be important to people who are on better incomes. If they wish to make use of this relief, that is fine. We also want to cater for people who cannot afford an assessment.
There is a degree of overlap in the health boards in respect of psychological services. In the past, parents became directly involved and went outside the school system to seek services for their children. Is there any possibility that all psychological services could come under the remit of one Department?
NEPS represents a change from the position outlined by the Deputy. This does not mean that health boards will no longer be involved or will not co-operate with the Department as at present. We are putting in place our own service and, by the time 200 psychologists are employed, this will be comprehensive in nature. We will have a fairly comprehensive service in place by the end of the year. Establishing our own service will allow us to link in a much better way with the health boards, who will continue to co-operate in terms of offering the services of the specialists they employ. The health boards could not cope with matters and it was considered preferable to establish the NEPS as a result.
What is the position vis-à-vis the £8 million increase in salaries provided for under subhead A1?
The reason for this is that there was a large number of vacancies and there was also the effect of the national pay rounds. We will also be filling many extra vacancies. In addition, provision is made for the implementation of the recommendations in the Cromien report. As Deputies are aware, we have been studying the report in terms of considering the general organisation of the Department. We have completed our review and we will spend some money——
How much is it intended to spend on the report's implementation?
Approximately £1 million.
Reference has already been made to the shortage of teachers in primary level education. I obtained a reply from the Minister recently which indicated that there were more than 900 teachers on temporary leave, meaning that there are 640 substitutes in the primary school system. Is it acceptable that 640 substitutes with no teacher training should be allowed to teach in primary schools? How are principals in schools with a large complement of teachers expected to cope? I have visited a number of schools and I know they cannot cope. Students are suffering as a result. How does the Department intend to deal with this matter?
Will the Department provide money for the provision of computers in the homes of children with disabilities? Many children with disabilities are able to attend school but they need access to computers at home. Unfortunately, their families cannot afford to provide them. The Department has indicated that schools can apply for such computers but that they must remain in those schools. That is not acceptable. I am aware that parents have contacted the Minister, through a number of my colleagues in the constituency in Meath, in relation to that issue.
I wish to refer to the school building programme at primary level. I recently visited two schools which were built in 1937. I know they were built in 1937 because the primary school I attended was built in that year and was identical to the two to which I refer. Each school has a small cloakroom in which the secretarial staff work. If anyone visits the principal, the secretary is obliged to leave this room. The number of toilets provided in these schools is unacceptably low.
Since I was first elected, on each occasion a primary school in my area has applied for the building of an extension the Department of Education and Science has stated that it would have to wait to see if approval would be given for the construction of a new school to cater for children living in a major housing development nearby. This was also the case with Nobber vocational school 20 years ago when the Minister of the day indicated that a school might be built at Kingscourt. The latter was never built. In the interim, Nobber vocational school's application was pushed down the list. Will the Minister give a commitment that the meetings requested by the schools at Lismullen and Cortown with the building unit will take place and progress will be made? This will be to the benefit of teachers and pupils who are expected to work and study in unacceptable accommodation.
With regard to school transport, one of the Minister's predecessors, the current Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, stated that there was no need for seat belts on school buses because there was no way 84 children on a bus designed to carry only 45 could be expected to wear seat belts. Everyone accepts that is the case. However, the then Minister stated that these children were insured and that they would be safe. In my opinion, that is not acceptable and those children are not safe. In 2001, we should not allow children to travel in antiquated vehicles. Given the amount of money available in recent years, one would think a programme would have been put in place by one of the Ministers of the day to replace the existing fleet over two, three or four years, if necessary. I recall when Gemma Hussey was Minister a report was published which indicated it would cost £34 million to replace the bus fleet. What would it cost to do so now?
These issues, which are relevant in terms of children's safety and well-being, should be dealt with. The Department of Education and Science has responsibility to properly cater for the needs of children.
Under what heading is the figure relating to the limited pre-school services — approximately 3% of children are in State-funded pre-schools — to be found? Will the Minister explain why in subhead C there is a substantial apparent reduction in capitation grants? I know that is not the case, but why does it appear to be so?
With regard to No. 7 of subhead F1, which relates to the substance abuse programme, it is incredible that less money is being provided this year than was allocated last year. From replies I have received to parliamentary questions I am aware that there is a large number of schools in which that programme is not yet in place. In light of the continuing drugs problem and the younger age at which children in many areas are initiated into the drug culture, why is less money being allocated to this area in the current year?
