Vol. 5 No. 2
I welcome the Minister and his officials, Mr. Seán Harkin, finance officer, and Mr. Alan O'Neill, assistant principal, to the committee. We will be joined shortly by the Secretary General, Mr. John Dennehy.
As the Minister has a later engagement I hope to conclude the meeting by 5 o'clock. Is that agreed?
We will facilitate the Minister if he facilitates us.
I am sure the Minister will do his best.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the education Estimates for 2002. This committee provides an important forum to reflect on education policy, priorities and the allocation of resources.
The revised Estimates for 2002 provide for gross education expenditure to increase by nearly 14% to over 5.4 billion compared to expenditure in 2001. This increase will allow for very significant improvements in the education sector and will enable me to build on the considerable progress the Government has made at all levels in the past five years. These Estimates provide significant extra funding for all areas of education. They underpin an unprecedented level of funding for developing and improving current and capital provisions and are a clear demonstration of the Government's undeniable commitment to education. Since coming to office the Government has increased funding for education by over 85%.
The Government has made more progress than any previous administration in developing special needs services. We have committed unprecedented resources to this area and the 2002 Estimates provide for further increased resources. For example, there is a 70% increase in the allocation for 2002 for the subhead for special needs assistants compared to 2001. When we came to office, children with disabilities had no automatic entitlement to special education services. In 1998, the Government decided that all children with special educational needs in the primary system should have an automatic entitlement to a response to their needs, irrespective of their level of need or location. As a result the number of resource teachers supporting children with special needs in primary schools has increased tenfold from 104 to over 1,000 and the number of special needs assistants supporting special needs children has increased eight times from approximately 300 to 3,000 whole time equivalents. This is the biggest increase in the history of the State in support for children with special needs.
Deputy Moloney took the Chair.
Until the Government took office the State did not even recognise the distinct educational needs of children with autism. These children are now being catered for in special dedicated classes, each of which caters for a maximum of six children and has a teacher and at least two special needs assistants. Until 1999, there were no special classes for children with autism in our primary schools, but there are now 89 such classes and additional classes are established on an ongoing basis. I also made funding available to support a range of pilot projects which are dedicated to the use of the applied behavioural analysis method of educating children with autism. There is also funding to support the extension into July of education programmes for children with autism. The Government funded the appointment of a dedicated escort on every transport service carrying special needs children to special needs classes and schools. The 2002 Estimates provide for the establishment of a national council for special education, which will have its own chief executive and staff and will ensure the effective delivery of special educational services as well as providing research and expert advice.
Traditionally, the various sectors within second level education have been funded through different arrangements which resulted in anomalies, particularly in the way that back-up services, such as insurance, cleaning arrangements, secretaries and caretakers, to the different school types at second level have been funded. As Minister, I worked steadily to reduce these anomalies and that has been recognised by school management authorities. Last year, I began the process by increasing significantly the range of grants for voluntary secondary schools, with particular emphasis on improving secretarial and caretaking support services. The 2002 Estimates provide a further substantial funding measure for these schools in the free education sector. With effect from September next, the support services grant for voluntary secondary schools will be increased by 28 per pupil, bringing the grant, which I introduced in 2000, to a maximum of 116.88 per pupil, an unprecedented level of increase. It is in addition to the range of grants announced in December last for secondary schools of up to 44.44 per pupil and a maximum 15,554 per school.
The Government has already invested substantially under the schools' IT 2000 initiative to ensure that every pupil will have the opportunity to achieve computer and Internet literacy, and be equipped for full participation in the information society before leaving school. While exceptional progress has been made, we recognise that ICT is a growing and changing environment that requires continual investment to keep pace with new developments, and improve our knowledge of and familiarity with ICTs. The Government has made a further and unprecedented commitment, from 2001 to 2003, of an investment of 108 million, of which more than 35 million is provided in these Estimates, to enhance significantly ICTs in all first and second level schools. This will ensure that teachers and students remain at the cutting edge of international innovation and development in ICTs. The principles underpinning the initiatives are a major development of wiring networking infrastructure in all schools, the introduction of broadband access to the Internet a significant lowering of the computer-pupil ratio, the further development of the teaching skills to integrate fully ICT into learning and teaching, and the facilitation of software multi media resources development for use in schools.
