On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, and his officials to the meeting. This meeting has been scheduled to consider the Supplementary Estimates under Votes 27, 28 and 29 — Department of Education and Science. I remind committee members that we are considering these Supplementary Estimates only. Members may not suggest increases or decreases and the debate should be confined to the specific subheads referred to in the brief, a copy of which was circulated with the agenda. The proposed timetable and additional copies of this brief, together with the Supplementary Estimates and the Minister's speech, are available if required. I ask members to agree the timetable handed out for today's proceedings. Is that agreed?
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 27 — First Level Education.
Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education.
Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education.
What timetable?
I will ask the Clerk to circulate the timetable.
Is it a Government timetable? How are we to cope with the Order of Business in the context of this timetable?
Does the Deputy mean in terms of a division?
In terms of the Order of Business, full stop.
We will suspend the meeting if we have not completed everything before the Order of Business in the Dáil.
We will work within the limitations. We will try to finish before the Order of Business.
We will suspend the sitting if we are not finished. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I now call on the Minister to address the committee.
Supplementary Estimates for three of the Department of Education and Science group of Votes which total £193.033 million are required for the year 2001. The net amounts required for each Vote are as follows: Vote 27, First Level Education — £53.3 million; Vote 28, Second Level and Further Education — £76.5 million; Vote 29, Third Level and Further Education — £63.233 million.
These Supplementary Estimates arise for several reasons. I intend to arrange for an early payment of capitation grants for primary and secondary schools in respect of the 2000-2001 school year. These payments would normally be made in January or February of next year. Capitation grants, which total almost £42.3 million, will be paid before Christmas in order to improve the cash flow of schools, many of which have had to incur higher than usual costs in recent months.
The standard primary capitation grant which stood at £45 in 1997 has increased to £80 per pupil in the current year and will be further increased by 10 for the next school year. At second level, the capitation grant has increased from £177 per pupil in 1997 to £202 per pupil for the current year and will also be increased by 10 for the next school year. These developments will make a very significant contribution towards improving the financial position of schools.
I wish to make an additional £15 million available in capital funding for first level schools in the current year to maintain the momentum of improvement in this sector. This will bring the allocation to over £107 million this year. This is almost four times the 1997 Estimate allocation which was provided by the previous Government and enables continued progress to be made in developing and modernising first level school buildings.
An additional sum of £2 million is required to meet the cost of extra special needs assistants in primary schools. Since taking office, the Government has undertaken an unprecedented level of development in special education services. This development is ensuring that all children with special needs within the primary system now have an automatic entitlement to a response appropriate to their disability and location. More than 2, 500 additional special needs assistants' posts have been sanctioned to date under this policy.
I am seeking a total of £13 million for Votes 27 and 28 for ancillary services such as secretarial and caretaking support to facilitate the phasing out of the community employment schemes in first and second level schools. Responsibility for the operation of CE schemes in schools lies with FÁS. In line with a PPF commitment to mainstream certain essential services provided under CE, I recently secured the transfer of £46 million per annum to my Department on a phased basis between now and 2003, as the FÁS school based CE schemes come to an end. The availability of this funding has enabled me to make significant progress in relation to the provision of secretarial and caretaking services to schools by putting in place an equitable system of funding for ancillary services throughout the free education school sector.
Proposals for the distribution of the moneys received this year at primary and post primary levels have now been finalised. In the case of primary schools, I am increasing the grant for caretakers and secretaries from £40 per pupil per annum to £100 per pupil over this school year and the next. With immediate effect, the grant will be increased from £40 to £60 per pupil. This will be further increased to £80 per pupil in January. As a result, the minimum grant to be paid to schools with 60 pupils or fewer will increase from £2,400 to £4,800, while for schools with 500 pupils or more it will increase from £20,000 to £40,000 per annum.
At second level, the extra funding will be allocated to schools under the school services support fund which I introduced last year. With immediate effect, the grant will be increased from £20 per pupil to £50 per pupil per annum, with a further increase to £70 per pupil next September and to £78 per pupil in January 2003. While provision for support services, including secretarial and caretaking, is a particular focus of this fund, schools have discretion, in line with that available in relation to per capita grants, as to how this additional funding is best utilised in the interests of their pupils. These increases are in addition to the provision made to schools for secretaries and caretakers under separate schemes.
I am appointing consultants to examine and advise on transitional arrangements that may affect some schools during the process of the withdrawal of CE schemes. In the discussions that took place in connection with the transfer of funding, I agreed with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and FÁS that all school based CE participants with a legitimate expectation of up to three years participation in a school based CE scheme will be facilitated to complete their full term. This adjustment to the phasing out of CE schemes in schools means that certain CE participants may be entitled to continue working on CE in schools up to and including 2004, depending on their individual circumstances and entitlements under CE. This adjustment should also ensure that the withdrawal of CE schemes takes place on a more gradual basis.
An additional provision of £6 million is required for the primary and secondary teacher pension subheads due to the need to provide for a higher than anticipated number of pension payments and for technical accounting factors related to the earlier payment date in December for teacher pensions.
Supplementary amounts of £51.5 million for Vote 28 and £28.8 million for Vote 29 are required. These shortfalls arise because receipts from the European Social Fund, projected to be received by my Department as appropriations-in-aid for Votes 28 and 29 before the end of 2001, are approximately £80 million lower than originally estimated. The Supplementary Estimates rectify this shortfall which is due to a longer than anticipated delay in the closure of the 1994-99 round of Structural Funds and delays in my Department receiving the eligibility guidelines for the 2001-06 Community Support Framework.
I am seeking a sum of £17.876 million for subhead M1 of the TLE Vote of which £13 million is required to provide funding for the purchase of the PJ Carroll's factory in Dundalk, County Louth, for use by the Institute of Technology, Dundalk. The proposed sale of the Carroll's property offers a significant opportunity to address many issues in Dundalk Institute of Technology in particular, but also in the north east region generally. The Dundalk Institute of Technology has in excess of 3,000 students enrolled. The current campus is small and limits the ability of the institute to respond to requests for additional courses in areas where there are skills shortages and other Government priorities, for example, apprenticeships and nursing. The campus is in need of substantial investment to bring the quality of its facilities up to the highest standards.