Subhead F2 deals with library grants. The increase for this year is negligible. Unless a strong focus is placed on providing library facilities, ensuring that all schools, particularly those where the level of literacy problems among children is high, have properly resourced libraries and are creating a book-rich environment in schools, we will not make inroads into reducing the percentage of children — currently 20% — with literacy problems. The amount provided under the subhead is pathetic, particularly in view of the level of resources available to the Government at present.
With regard to subhead H, why has the allocation for salaries and the funding for services for children in care been only marginally increased? The increase outlined will not even meet the conditions of the national pay agreement. Why is the demand for services in special schools for children in care constantly increasing? There have been instances where children who were before the courts and who were referred to Oberstown or one of the other facilities could not be catered for because of a lack of places. Why has a significant increase not been allocated in respect of the salaries and running costs of this sector?
I thank the Minister for the major expansion of the disadvantaged status scheme. Deputy Shortall earlier referred to Fianna Fáil Members running to telephone the principals of schools to inform them of their inclusion under the scheme. I could not have contacted many principals in respect of the pilot programme because I could not have explained why one school in an area was included while another was not, despite the fact that the children attending both come from the same localities. It appears that assistance is now being delivered to those who most need it. I hope the expansion of the scheme will continue and that substantial funding will be provided, particularly to schools in rural areas where many children are disadvantaged because they cannot become involved in after-school activities due to a lack of transport. The schools in question need this extra support.
The substance abuse programme is dealt with under subhead F1. Does the Department liaise with other Departments and the health boards in respect of this area? It appears that many Departments are given funding for substance abuse programmes — be they concerned with alcohol or drug abuse — and I wonder whether matters are falling between stools. In light of the number of agencies to which funding is being given, what level of co-ordination exists between the different programmes?
I welcome the increase in child care assistants. There has been a significant increase in the number of these assistants available to schools and I hope the Minister will continue the good work he is doing in this regard. I hope he will also continue to assist groups such as the I Care group, representatives of which he met in Inishowen. People realise that real progress has been made in respect of classroom assistants.
Subhead K1 deals with the building, equipping and furnishing of national schools. The Minister produced a list of the different capital funded projects that had been expanded and assisted by the establishment of the PPP programme. I note that five new post-primary schools will be built under this programme. Would it be possible to make the money allocated go further through an expansion of the number of PPP projects? Has this avenue been explored in terms of the many schools which must either be rebuilt or have sizeable extensions added?
I would also like the Minister to explain why the allocation for capitation grants under subhead C is less than half of what was provided last year. There is a huge demand for more capitation grants and that makes this more difficult to explain.
Like Deputy Farrelly, I regret that provision has not been made to upgrade and increase the bus fleet, including the provision of seat belts. It will be more difficult to sustain the status quo in terms of Bus Éireann buses, contract buses and private buses. I am not saying we should pay for all private buses, but there is a need to stipulate the rules. If children are to be transported, we need to have the same respect and care for them as we would for adults. That requires seat belts and the adoption of a policy of one person to one seat. The cost of that must be borne in mind and must be part of the day to day running costs of the education system.
As regards caretakers, I spoke previously about the stress being felt by schools as a result of the uncertainty about who would undertake caretaking, cleaning and general administrative duties. It is amazing that subhead E is down from £3.759 million to £3.744 million. That must be seen as extremely irresponsible in light of the difficulties schools are facing and the difficulties with the ending of the community employment scheme. It is hard to justify that.
As regards subheads H and I, which deal with special services for children in care and special educational projects, respectively, the amount allocated to special services for children in care has been increased from £13.207 million to £14.102 million. However, given the huge level of need, as was mentioned by previous speakers, it is hard to see that this has been addressed in any satisfactory way. I live in the area where Oberstown and Trinity House operate and there is no doubt there is a problem with overcrowding. Is this designed to deal with that problem or are we avoiding dealing with the issue? These Estimates suggest we are avoiding it.