In specific terms, the objectives and strategies of the new plan are 78.72 million in capital grants for first and second level schools with priority for special needs students; 29.2 million for support services, including teacher training; the development of ICT school plans to meet individual school needs; locally based teacher training; the development of educational web resources; a new scheme of innovative ICT projects; collaboration with other European countries; partnership with the social partners, industry and the broader community, and feedback from schools to determine future priority. An unprecedented 78.72 million in capital funding will be invested in all schools for state of the art development of infrastructure, which will include development of wiring, networking and the provision of broadband access to Internet.
Under the plan, every recognised first and second level school in the country is guaranteed substantial levels of funding. In particular, in 2001 and 2002, every school will get a basic grant of 1,905 plus 19.05 per pupil for hardware, software, networking and wiring, which means that a primary school with 250 pupils will receive 13,332 in the first two years of the plan and a secondary school with 500 pupils will get 22,860 over the same period. The capital allocation is more than 337 million which is provided for in the Estimates. Every year since the Government took office, we invested massive sums of money in modernising the education infrastructure. In 1998, we spent 133 million on first and second level capital, an increase of 45% on the 1997 level of spending. In 1999, we increased it to 194 million, an increase of 113%. In 2000 it went to 255 million and last year we increased spending again to more than 316 million, or 244% of what it was in 1997.
There is no escaping the reality that we have placed the highest priority on the improvement of school buildings and have consistently and substantially increased capital provision throughout the education sector. Some comparisons demonstrate what we delivered. In 1997, there were 30 primary school projects under way and, in contrast, there are currently 84 primary school projects either in construction or in tender with construction about to commence. At second level in 1997, there were 12 projects valued at 637,000 or more, compared with a record 125 such projects in 2001. There has been a considerable increase in investment in this area and last year I approved more than 1,350 capital grants for primary schools compared to 750 in 2000, while the figure for 1997 was 420. The value of the grants approved in 2001 was 126 million compared to 57.5 million the previous year, of which 31 were in excess of 1 million.
I categorically state now that work is proceeding and will continue to proceed on all current projects consistent with the progress made externally by design teams, local authority planning processes and all the other factors that influence the pace of development. The level of capital funding in 2002 is 153.6 million for primary buildings and 183.7 million for post primary schools, a total of more than 337 million. We will add to this the projects to be undertaken through public and private partnerships. This funding will be used to meet the cost of projects already on site, new projects ready to go on site, and new PPPs. The educational landscape does not stand still and the building programme must change and adapt to meet emerging curricular and other needs. Over the past five years, we have extended the programme to meet many of these and to include 3,500 extra teachers. The Government has invested significantly in education, in terms both of human resources and programmes and the building programme has kept pace with developments.
The 2002 Estimates contain substantial increases in the allocation for adult education, which will enable substantial progress to be made this year in implementing the white paper on adult education, "Learning for Life". It sets out a comprehensive range of measures and strategies for long-term development of the adult educational sector, reflecting the Government's clear commitment to promote a culture of lifelong learning. Adult and second chance education play a vital role as part of a continuum to promote social inclusion, democracy and competitiveness in a knowledge society as well as strengthening individuals.
The Minister has run out of time.
The balance of my speech is in written form for the Deputies' benefit.
I recall a time in the Dáil when the Estimates were taken in the Chamber and the Minister would arrive with an army of civil servants to deal with every query. That is not to say that I underestimate the two gentlemen with the Minister today. We have spent money on building new committee rooms but I wonder whether we are making real progress.
I cannot help but conclude from the Minister's opening remarks that we have embarked upon a dialogue of the deaf. We have heard it all before in regard to a number of the initiatives outlined by the Minister. He presents his Estimate as if there were no problems in the education sector. The figures will show that there has been a significant increase in the education budget over a five year period, but harking back to 1997 in comparison to today's figures will do nothing for disadvantaged children in our education system. Notwithstanding the increase in expenditure, the Department has failed to focus its interventions and to help people if the system fails. We have had a dialogue of the deaf up to now but I will proceed with a litany of complaints in the same style initiated by the Minister. He used this opportunity to highlight what has been done, but I will highlight the shortcomings.