At present the only way to provide the Dundalk institute with the required additional accommodation is to build on top of the current buildings. This is expensive and would be significantly disruptive to the day to day running of the institute. The completed buildings would not be ideal for academic work as their design is limited by the necessity to build upwards. The estimated cost of the development upwards on the existing buildings is of the order of £55 million and would take up to ten years to complete.
The purchase of this property will enable the institute to complete its campus development more quickly and will facilitate a broadening of the range of activities to suit local industrial requirements. It is estimated that the overall development on the new site would be Exchequer neutral as savings against the current campus development plan would offset the cost of the acquisition of the Carroll's site.
The additional £4.876 million sought under the subhead is required to meet costs in relation to the planning of the public private partnership projects at third level and additional capital costs in the institute of technology sector.
I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate of £13.425 million for subhead B2 for the current expenditure of the institutions funded through the HEA. The additional sum relates to pay and superannuation amounts which were not included in the original Estimates. The principal non-pay item is a payment to the universities in relation to VAT on research paid by them on research under EU framework programmes which they have not been able to recover. Supplementary amounts are also required mainly for pay increases for the Dublin Dental Hospital and the Royal Irish Academy which are funded through separate grant-in-aid subheads. Under subhead C, £2.372 million is required for the institutes of technology, principally in respect of pay awards to directors, senior administrative grades and general operatives.
The publication of the abridged Estimates for 2002 and the budgetary process for next year has, as Deputies will be aware, already resulted in my Department being in a position to implement further significant improvements to the benefit of all levels of education. The Supplementary Estimates which we are discussing today show that during the current year, it is proposed to allocate additional funding beyond an already generous provision and this involves a number of welcome developments. The Government has made education a top priority for its term of office and these Supplementary Estimates are further evidence of our commitment to the sector. They underpin an unprecedented level of funding for developing and improving current and capital provision and they allow for substantially increased allocations for pupils with special needs. The additional activity for which the Supplementary Estimates will provide will serve as an excellent foundation for further improvements, which we will be able to implement in the coming year. I commend the Supplementary Estimates to the committee.
I want to take up where the Minister left off. On the second last page he refers to the abridged Estimates for 2002. One of the major concerns of those involved in education is the 850 schools building projects winding their way at a snail's pace through the Department of Education and Science. The reality of the abridged Estimates for 2002 is that there is, effectively, a cutback in the provision for schools building projects in 2002. We will have to wait until the budget is presented tomorrow to see the true colour of the Government's money in this regard. In the Book of Estimates there is, effectively, a cutback in this sector.
The Minister's reference to making this issue a priority bears closer scrutiny. He cannot resist being deliberately provocative in referring to the level of funding in terms of capital allocations by the previous Administration which handed over to the current Administration the first Government surplus since the mid-1950s. In four short years it has blown the boom times and has very little progress to show in the education sector. That is the reality.
Although the additional £15 million investment in the primary sector is welcome, are we satisfied that we are getting value for money in terms of the way it is spent and the way in which schools building projects are conducted and supervised? I am frustrated beyond belief at the approach of the Department and the Minister to this matter and have referred the issue to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because of the standard replies now issued to any queries about schools building projects and their current status in the Department. We receive generic replies applicable to any school in any given location and which refuse to acknowledge the specific points being raised in parliamentary questions. That is an abuse of parliamentary procedure in respect of which the Minister is treating Members of the House with contempt. A reply about a school in west Cork is the exact same standard reply as that about a school in County Donegal, Laois or Wexford. That is not acceptable.
The Cromien and Deloitte & Touche reports published a way of making progress. I believe firmly that we are not getting value for money. We have failed to implement the findings of both reports in a substantial way. We need to have a far more aggressive use of public-private partnerships to catch up in terms of schools building projects. I acknowledge that more money is being spent where capital is concerned, but it is nowhere near enough. We have started to provide additional learning support teachers, but find them teaching in corridors.
Many of the 850 schools building projects involve relatively small financial commitments. We should be empowering boards of management to be the client rather than having prevarication involving architects and the planning process. If one empowers boards of management to be the client, I am sure one would have far better value for money in projects, up to a certain threshold at least. I accept that, in any of these changes, the public purse has to be protected. However, we are certainly not getting value for money in this respect at present.
One has to tell boards of management, teachers and parents of pupils in primary or secondary schools that proposals for building projects are now taking six years on average to wind their way through the Department's bureaucracy — six years from when the Department recognises a problem to the actual cutting of a ribbon on a new school. That period involves a full stream of students passing through secondary school. The average time is six years. In many cases, it takes the time in which a full stream of students passes through primary school before buildings are up and running. There are 850 schools building projects throughout the country and we are not making the progress we should be making.
The IT grant is not referred to in the Estimates, but is now one of the most promised launches involving the least action on the part of the Department. It dates back to his predecessor, Deputy Martin, when a sum of £85 million was promised during his term in office. Schools have yet to receive an allocation for last year or this year under the IT initiative. The Minister pays lip-service to the importance of IT and computer literacy in schools, but unless he gives schools the wherewithal to embrace new IT developments, we will not make any real progress. We spoke about the three Rs — reading, writing and arithmetic. In terms of the era in which we live, computer literacy is as important, if not more so, than any of the three Rs.
I want to deal with the funding pertaining to the Higher Education Authority which is now responsible for the funding of institutes of technology which, it has to be said, on a daily basis are limping from one crisis to another, whether it is Limerick Institute of Technology, which has a cloud hanging over it concerning its management and examination structure, or the institutes of technology in Athlone, Letterkenny and Tralee. There is a serious crisis in this sector.
The Department, in conjunction with the HEA, needs to put in place some kind of quality management initiative for institutes of technology, many of which have been overwhelmed in recent years by an enormous growth in numbers. Staff were given management roles without any proper training or qualifications, as a result of which many are floundering. The institutes are quagmires of discontent and mistrust between sections of their staff. That is regrettable because they have a very significant role to play.
There is an excessive hangover from the VEC days and perhaps excessive politicisation of institutes of technology. That is the reason the Higher Education Authority should assist them with some kind of quality management initiative to enable them to deal with the crises in which they are now engulfed. That is not to overstate the matter. The Minister knows how many reports are in his Department from various institutes of technology dealing with various crises that have arisen.