As regards subhead F.1.6, which deals with the rent of temporary school premises, it is difficult to understand what premises could be rented, apart from gaelscoileanna. It is disappointing that provision has not been made in that regard. Perhaps it is under the general umbrella of new capital works for gaelscoileanna. The capital allocation for gaelscoileanna throughout the country needs attention. I am sure the Department is inundated with requests to identify and upgrade sites for purchase, etc. The gaelscoil in Ballinasloe in my constituency, for example, is in a rented shop premises. Various Ministers and Taoisigh have visited the gaelscoil in Ballinasloe over the years and said something must be done. However, nothing has yet happened. The same is true of Scoil Riabach in Loughrea, which is worthy of praise. The new respond community centre in the area has been good enough to make its facilities available to provide a gaelscoil in Loughrea. The Minister must urgently identify the centres for which capital expenditure will be provided in the near future. Parents are making great efforts to provide an education through Gaeilge for their children. This area is not included in the Estimates.
As regards subhead F.1.11, which deals with the aid towards the cost of educating children of migrant workers and refugees, a huge effort is being made by teachers in national schools throughout the country to provide these children with an education. However, there is a serious shortfall in the backup required to provide adequate acknowledgment of the different backgrounds of many of the children, apart from the language problems. We need to realise this problem must be addressed as a matter of urgency because the numbers are increasing substantially. These children would not receive an education were it not for the efforts made by many teachers to work with them. We should become more involved in this area.
As regards Deputy Farrelly's questions about substitutes and temporary teachers, in a system with 45,000 teachers there will always be reasons for teachers being away and it is necessary to have substitutes and temporary arrangements. There is a turnover all the time. It is not necessarily the case that these substitutes or temporary teachers are unqualified. While they may often be referred to as unqualified in correspondence and in the media, it may mean they do not have the specific qualifications. People with a degree and a H.Dip., for example, could teach in a primary school, although they do not have primary school qualifications, and they would be referred to as being unqualified. Many of the people who work as substitutes or temporary teachers would have qualifications, although there may be cases where people have few qualifications.
Deputy Farrelly also raised the issue of people with disabilities having computers at home. The computers are used and kept in the school. I changed that recently in a number of cases, particularly where it is desirable for a pupil with a disability to use a computer at home as well. I plan to go further along that line. I agree with the Deputy on that issue. There are cases where, if a child is ill, the health board may provide a computer at home. As regards the issue of dyslexia and the ongoing trial, the suggestion was made that this is valuable equipment and that pupils cannot take it home because it might be taken from them or something could happen to it. That seems to defeat the purpose of helping the children to get over their frustration about their learning difficulties. We must also look at it in that regard. I agree with the Deputy as far as children with disabilities are concerned and I will move in that direction.
As regards the school which was built in 1937 and is now out of date, we are changing and upgrading a number of those schools. The problem is that although the money provided as a result of our general growth and well being — under the PPF we have got a negotiated amount of money resulting in approximately a quadrupling of the funds — there is an enormous volume of work to be done. Not only are new schools and situations required but existing schools with poor facilities, such as the one mentioned by Deputy Farrelly, require funding.
I checked on the 40 schools mentioned in the media. They were supplied to the union concerned because work was being done on virtually all of them. If they embark on a project they must still go through the planning process.
It happens at a snail's pace.
All those steps take time.
Not much has happened to the schools I mentioned.
I do not blame the previous Government for the current situation. We now have more money and more is being spent on education. The schools that have been waiting for funding for six, eight and ten years are ready to commence work. Far more is being done than on any previous occasion.
The reality is that schools are still being neglected.
Deputy Burke may not have been a Member of the Dáil during previous Administrations but I can assure him that more is being done now than was ever the case.
Rightly so.
Although we are doing much extra work it falls short of what is required. Given that we have accepted five new schools, a music centre and a maritime institute under the PPP scheme, Deputy Keaveney asked if we can do more under PPP. The Department of Finance takes the view that given what we have been doing, we should be in a position to proceed further along this route. I am examining ways to top up existing efforts in appropriate cases.
Deputy Shortall asked why the capitation grant was lower. Towards the end of last year the schools pointed out to me that the method of allocating funds meant that they received them too late in the year and they asked if additional funding could be provided to alleviate this. A Supplementary Estimate was introduced to address this. It means that the capitation amounts have all been increased although it is shown differently in the figures referred to by the Deputy. It is possible that a similar measure will be required at the end of this year and, if so, a similar anomaly will arise in the figures for next year.
Does the Minister not accept that if schools are requesting earlier payment the initial allocations are inadequate?