The institutes of technology have a very significant role to play in third level education, but are not being given the necessary support and backup to enable them to play this role. As I said, they have had an explosion in numbers where enrolments are concerned. However, they do not have the necessary management expertise or structures to enable them to deal with this. Transferring their funding directly from the Department to the Higher Education Authority could well see them become the poor relation of the third level sector in comparison with universities if we do not assist them in terms of the provision of a necessary management initiative.
We are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate of almost £200 million in a relatively short period. It is not enough time to scrutinise it adequately. Some of the additional developments and requests for additional money testify to the failure of the Department to plan adequately. If one examines special needs education in particular, one will see that an ad hoc approach is rampant in the Department. There is additional funding available, but the Department is running scared ahead of court proceedings. It has failed to introduce legislation in this area. In the aftermath of the Jamie Sinnott case we were promised a special education council to deal with special educational needs, but have heard nothing since last August. We were promised a Bill pertaining to education for people with disabilities. That legislation has yet to be published. I acknowledge that there are genuine and committed people working in this area in the Department of Education and Science as well as in the school building section but the structures in the Department are not adequate to deal with the changing times we live in, particularly in the areas of school buildings and special needs. We must radically overhaul the administration of the Department and the Minister has two blueprints for that on his desk. The rate of progress in implementing those blueprints has been very slow.
In the past few months, there has been an explosion of anger and frustration at board of management meetings. If one looks at the Dáil Order Paper, there are more questions for the Department of Education and Science than for any other Department. That is because boards of management cannot get answers from the primary schools building unit and their next ports of call are the constituency clinics of Oireachtas Members. Our next step is to table parliamentary questions to the Minister which, as I said, are being dealt with in a very shabby fashion. We cannot get information.
We must break out of this vicious circle. The Minister has a blueprint for the way forward in the two reports on his desk but, regrettably, very little progress is being made.
I want to start with the overall funding situation, as the Minister is very fond of telling us on a regular basis how much more money he is spending than was spent five or ten years ago. We must compare like with like and the best way to do that is to look at the percentage spend of GDP. There is no doubt that over the term of this Government the percentage of GDP spent on education has been falling fairly dramatically from about 4.7% four years ago to about 3.8% this year. That represents a substantial amount of money and is a clear indication that our education services are not keeping pace with the social and economic development in the country. From that point of view, the Minister and his predecessor have not been particularly successful in securing adequate funding for education services. The evidence of that is available for everyone to see in all of our constituencies, whether it is in schools struggling to make ends meet to pay basic overheads like insurance, cleaning costs, heating and so on, or schools which are operating out of totally inadequate and, in many cases, unsafe and inappropriate school buildings. We do not often see footage of that kind of thing.
The Government talks about its achievements over the past four and a half years but the fact is that very little progress has been made in terms of bringing our education system up to modern standards, a standard commensurate with the economic growth we have seen over the past few years and the opportunities that growth has provided. The fact is that much of the benefit of that growth has been squandered as the Minister has not invested where investment was needed, in our social services, and we are left with a legacy where there is a downturn in the economy. We have not used the opportunities of the past few years to correct many of the deficiencies in the system.
I want to ask about capitation as there now seems to be a standard practice to bring forward payments of capitation to the latter part of the current year. That seems to be an acknowledgement that schools simply cannot survive on the kind of capitation funding that is available. Each year we are trying to make up for shortfalls in the funding by bringing payment forward. What are the Minister's views? It is sometimes hard to get the Minister's views and I share Deputy Creed's frustrations in trying to engage with the Minister on education matters. The standard blanket response seems to be: "Sure we're doing grand and look at all this extra money we're spending," without getting into the core issues that are raised and without giving us his own views.
What is needed in education more than anything else is some kind of vision of what it is we are trying to ensure the education system will provide. We have not heard anything about any possible vision the Minister may have. I would like him to talk to us about the kind of funding schools require. Capitation increases for next year are pretty miserable in the context of the money available for other projects. The £8 per pupil per year is a miserly increase and many schools indicate that the capitation available to them at present only meets about 50% of the cost of running the schools. The principal, teachers, other staff and parents must divert huge amounts of time into fund-raising, an activity totally separate from education.
This imposes major burdens on all those involved in a school community as more and more time and effort must be put into running cake sales, quizzes and sponsored walks just to pay the basic bills such as cleaning costs, insurance and so on, not for extras and luxuries. At this stage in our economic and social development I would have thought we would be at a point where the State would meet the full running costs of schools. Is it the Minister's intention to do that at all or is he going to continue to have an arm's-length involvement in schools, where he continues to provide small increases in capitation on an incremental basis? By doing so he is essentially starving the education system of the necessary funding and it will never catch up or reach the modern standards which parents and pupils have a legitimate right to expect.
Regarding capital projects, it seems to continue to be the case that this area is a black hole. Schools which need major refurbishment or a new school building make an application and the application vanishes. They hear nothing from the Department until they write and write again, then they get onto their local Deputies to table parliamentary questions. Sean Cromien drew attention to the extra burden of work that puts on Department officials but the fact is there is no transparent system there for dealing with applications for capital funding. If there were, schools would know where they were on the waiting list and when they could expect to have the work done. There is no transparency whatsoever in the building programme. For example, where is the long-promised database on school accommodation? The Minister has alluded on a number of occasions to the need to have priority listing of all applications for capital projects but where is that? Has he given it any thought? It is frustrating to try to find out what stage an application is at. One is simply told it is being considered and that staff do not know what stage it is at; they do not know if there are 100 or 700 or two applications ahead of it. Schools are left in a limbo where they have no idea what approval they can expect from refurbishment or building work.
The Minister's proposals regarding CE amount to playing around with figures and shifting funding from one Department to another with a lot of smoke and mirrors and no real improvement. The Minister has robbed Peter to pay Paul with his CE funding proposals. He has brought about improvements in some schools, generally schools in better off areas, at the expense of disadvantaged schools which previously had caretakers and secretaries under the scheme and up to 15 CE participants doing all kinds of other work essential for schools in disadvantaged areas such as caretaking and maintenance work, one-to-one reading, running breakfast clubs. The Minister is robbing schools of such essential services and transferring money to schools that are, generally speaking, better off, which does not represent progress.
The Minister referred to the appointment of consultants, but I do not know what he expects them to do. It seems he is postponing the day when it will have to be made clear to the public that children from poorer backgrounds are being penalised in order to improve facilities in wealthier schools. It is an absolute scandal and it is only a matter of time before the Minister's actions are exposed in the public arena. His approach reflects that of his predecessor, who tried to claim all kinds of credit by frequently coming up with measures that were thinly spread across the board. Little or no targeted measures have been put in place to improve the general performance of children in disadvantaged schools. Figures make clear that there has been no progress in relation to illiteracy and virtually no progress in relation to retention rates. We are going backwards in terms of the participation rates of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in third level education.
The Minister said that an extra £6 million has been allocated for pensions, as requirements are higher than anticipated. How was such a mistake made and why is there such extra demand? Where is the £81 million that was earmarked for the IT 2000 programme, which was launched with a fanfare on several different occasions? When will the Minister try to recapture the momentum that was created when the programme was announced? Teachers have become frustrated during the last year and a half as the developments for which they were preparing hit a brick wall. Where is the programme going and where is the money?
There is a problem with building programmes. The Minister seems to be a fan of public private partnerships and I have noted the plans that were recently approved. I ask the Minister to outline the advantages, as he sees it, of public private partnerships in terms of the provision of school buildings. Will the Minister indicate how the construction of schools by private developers will work? What are the implications of that in terms of ongoing maintenance? Who will be responsible and for what period? Can school authorities be guaranteed that the issues will be dealt with satisfactorily?
I concur with the points made by Deputy Creed in relation to institutes of technology. A strong indication of the serious problems that exist in such institutes is the rate of non-completion of their courses by students. Recent figures indicate that 42% of those who attend institutes of technology do not complete the courses they commenced. The human cost of dropping out midstream includes disillusionment and the fact that many people will never return to third level education. There are significant costs for the taxpayer, as money is being poured down the drain. What proposals, if any, does the Minister have to reverse the trend, which is an indictment of the education system?
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a gabháil leis an Aire as an méid a dúirt sé, ach ní leor é. The Minister's speech did not go far enough as these Estimates are incomplete. The amount of investment in the education system that comes by way of routes other than the Department of Education and Science has already been mentioned. Members of the Oireachtas are frequently called on to contribute to various events which raise funds for schools. Many parents are asked even more frequently to make such contributions. Given that we have been told we cannot increase the Estimate, it is important that we acknowledge that funding for schools increases as a result of allocations from voluntary sources, which have nothing to do with the Department and which amount to much more than the money provided by the Department.
In many ways, the Minister has passed the buck in relation to caretakers and secretaries. He mentioned that the matter is relevant to FÁS, but it is important that the Department of Education and Science faces up to its responsibilities in making sure that schools do not just have teachers, which would be a good start, but that they also have the necessary ancillary staff to allow teaching to take place and to allow children to be educated and to live with dignity. We have yet to reach the point in Irish education where the necessary supports are put in place and the Minister should aim to ensure this happens soon.
There is a need for improved communication with other Departments. As a Member for Dublin North, the issue of safe routes comes up frequently. The Department should push local authorities and the Departments of the Environment and Local Government and Public Enterprise to ensure there are safe routes to and from schools. Whatever about the upside of the Celtic tiger, the downside of it has been that children are getting much less exercise than once was the case. Parents do not believe that the Department has looked beyond the school gate as it will not give assurances concerning the safety of children travelling to and from school. They have to arrange other means of transport as they are no longer willing to allow children to travel alone.
The question of the type of school buildings being constructed has been completely overlooked. Short-term thinking is evident in the buildings that are being put in place. When I asked its architects about the energy efficiency of school buildings, I was told that the Department of Education and Science was not really interested as a different Department is responsible for energy efficiency. If schools are to be asked to raise funds to maintain buildings and to pay for heating and other basic facilities, the Department should demonstrate foresight by providing a level of energy efficiency to make the job manageable, but this does not seem to be happening.
I wonder when we will see the fulfilment of the promise made in the PPF to appoint a high level official to deal with Traveller education as it has not yet happened. It is not something that will affect the Estimates, but the Minister is obliged to do it as part of the PPF. The sanctioning of new teachers is another matter not directly related to the Estimates, but the technology available to the Department should make it possible to sanction teachers based on a more recent enrolment than that of the previous September. It can be frustrating for schools that the Department deals with figures which may be out of date. The Minister could deal with the matter without upsetting the Department of Finance, as all it requires is a little more expertise in dealing with current figures.
The continuing problem of teacher shortage at primary level is not helped by the fact that salary equity does not exist. The continuing problem of teacher shortage at primary level is not helped by the absence of salary equity for qualified teachers and unqualified teachers who may be in the process of becoming qualified. Teachers who train in other countries should have to undergo a probationary period here during which they should receive equitable pay. A date should be stipulated by which time these teachers must reach their colleagues' standards, for example, in regard to proficiency in Irish. The absence of salary equity prevents many new teachers coming into the system and a little bit of imagination could successfully address the matter.
The CABAS centres for children with autism are still awaited. The Minister's predecessor promised five centres but these have not been established. There is a need for greater concentration in the area of primary education. Notwithstanding the fact that most children proceed to secondary education, some 800 children still leave school after primary level.
Science teachers frequently comment on the Department's failure to address the shortfall in science teaching. Only 11% of leaving certificate students choose to study chemistry. There is a need for greater investment in this area.
We seem to await the development of crises in our education system before we tackle problems. In 1972, there were 11 bunleibhéal Gaelscoileanna and we now have more than 139 such schools educating in excess of 23,000 pupils. However, there has not been a corresponding growth in the number of meanscoileanna lán-Gaeilge. The Minister should focus capital resources in this area.
At third level, increased capital investment is required in campus accommodation. Ireland has the worst record in the EU in this area, matched by a similarly poor record in the area of maintenance grants. A table produced by USI shows Denmark, Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands and Finland all rating higher than Ireland in terms of public financial support for higher education students as a proportion of GDP. Ireland contributes at a rate of 0.29% of GDP compared to Denmark at 0.63%.
It is not simply a matter of supporting those students who proceed directly to third level from secondary school. Part-time adult learners and mature students still only account for 5% of overall student numbers at third level, a pretty appalling statistic compared with other EU figures. We pride ourselves on our level of education and our resultant ability to attract investment. If we cannot adequately address the issue of adult education, we should not make such a claim. The Government's performance in regard to access to higher education must be examined further as its performance to date has been poor.