That is covered under the wider question raised by several Deputies about the funds from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the CE schemes. I hope to have this finalised soon. Figures were agreed in the PPF but the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has acted on the basis that people are getting worthwhile jobs and they are not continuing to the same extent on the CE schemes. However, the funds are being allocated to my Department following negotiations on the education aspect. Other matters regarding health and so on are at issue but we have secured agreement to proceed with the education side while the other areas can proceed as they consider necessary. I hope the funds will be transferred and, following that, it will be necessary to devise a system of allocating funds to the schools to increase their capitation and allow them take whatever action they consider necessary. I hope final agreement with the Department of Finance regarding the transfer package will be reached shortly and that this will lead to substantial increases in the capitation grants to schools.
There is concern in many schools that decisions will be taken over the summer holidays when people are away. Is it the Minister's intention to end all CE schemes within schools and to provided direct grant aid for the employment of secretaries and caretakers? What does he see happening over the coming months? The schools with which I am concerned are in very disadvantaged areas and they would employ a number of people in providing security and doing work on the grounds. These are provided at fairly low cost and they include a social benefit and a materials grant from FÁS on which the schools often depend.
In the fist instance it is not for me to decide. Following the PriceWaterhouse report these schemes are being phased out. I was aware of the consequences and it was agreed that the funds would be transferred to my Department. The teacher unions, in this case the INTO, have been involved in the discussions. There is an agreed arrangement and the main task now is to get it started as soon as possible.
Agreed arrangements can appear to be very sensible and be satisfactory to all parties, including the unions, but the disadvantage aspect must be considered. I note the Deputy's comments and we will do our best to address the points she raises. I hope we will be in a position to proceed shortly in this area.
The funding under the capitation grants has been more than halved. Is this because the Minister is anticipating additional funding from the transfer of the CE schemes?
I already explained that there is no change to the capitation fund.
The Minister said the capitation grants would be substantially increased. Is this being done in anticipation of funding allocations agreed with the Department of Finance and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment?
That is a different issue. In response to Deputy Shortall's question a moment ago, we discussed the capitation situation and the fact that schools looked for advance payment because it is normally paid later in the year. I agreed to pay it before the end of last year to facilitate the schools and, consequently, it does not appear in this year's Estimates because we put it in as a Supplementary Estimate last year. That is the explanation. There are two separate matters. The rates of capitation were increased this year and last year. I know there is a lot further to go, but these were very substantial increases. The schools have got those increases but they are now seeking a further increase. That is where the other funds come in. Some of those have been phased out already. Accordingly, we are anxious to get the transfer completed so we can top up the capitation grants.
Sorry to interrupt you, Minister, but we have two other Votes to deal with.
On the rents aspect, very briefly, the Department is currently grant aiding 69 all-Irish schools, eight multidenominational schools and 288 ordinary national schools — a total of 365 schools. I wish to clarify that it does not apply only to gaelscoileanna. With regard to the question about non-nationals, all non-national pupils are included. I have seen many of them doing very well in schools and adding to the multi-cultural aspect of the schools. All non-national pupils are included in establishing the staffing entitlement of the schools. Additionally, every school with 14 or more non-national pupils who have significant language difficulties is entitled to appoint an additional full-time teacher. Where smaller numbers of non-national pupils are enrolled, support is given by means of a grant in the case of primary school pupils. An initial grant of £500 is paid in all cases where a full-time teacher is sanctioned. Where additional accommodation is required as a result of enrolling non-national pupils, all costs of such provision are funded by the Department, including site works and furniture. Further support is provided by the refugee language support unit. In summary, there is strong support and it is working well.
Are there any questions? We need to move on to Vote 28.
Some of the questions raised were not responded to in the time available. Could the Minister arrange to provide a note for Members on those matters?
Certainly.
The issue of caretaking and maintenance is a big one in many private second level schools. It is very costly and there is an inequity relative to other categories of second level schools which must be rectified. Bigger schools are fine but the smaller schools are seriously disadvantaged.
Second level schools are a separate issue. I appreciate the point made by the Deputy and it is a question of funding of second level schools. As I have said, it is my intention to move towards trying to equalise the situation in relation to the report.
We are now on Vote 28. Deputy Shortall.