Adult education requires its own heading in the Estimates. I tabled a parliamentary question on 11 October and received a promise that the area of adult education would be re-examined in the context of the Estimates. Has this happened? Capital funding is not currently provided for adult education organisations and the Minister informs us that it will not be provided in the future either. This is disgraceful as it essentially means that adults who wish to take up or continue education will have to sit on children's chairs in the schools. The recommendations of the White Paper on Adult Education published in August 2000, Learning for Life, should be implemented and I would like to know what action the Minister is taking towards this end. I have spoken to people who are delighted with the level of education provision in the Prison Service and who, in many ways, are sad to leave prison due to the absence of free education outside the prison system. The point is worth reflecting on.
On the capital programme for primary education, some 40 primary schools were identified as being unsuitable for human habitation during the past two years. I tabled a question to the Department on three occasions about one particular school, yet nothing has happened. How, then, can the Minister refer to "wonderful progress"? This is an insult to Deputies who table questions and boards of management and parents' associations which work so hard to fund-raise for these projects. Will the Minister indicate at this stage whether we can expect any progress in this area under his stewardship?
Will the Minister indicate the average EU figure per pupil for the standard primary capitation grant and will he outline how our level compares with it? Deputy Burke referred to the 40 worst school buildings in the country, two or three of which are located in my constituency. In fact, I attended one of them. Have these 40 schools been prioritised or is the Department focusing on other schools which are not among this number?
The committee received a number of interesting presentations this year on outdoor and activities education and its link with primary education. Is there any recognition of this from a capital funding perspective?
On special needs education, I note the additional figure of £2 million. Does this represent the fulfilment of the blank cheque promise? Perhaps I misunderstand the allocation. I would be happy to accept correction on this point because I really hope the £2 million figure does not comprise the Government's response to the special needs sector. I take it from the Minister's reaction——
It is just a supplementary.
Does the Estimate include the overall figure for the published outturn for the last financial year? I take the Minister's contribution at face value that payments are being brought forward to deal with cashflow problems in primary schools. However, bringing these payments forward from next year would also ease the Minister for Finance's arithmetic. Is it standard practice to bring such payments forward, or what is the reason it being considered this year?
Deputy Coveney mentioned the 40 schools referred to by the INTO. I appeal to the Minister to do something to restore the primacy of the Oireachtas in terms of policy making in such areas. There is a report in today's newspapers that the INTO is threatening strike action in a number of schools because of the inadequacy of the buildings. If we are to be relevant, action should be in response to issues raised in the Oireachtas. I do not know whether the Minister will respond, but the House has become redundant in many respects through social partnership and deals between Government and the employers, trade unions, farmers' organisations or whatever. It appears that the Minister will have to dance to the INTO's tune and move on specific schools projects.
Is the £15 million included in the Estimate a response to the INTO? The House should also be seen to deliver occasionally. Will the Minister take this point on board in respect of education decisions? Is the £15 million is respect of commitments already given? Has it anything to do with the recently announced public-private partnerships?
To clarify the procedure, Chairman, I take it the Minister will respond to questions raised in the opening statements under the relevant Vote.
Yes. We are dealing with the first level, but there will also be concluding comments.
Several issues have been raised in the opening statements to which, I take it, the Minister will now respond.
Yes. Will the Minister respond to those questions?
Which questions? Are you referring to the most recent questions?
The questions relevant to this Vote.
I will have to go back through the notes.
The Minister is accompanied by four officials.
Some questions related to the Vote while others did not. Various members asked about the 43 schools mentioned by the INTO. Deputy Creed asked the reason for following the INTO and others. The 43 schools are included on a list drawn up by the INTO, but one could draw up various lists from around the country.
A number of issues apply in this regard. There is a minor grant system which can be quite substantial and allows for the carrying out of much of the minor works referred to in the newspapers. It is confusing when one considers that such minor grants would facilitate such work. That is the reason the grants are disbursed to schools.
The INTO regularly refers to rat-infested primary schools. This makes for good newspaper headlines, but as in any domestic, commercial or industrial setting, problems with rodents are more likely if food debris is left lying around or if hygiene or pest control polices are inadequate.
Is the Minister satisfied with the situation?
The most structurally sound buildings can suffer from problems with rodents.
That is because they do not have caretakers.
It does not necessarily follow that a rodent infestation requires the construction of a new building. Moneys are provided for many of these items. However, there is also mention of specific issues raised by the INTO such as hand washing and drying facilities, heating, the replacement of windows and doors, and water supply.
What about the 40 schools?
The devolved capital grant for primary schools is specifically provided to deal with such issues. However, that is separate from the issues Deputies normally talk about which are major school building projects. Each school receives an allocation to deal with minor works. This is part of the devolved grant which most schools find useful for the carrying out of minor works.
The 43 schools are frequently referred to in the media. Work on all of these schools is at some stage of progress. Some schools require a site, and the work on some is completed. There are various stages and work on some of the schools is at the architectural planning stage. These schools will be dealt with.
When?
The work will definitely be done, sometime.
Work is in progress.
The Minister will be gone.
The Deputy refers to 850 schools, but work is in progress on 470 schools. A total of 470 primary building projects are under way ranging from refurbishment of existing schools to new schools.
On a point of order, Chairman.
No, Deputy. If I allow one point of order I will have to allow others.
What does the Minister mean by "under way"? Are we mixing mortar or whatever?
They are all being progressed.
Are we drawing them on pieces of paper?
Deputies have raised questions about schools being concerned, responses to parliamentary questions and so on. This process was driven by an Opposition Deputy who said that there was a freeze. There was no freeze, but as soon as this statement was made everyone got upset and those waiting for a site——
The Minister replied that there was a freeze.
There is not, nor was there, a freeze. People panicked because of the impression that was given that there was a freeze.
There is a freeze in so far as there is no increase in the funding for capital projects.
There is movement in regards many projects at the moment. I was asked what the situation would be next year. In reply to parliamentary questions I stated that, in some cases, work is nearly finished and that others were at the planning or design stage or whatever. I cannot state the pace at which such projects will progress until the Estimates are agreed. I have the Estimate for the public-private partnerships and can take out five state-of-the-art schools.
That is five out of 850.
It is important for the major schools involved.
The Minister should publish a list.