On subhead B, capitation to second level schools, could the Minister explain why that amount is down? I do not recall advance payments being made. Also, in subhead H.3, aid towards cost of school books for second level students, there is only a paltry increase; indeed, there is no increase in real terms. I wish to stress the huge financial impediments to the participation of low income people in second level schools. Unless we are prepared to provide the level of support which is needed for clothing, footwear and books, it is inevitable that people on low income will drop out of secondary school because they just cannot keep up with the cost. I ask the Minister to look at that again. There is no increase at all on last year in that item.
In No. 8, guidance activities, there is a tenfold increase. What is the explanation for that? I know there were some additional career guidance counsellors appointed, but nothing like the number required. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
I welcome the extension of the early school leaving scheme to 2002. From the experience of the pilot zone in my area, the expansion will be very welcome. Is the project being evaluated and, if so, how and when is this to be done? I note the decrease in relation to secondary schools' clerical services and I hope the proper recognition can be given in that regard. I am glad the bonus for choirs and orchestras, under subhead B.4 has increased. How is that allocated? Could the Minister provide a geographical breakdown? Does it tend to go to people who are already well equipped?
I take the opportunity to commend the Minister on the new second level school in Moville which will open on a temporary basis in September, and on his tremendous work in the secondary schools sector.
I referred earlier to the inequity in grants between the various types of second level schools, including vocational schools, community colleges and comprehensive schools, etc. Where amalgamations are on offer in an area, the Department should be lenient in recognising the ethos of the participants in the schools concerned. I welcome the Minister's response to a recent deputation which I accompanied in relation to the Banagher schools amalgamation. There is a certain fear of the imposition of a particular category or label which would be against the ethos of the former private secondary school. I urge the Minister to recognise those concerns, as I am sure he will.
Under subhead H.3, as Deputy Shortall has mentioned, there is a very small increase in aid towards the cost of school books at second level. At a time of plenty, that needs to be reconsidered and increased with a view to introducing a substantially extended range of books in second level schools. Other attractions such as television and IT may have their place but an extension in the range of books is essential for a proper approach to education.
Amalgamation may be a good thing in many cases, but if the schools are in different towns it is not always the answer to bring them together. There should be support for rural schools whether or not they are stand-alone schools.
In reply to Deputy Shortall, it is the same situation with capitation. The question of low income, clothing, footwear and books touches two areas — that of social welfare and that of my Department. I will convey the Deputy's views to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. On the question of low income, we have discussed the "Giving Children an Even Break" scheme which was based on "Breaking the Cycle." The essence of that was to aim at particular pupil-teacher ratios, to reduce them substantially and to provide equipment for various activities such as art material etc. The "Giving Children an Even Break" scheme was extended throughout the country and 75% of schools came forward. Very few schools have come forward since then and obviously did not want to be a part of the scheme. Some later wanted to become a part of the scheme, however, and were told to send in their appeals. These go to the Department and to the Education and Science Research Centre.
Some other schools came in on an objective basis; perhaps that basis was too objective. The allocation of teachers was aimed at getting the best solution for those highest up on the list, and then to work down gradually. The 204 teachers available were allocated before we were far down the list. It might have been better to spread them further down the list. There was a substantial theoretical approach and we were told to build on that. There was a plan to be prepared and a director of disadvantage to be appointed. All that is now coming into operation as a support. Teachers have been trained and the scheme is being spread and developed. It is a comprehensive attempt to progress from the good pilot studies which were a part of "Breaking the Cycle," and to spread it more widely. That is in train at the moment.
Deputies also raised the question of guidance counselling. Fifty extra guidance counsellors are being taken on. Those posts have been allocated to the schools on the basis of plans for guidance, in an attempt to find innovative ways of dealing with the guidance issue. This will, I hope, ensure that it is not just a question of allocating somebody, but that there is a plan which will help students.
There was a question about choirs and orchestras under subhead B4. The bonus is paid on the basis of the results of an adjudication on the performance of schools choirs and orchestras. The amount of the bonus is dependent on the size and type of choir. The rules provide for payment of two classes of bonuses — first and second class — together with an additional award for proficiency in sight reading. Grants are also provided for the purchase of musical instruments by schools wishing to start an orchestra and take the Department examination for the first time. The instrument purchase provision is probably what Deputy Keaveney is most interested in.
Are schools aware of that?