I will know the complete situation after the budget. There is nothing unusual about this. It is the same process every year. The Minister has to wait until the final Estimate before he or she can stipulate how much extra work can be carried out in the following year. There is no question that the projects under way will be continued.
Surely——
One moment, Deputy. Is the Minister finished?
Various other questions were asked.
The Minister's reply is at variance with his officials who are telling boards of management that no progress can be made on specific projects. That is what boards of management are being told by the Minister's officials and not by Opposition Deputies.
Deputy, please allow the Minister to finish.
The Deputy is unwise if he takes the view of anyone other than the Minister on this issue. Under the PPF our capital allocation was to decrease this year. An official will deduce that, under the national development plan, the figure is to go down this year. However, that is not how I see it because of the various issues we have discussed. Therefore, the basic original Estimate did not go down.
Did it go up?
It remained static, so in real terms it went down.
Deputy Burke raised a question and I outlined the factual position. First, we were scheduled to go down lower but that did not happen. We are continuing. From the official point of view, that is something they would not have been anticipating.
Second, no approval had been given for PPPs. We had PPPs ready from September. There was no approval but I got the approval. Deputy Creed is making a sign at me to signify five schools.
What about the other 845?
This is the first time we have had PPPs in this sector and, consequently, it was a very important development in principle. The principle of the PPP has been accepted and I will be in a position to solve some of the other large problems, which require a lot of money, through the use of PPPs. This will leave me with money for smaller projects, particularly those mentioned by the Deputies.
Will the Minister have the money in the lifetime of the Government?
I have not seen what is in the budget. We can come back after tomorrow and talk about the overall situation.
I do not wish to argue with the Deputies because I appreciate that there are many schools throughout the country which are in need of development, expansion and rooms for special needs. We are giving priority to that but there is a huge amount to be done. I accept the point made by Deputy Shortall about 1997. Not much money was available in the years before that. However, there is such a backlog and such an amount to be done that a great deal of money is now required.
We all agree that there is much to be done. However, the Minister does not seem to have a modus operandi. He talks about 850 schools. Why not publish the list? There is no point in saying a school is at planning phase. What does that mean? Schools are at planning phases for donkeys’ years. A school may have to wait for up to ten years to get a new building. Why does the Minister not publish the list, say exactly what stage each project is at and provide his priority list?
That is one of the systems we are developing.
There seems to be no criteria for selecting schools, other than political ones.
No matter what one does about overall figures, people are interested in their own school in their local community.
Exactly, and they want to know when they will get their new school.
We are responding all over the country. There is an unprecedented rate of development. Some £370 million is being spent.
There has been no increase.
I notice Deputies made no reference to the fact that I have succeeded in getting a major property with 45 acres attached for the Dundalk Institute of Technology. That is one of the items in the Supplementary Estimate. This is a major development and one which should be welcomed.
I reinforce the case made by my colleagues by reference to two schools in my own constituency which are in a deplorable state. I refer to Yellow Furze national school and to the primary school at Bellewstown. The Minister may be aware that Bellewstown is where Daniel O'Connell held one of his monster meetings seeking repeal of the Union. The people of Bellewstown are not particularly happy with the performance of the Department of Education and Science. This school was identified as needing an extension as far back as 1983. It was approved for an extension in 1986 but at that stage money ran short, as I am sure we all remember, and the work did not proceed at that time. It has not gone ahead since. Successive Governments have been in office since that time, including one in which I, myself, was involved, so nobody can be proud of this record regarding the building of an extension to the Bellewstown school. The school is in a very bad state and I ask the Minister to treat it as a matter of urgency.
It is difficult to pin the Minister down on factual information. He said 350 schools of the 850 are in progress.
There are 470 schools in progress, and we are paying for each phase of that progress.
What does the Minister mean by "progress"? There is no point in telling a board of management that a new school is at the planning, design, contract documents or tender stage. The only progress that matters to a board of management is to see a building contractor on site. How many building projects are at the construction stage?
I do not have the figures here. There are 470 building projects, ranging from refurbishment of existing schools to new schools, in progress at the moment.
Can the Minister define "progress"?
These projects are at various stages of architectural planning, from initial site report to pre-tender. There are also projects which have already gone into building and are beyond the pre-tender stage.
How many are being built at the moment?
As of 20 November, there are 73 in construction. These are the projects which are valued at more than £250,000. That is a historically high level of activity. There was never anything like this before. In the past, there was usually about 24 or 25 schools at any given time.
I suspect that many of the primary school building projects arise from the appointment in recent years of additional learning support teachers and are probably extensions consisting of one classroom or a classroom and a staff room.
Has the Minister any proposals to empower boards of management to become the client, contract locally, design their own schools and take all the paperwork for projects under a certain budget out of the hands of the Department so that the Department merely signs the cheque, provided it is satisfied that the taxpayer has got value for money?
Will the Minister undertake to provide us with the information he has in front of him? Will he publish a list of all 850 schools, indicating the stage at which each one is in order that everyone knows where individual projects stand and Deputies can avoid the charade of tabling questions to try to find out if there is any hope of a school being refurbished in the next decade?
I asked the Minister a direct question. What is the EU average of standard primary capitation grants and how does our figure compare with that?
I endorse Deputy Shortall's comments. The Minister and the Department would benefit from publishing such a list. Such transparency would show that there is a resource problem and this would assist the Department in its negotiations with the Department of Finance. It would also lead to a measure of realism being expressed by everyone concerned.
If a list is published I hope the Minister will avoid using phrases such as "at an advanced stage of planning". This term has been frequently used in replies to parliamentary questions. I have had occasion to tackle the Minister, at least in the County Meath newspapers, which I know he reads, about using it in regard to Clonard national school which has been at an advanced stage of planning for the same length of time he has been in office.
I hope there will be a precise list giving clear indications as to what stage a school is at. There should even be a points system indicating how schools are prioritised and what weighting is attached to each one. If there can be a points system for housing and in examinations, why not have one for schools refurbishment? It would improve the situation.
This would go against the traditions of the Department where everything depended on how well the parish priest knew the relevant officials. His regular trips to officials in the Department, via Wynn's Hotel, were a key factor in getting schools built. We have moved on from this and can afford to be more open with the public. We no longer need to rely on the subtle charms of parish priests, but on transparent open lists that set out objectively——
They travel to Tullamore.
The catering would not necessarily be as good in Tullamore as in Wynn's Hotel.
In conjunction with the list outlined by Deputy Shortall, will the Minister also publish a list on the progress achieved at primary level for each of the past five years? It would reveal his inactivity on this issue.
And that of his predecessor.
That may be.
The Minister is not as good at PR.
I have no problem with publishing information. I will seek to provide a full statement.
On the list of 850 major capital projects.
Projects valued at £250,000, 317,000, or more are regarded as major. At the end of 1996, 22 projects were in progress, five of which were valued at £250,000 or more. As at 20 November 2001, there were 73 primary building projects valued at £250,000 or more in construction or about to commence. Sixty of these projects were approved in 2001. This is an historically high level of construction at primary level.
Approximately 1,000 grant approvals have been given to primary schools in 2001 in respect of minor projects, that is, those below £250,000 in value. They include those undergoing refurbishment. Expenditure to date in 2001 on minor primary level projects amounts to £25 million. There is much activity in this area, but I accept Deputy Shortall's point and will see what can be done after the budget.
We are concerned here with the list of 850 major capital projects, which according to the Department are currently in progress, whatever that means. For the third time I ask the Minister if he will give an undertaking to publish the list of 850 projects in his Department.
It is over 800. It is approximately 840 to 850 projects.
That is the list we are addressing.
Correct.
Will the Minister give an undertaking to publish it?
I said I would do so.
The Minister said he would consider publishing it.
No.
Will the Minister publish it?
I will prepare a list and publish it.
Will it be before Christmas?
After the budget.
What is the position regarding the average EU capitation grant?
I will get that information for the Deputy.
Are there any comments or questions on Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education?
Has the Minister considered the question of insurance for voluntary secondary schools, given that community, comprehensive and vocational schools all have departmental insurance cover? Will he consider it for the future?
Will the Minister outline what has happened to the schools IT programme and the recently announced funding of £81 million?
I expect shortly to make an announcement regarding the schools IT programme. Much work has been done on the next phase to try to have it well directed. The National Centre for Technology and Education has done much work and engaged in wide consultation with teachers throughout the country to get the package right. It is now complete.
Two years later.
It will be ready in a matter of weeks.
What about the funding of £81 million?
That part of it allocated for this year will be dispersed.
How much of the £81 million has been spent? The programme was announced two years ago.
That is not the case.
It was announced in December 1999.
The amount due to be paid this year is £21 million. It will be allocated before Christmas. A similar amount is due for payment next year. It will be allocated early in the year, probably in February. The purpose of the consultation process was to consider how the money should be spent. That is the reason the NCTE became involved. It was established to do this work.
We are fed up waiting
There will be an announcement within the next ten days.
Will the Minister outline the position on insurance?
The capitation grant provides, among other things, for insurance. We have also introduced a special support grant. Second level schools are free to use it in whatever way they wish. There have been considerable increases in capitation funding. Next year there will be a considerable increase in overall funding. The sum of 10 million is only an addition to the funding of £46 million.
The sum of £46 million is not new money. It is transferred from another Department.
No. It is new funding to many schools.
It is taken from other schools.
The CE schemes were being wound down.
That was a U-turn.
They were wound down because there was less demand for them, fewer people availed of them.
How many?
A significant number. I can provide the figures, which have been made available to Members previously. There has been a major drop in participation.
That is because the Department was not providing money for secretaries and caretakers.
The number had decreased from over 5,000 to approximately 3,800 some months ago. I managed to obtain the full £46 million relating to the 5,000 people in question.
The Minister should not claim that is new money because it is not.
Will the Deputy please listen? It is new money because the people in question will receive it every year from now on.
They previously got it under a different guise.
Members should listen. A large proportion of that money was already gone.
It was not gone.
It was. The figure had decreased to £32 million. That was all that was left.
This is like the three trick.
No, it is not.
Will the Minister please be up front about this matter?
The initial figure was £46 million. However, the number of people applying for CE schemes decreased dramatically and the figure then dropped to £32 million. However, we managed to obtain the full £46 million and that has been invested in the fund. That money will be provided to schools not on a CE scheme basis but on a continuing basis. This means that they will receive it this year and that it will be built on next year and in succeeding years. In that sense, the money has been given to all the schools.
I now come to the question of schools that are using CE schemes for other activities not relevant to the secretarial and caretaking area. I have set aside £2 million in a separate fund to deal with anomalies of that kind.
Have the consultants been appointed?
It is in the original Estimate. It will be provided next year and, therefore, we do not need to introduce a Supplementary Estimate in respect of it.
I asked if the Minister had appointed the consultants.
I apologise. I am informed that interviews are currently being held.
It was important to ensure that people could complete their three years. That was a matter of urgency and action was taken in respect of it. In relation to the extras — I am aware that some VEC schools took people on for extras — it is a matter in the first instance for FÁS to make a decision in that regard. I know of certain institutions to which FÁS sent people on CE schemes to study film studies, for example. It is a matter for FÁS to decide whether it wants to allow people to continue to pursue such studies. These issues have to be dealt with as matters proceed.
Once the three year programme was put in place, people were satisfied that they could do what was required immediately. However, questions arose with regard to what would happen to some of the cases to which I refer. We want to do the quantification now——
What about those under 35?
——and have the study carried out in order that we will be in a position to react when this issue comes to the fore.
Were the Minister and his officials not aware of the high dependency of schools in disadvantaged areas on CE schemes? They seem to have been taken completely unawares. Ignoring film studies, schools rely on CE schemes to facilitate the study of basic maintenance, to allow breakfast clubs to be held, to allow one-to-one reading to take place, to facilitate other caretaking work that is not funded by the Department or to allow other secretarial work to be carried out because the grants provided by the Department are not sufficient to pay for the services of even a part-time secretary. Was the Minister not aware of the extent to which schools depended on those additional staff to survive?
Of course I am aware of the matters to which the Deputy refers and I am concerned about them. However, these allocations were agreed following long consultation with the teacher unions and the boards of management.
The buck stops with the Minister.
I know.
The INTO does not always have the interests of disadvantaged schools at heart.
The wisdom of boards of management has to be taken into account when deciding what action to take and a great deal of consultation took place in that regard. As already stated, I have set aside separate funding for any emergency situations or anomalies that are identified.
Under which scheme?