Yes, but whether they are very conscious of it is another matter. They were made aware of it. In the case of schools with an established orchestra, grants are available towards the purchase of instruments to expand the scope of the orchestra and the replacement of existing instruments.
On the question of Moville, I look forward to that starting in September. Deputy Ulick Burke raised the question of amalgamations and recognition for the ethos of schools. This refers also to a point made by the chairman. We do not force amalgamation but try to get people to agree to it. In that context, I appreciate the point made by the chairman and I understand his position. In relation to Deputy Burke's situation, where schools are coming together and there is the possibility of VEC and community involvement, there is also the question of taking people's views into consideration. We must be sensitive and sympathetic to those who have provided education over the years. It would be wrong not to look at the situation in that light.
It was mentioned that amalgamation benefits the Department. That is true, but the main aim is to benefit the students. It is possible to give a more comprehensive service in many cases. If that were the case, it would not be necessary to look so hard at such situations. Students and parents will ultimately demand this and we must be slightly ahead and able to anticipate it. I accept the points made by the Deputy and agree with him.
On the question of aid toward the cost of school books, is the Minister confirming that there is no real increase in this allocation? Is the Minister aware of the cost of school books? For a child starting second level schooling, the average cost of school books is £250. That is more than one week's income for some families. The Minister has said that he is to provide no additional income for children from poor families. That is startling.
This refers to a figure provided this year for this subhead.
Which is for no increase.
It is for a small increase.
There is no increase when inflation is taken into account.
The problem is that the number seeking assistance has gone down. The number of pupils in schools has gone down.
They have walked away from a system that is too expensive for them to enter.
Exactly. It is not a situation where there are fewer people interested in the scheme. Instead, they are not interested in a scheme that is stacked against them. The need is far greater than it has been previously, but the scheme does not allow for greater participation. It is unfortunate that fewer people benefit from this at a time when people are as poor as before. Relative poverty still exists but people are denied.
As the Deputies will know, the scheme works through the school principals. The demand is reflected by the principals. I am only setting out some of the relevant factors.
The children have got the message.
A1 of vote 26 — Office of the Minister for Education and Science relates to higher education grants. It is scandalous that, in real terms, there is no increase in the allocation for third level grants. We have seen from recent figures that the percentage of students on grants is declining steadily each year. At a time when we should encourage more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay on in school and participate in third level education, the percentage of students on grants is declining. At one point the figure was 2% but is now closer to 1%, which is no wonder when there is so little support from grants. If, by some miracle, parents who work in manual factory jobs and earn less than £12,000 per year manage to get a child through first and second level education and into a third level college, the child will not be entitled to a grant. It is scandalous that children of parents whose combined income is under £25,000 are not entitled to a grant. Perhaps the Minister will give us some indication of the steps he intends taking to try to achieve better third level participation rates among those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The current approach being taken regarding grant schemes is inadequate.
There have been improvements in the special hardship fund this year, as outlined in subhead K. Can the Minister give a breakdown of the difference between the hardship fund and the special fund for students with disabilities? How much of the increased allocation this year will go to each of the funds I have mentioned?
I agree with Deputy Shortall's remarks about higher education grants. Trainee nurses receive substantially higher maintenance and book grants than other students and the Minister should bring all student grants to those levels. I understand their circumstances are not identical, but maintenance grants are totally inadequate for most students. This problem has been added to by the third Bacon report, which has caused rents to increase. Many students will be unsuccessful next September or October when they seek private rented accommodation because they will be unable to afford its escalating cost. It behoves the Minister to take on board the inability of many students to maintain themselves on the current grant rate. Some of those who have applied to go to third level colleges are reconsidering their decision because of the high costs involved and the total inadequacy of the maintenance grant. I hope the Minister will make an early announcement regarding a total revamp of the grants system.
With the exception of the targeted programmes mentioned by the Minister, I have never seen such massive cuts as those in subhead B2 dealing with the Higher Education Authority non-capital grants to colleges, universities and other institutes of higher education. Every one of the grants has been savagely reduced. I am not sure if this is a replica of what we were previously told about capitation grants, but it is unacceptable that NUI Galway's allocation has been reduced from £42 million to £24 million and that a pro rata reduction has been made to the sums received by other colleges. The targeted programmes are the only ones to have received an increase of any importance. Those managing universities thought they would be adequately catered for. I ask the Minister to explain the reason this measure has been taken, as there must be some explanation. Perhaps some of the moneys were allocated earlier in the year, but if not, I ask the Minister to justify this unacceptable decision.