What about schools which, since September, have lost people who were doing essential work and whose one year of participation in CE schemes came to an end?
Three years.
No, they did not get three years if they were under 35.
We want any of those cases reported to us.
To be dealt with by consultants who have not yet been appointed? That is of no use to schools.
They have been virtually appointed.
Some schools have not had the services of essential people for three months.
Even though it may seem simple to the Deputy, there are very tight controls and regulations governing the appointments procedure.
I am forced to ask what kind of understanding the Minister has of what is happening in our schools.
Even though the costings are quite small, once the amount for the entire package is over £5,000, a reasonably detailed process must be undergone.
The Minister is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Is the Minister stating that there is emergency funding available under the CE schemes?
No, it is slightly more complicated than that. When transferring the funds, I set aside £2 million to deal with any emergency situations or anomalies that might arise. Emergency situations have not yet been brought to our attention but I believe they will in the future and we want to have funds available to allow us to deal with them. That is why we want the study carried out. We have been in communication with some of the schools to which Deputy Shortall referred.
I wish to return to the IT 2000 grant of £81 million. Will the Minister indicate the number of occasions on which the NCTE, the national council for technology in education, has met in the past ten months? A comment which has been put to me, with which I find it difficult to disagree, is that, ultimately, what has been achieved by the IT 2000 initiative is that money was thrown at schools to allow them to purchase hardware. The original objective was that every school would have an Internet connection and every teacher would obtain IT training, but no structures have been put in place to facilitate the continual development of students or additional educational achievement in the area of technology.
I am aware of one pilot project — funded by the NCTE — which deals with the use of information technology to assist people with disabilities in education. How does the Minister propose to mainstream the findings of that pilot project and use them for the benefit of children with disabilities throughout the country?
The NCTE is the National Centre for Technology in Education. This body meets all the time and deals with schools on an ongoing basis.
Is there a council?
No. The National Centre for Technology in Education has representatives throughout the country who provide assistance to teachers in developing and organising courses, etc.
With regard to the assertion that money was thrown at schools to allow them to purchase hardware, it was for this reason that we wanted to be clear about where the money from the second tranche would go.
Who is advising the Minister on where the money should be spent?
The National Centre for Technology in Education is my main source of advice.
What about the national policy and development committee?
A report from that committee is due next week.
How many times has that committee met?
I cannot say.
Would it be true to say it has not met at all?
It must have met, a report is being published next week.
Before we move on to deal with third level and further education, I note a vote of congratulations to the Tánaiste on the occasion of her marriage is taking place in the Dáil. As the Tánaiste comes from my parish in County Galway, I would like, on behalf of the committee, to congratulate her on her marriage and to wish herself and Brian the very best for the future.
I would like to be associated with those remarks.
We now come to the Supplementary Estimate for third level and further education.
Will the Minister comment on the point I made in my opening remarks regarding the institutes of technology in general? The provision for the purchase of a premises in County Louth is to be welcomed. The institutes of technology seem to be limping from one crisis to another and there does not appear to be sufficient management expertise available to them. That needs to be tackled urgently given that they have been thrust centre stage in the provision of technological graduates. The numbers in these colleges have exploded. It behoves all of us to ensure that the public and student bodies do not lose confidence in the institutes. How does the Minister propose to address that issue?
The Education Research Centre has completed two comprehensive studies on the extent of non-completion in the universities and institutes of technology. Following these studies, I requested the Higher Education Authority to host a national seminar on course completion in higher education. That seminar which was held in May provided an opportunity to consider the issues and trends arising from both studies against international experience. The need for qualitative research into the factors influencing non-completion was highlighted at the seminar. The Education Research Centre has been requested to undertake qualitative research in the university and technological sectors to identify the underlying causes of non-completion with a view to developing and improving strategies to deal with that issue.
In the institute of technology sector, the council of directors has established a national committee on retention with representatives from each institute to focus on maximising success rates for students. Additional funding has been provided to the technological sector to address the area of non-completion since 1999. That funding has supported the appointment of retention officers and school liaison officers, the provision of additional advisory services including counselling, academic support and career guidance, the establishment of staff training seminars, upgrading of orientation programmes and the expansion of mentoring programmes.
Perhaps I could repeat my question as the Minister has answered a different one. A number of the institutes of technology appear to have crises of various proportions on their hands. The issue of non-completion is probably symptomatic of a greater illness in the colleges. I accept the Minister has work in hand in that respect.
Let us take the Limerick Institute of Technology and the O'Hanlon report as an example. There is a similar problem in Tralee Institute of Technology where a temporary director is now in place. Problems have also arisen in Athlone Institute of Technology and Letterkenny. I could list many others. It appears that this relatively new third level sector is limping from one crisis to another. These institutes have exploded in numbers and people have been thrust into management roles for which, it would appear, they do not have the necessary training — many former teachers are now running third level colleges with enrolments of up to 10,000 pupils and staff responsibilities for hundreds of employees and budgets of millions of pounds. There is an obvious deficit of management skills. That is not a reflection on the individuals involved, it is a reflection on the explosion in numbers and the fact that we have not provided people with the necessary management skills to deal with the roles and responsibilities thrust upon them. One could make a similar point about principals in primary and secondary schools. It almost appears as though the Department of Education and Science takes the view that God is good. We do not give people sufficient training. Something must be done if we are to retain public and student confidence in the institutes of technology. What does the Minister propose to do in this regard?
A number of inquiries are ongoing. The public service is a vast area and inquiries will be required from time to time. People must be given the opportunity to put their case and natural justice must be followed. Most of the incidents referred to are isolated ones. I accept the broader point which the Deputy makes. Taking the overall management situation, we are supporting the council of directors in the provision of management training. That is how we operate.
Are there proposals to deal with this issue or is it viewed as something which the Department or Higher Education Authority should sponsor?
It is sponsored by the Department of Education and Science through the council of directors. I am not sure what they currently have on-line for management but I know they are running many courses for people in middle management. Deputy Creed is referring to top management. I will look at what is happening in that regard. The Department would have no hesitation in providing the resources required for top management training.
Deputy Creed also referred to training at primary level. There has been a huge increase in training at primary level. The education centres are forming valuable bases and centres throughout the country for such training.
That concludes our consideration of the supplementary Estimate in respect of the Department of Education and Science. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting and I thank Members for their valuable contributions.