The total cost of student support schemes in 1999 was £82 million. As Deputies are aware, there are other schemes for disadvantaged students. An interdepartmental group is looking at grant levels and income criteria and its results are expected within the next six weeks to two months. The report of the third level access study task force has been examined and quantified and I hope to take it to Government soon.
Deputy Shortall raised the matter of subhead K and the breakdown of its figures. A sum of £3.5 million has been allocated towards the alleviation of disadvantage, which represents a great increase. The Deputy mentioned that some schemes have increased substantially, as was my intention when dealing with disadvantage. Some of the new schemes and provisions involve those in universities identifying the students in need for which we have provided a lot of funds.
Does the Minister have the breakdown between the two funds?
I may have to send the Deputy a note, although I think I may have given some of the information she seeks in written replies.
Deputy Ulick Burke made two points, the first of which concerned the fact that some universities appear to have received less money in 2001 than in 2000, but that is not the case. Unless the numbers attending university decline rapidly and substantially, Deputies can remain confident that I will not reduce the allocations to universities. It can be seen in subhead B.2 that there has been an increase of 15%, from £368 million to £408 million. The question of how this money is to be allocated is also dealt with in the subhead. Free fees have to be included in this figure, but we will not know how the moneys for them have been distributed until later in the year when we will know to which universities young people choose to go. It is quite complicated.
Why is the figure relating to NUI Galway down from £42 million to £24 million? We do not know what percentage of the free fees and targeted initiatives we will get.
The asterisk on the bottom line of the subhead relates to the free fees initiative, for which £119,674,000 is to be given. When NUI Galway is given its proportion of that sum, its figure will increase greatly. That is the reality. Underneath that it states that these amounts will be allocated to the institutes in the course of 2001. The 2000 outturn figures for institutes include amounts in respect of free fees and targeted programmes. Those two lots at the bottom, Nos. 11 and 12, have to go——
Even if they get it proportionately, as mentioned earlier, there are ten colleges. If it is divided in some way, no matter how we look at it, University College Galway will get twice as much as others in order to ensure parity with the previous year.
That would not be the case. They will all be up by 11% on average. It is really a problem of expressing it, and that is what the——
It is obviously a problem.
The overall figure is up and there is no discrimination against Galway.
Will the Minister supply a specific figure on that some time in the future? When will it be available?
About November.
If we are still involved at that stage, perhaps the Minister will do that.
On the question of the nurses, the nurses are health service employees. That is the reason they have some top-up from the health services sector. We have had long debates about whether they will be in the system. They are in it now. It is starting formally, and they are coming in as health service employees.
And they have a reasonable standard of maintenance grant, much more attractive than that for ordinary students.
They would work for some part of that course as well. It is not comparable.
Does the Minister wish to make any concluding comments? They will have to be brief.
I would like to thank the Deputies for their comments. I have tried to answer their questions. Obviously the points raised by them are key issues on which we have to do much more work.
From all our points of view, under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and social partnership, substantial additional funds have been made available to education. From the discussions which have taken place here, it is obvious that we can use more funds. The areas which should be given high priority in that regard have been highlighted by Deputies. I thank them for their contributions.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their explanations but I could not agree to Estimates that do not have any provision for upgrading the existing school transport service. Also, we have to wait another six weeks for maintenance grants that are totally inadequate and for which, as of now, there is no provision for an increase. For that reason, I oppose the Estimates.
We are only considering the Estimates today. The Dáil will approve the Estimates or otherwise. I will refer to that later but we will not be making a decision on the Estimates.
The other night I attended a graduation in my constituency. I spoke to one of the teachers who knew some of the students well because he was their form teacher in first year. He started off with 30 students in a class and of that 30, four graduated at leaving certificate level. The others fell by the wayside; 26 out of a class of 30. That is the story of many schools in my constituency, the Minister's and many of the disadvantaged parts of urban areas. That is the real challenge. The Minister said much more needs to be done. We have a long way to go before we get anywhere close to equality of outcome in our education system, which is what people should be entitled to as citizens of the country, regardless of their background. The Minister has accepted that much more needs to be done. Much more money needs to be secured to do that, and I wish the Minister well in the discussions leading up to the Estimates for this year.