I received a reply to a parliamentary question yesterday regarding learning support teachers. I could parade school principals before the committee who would say that they were rapped over the knuckles by inspectors because they took liberty and discretion in allocating learning support teachers to children who exceed the guidelines, the tenth percentile test. I know teachers who have been told to withdraw the service. That is an unfair targeting of the most vulnerable people in the education system. If there is anything we should learn about increased resources it is that the broad brush approach is finished. If we are increasing expenditure it must be focused intervention. Who deserves that more than children with learning disabilities and, in particular, children with special needs? The failure of the Government in this area is just penny-pinching and should be stopped.
Capitation is higher now than it was in 1997 but that means nothing to children in disadvantaged communities where parents do not have the capacity to have the interests of their local school at heart. They are not as capable of embarking on fund-raising as parents in more affluent suburbs of our cities or communities. We require targeted intervention in these areas in terms of the financial resources available to schools for administration. These schools cannot put their hands out to the local community with the same degree of success as those in more affluent areas. The Education Act, 1998, provided for an educational disadvantage committee but that committee has yet to meet. Its establishment has been trumpeted on many occasions and we have even got as far as establishing a chairperson, but that is all.
A similar situation exists in relation to the embracing of information technology in our classrooms. The national policy and development committee did not meet at all in 2001 and I am not sure if it has met this year. An allocation of £80 million was approved but it lay idle for 12 months until before Christmas when the Minister allocated it in a frenzy. It rested in his Department while no initiatives were developed.
The Minister replied to issues raised by Deputy Shortall yesterday about the psychological service. Will the Minister examine the roll-out of that service, particularly in the southern region? I know of particular problems in communities which are availing of the St. Vincent de Paul Society to finance the service. There are areas of the country where the service is virtually non-existent. In reply to a parliamentary question recently there was no reference to any improvement in the service in the southern region.
The teacher supply issue is of particular concern in the primary sector. There have been initiatives such as improved intake in the colleges and conversion courses for graduates. In June 2002 we will have 1,309 graduates, while in 2003 we will have 1,490 with a further 1,490 in 2004. On any given day in primary schools there are 1,000 unqualified teachers teaching classes. A substantial number of those are in the most disadvantaged communities because teachers are fleeing these areas. They do not want to teach there because we have not provided the resources or equipment to deal with the problems they face.
We do not have enough of an intake, notwithstanding all the initiatives, to deal with reductions in class size, the tackling of educational disadvantage, the expansion of the supply panel scheme and the fact that there are 1,000 untrained teachers in the classrooms. Many classes will have four or five different untrained teachers taking their class over a period of two or three weeks. That is a recipe for educational disaster for those communities and those children. We need to look at the problem again. The Minister could increase the intake and introduce an accelerated graduate conversion course. He should take into account that some graduates cannot afford to take 18 months out for the conversion course. Could we structure a conversion course in modular fashion so that they could take up positions in the interim in primary classrooms?
There is a whirlwind waiting to be reaped and parents are lying in the long grass waiting for Fianna Fáil on the issue of the allocations for primary school buildings. This is a bone of contention. The Minister may well say that he has increased the allocation for primary school building, but 850 primary and post-primary schools are waiting for sanction. The school building unit is a shambles. That is no reflection on any individual working there but on the failure by the Minister to provide leadership and necessary reform. I suggest there should be a move to design and build contracts. Huge delays are attributed to the architect design phase but in the interim we should look at generic designs for two classroom and three classroom schools to make some progress. Improvements in classrooms should be a demand led scheme. If a school is identified as sub-standard we should be able to rectify it on demand. That will require a significant increase in capital allocation.
I am very concerned about the notification the Minister has given about indicative expenditure for primary and post-primary school building in the coming year. He cannot argue that these are only indicative figures given to the European Commission under the growth and stability pact. They are indicative of what the Minister, if returned as Minister for Education and Science, intends to spend next year. That is unsatisfactory.
The issue of teacher supply in the post-primary sector to Gaeltacht and all-Irish schools is a major concern. This is tied into gaelscoileanna and the growing demand for scoileanna lán-gaelach at second level. There is a significant problem in Gaeltacht communities in accessing teachers who can teach a range of subjects through Irish. There is an inter-departmental task force looking at the proposal to establish a number of outreach centres in various gaeltacht areas, sponsored by universities. The task force is chaired by an individual from the Minister's Department and the Higher Education Authority and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands are also involved.
GMIT.
If we are to tackle realistically the problem of the demand resulting from the growing gaelscoileanna movement for all-Irish secondary schools and the problem of the supply of teachers to Gaeltacht communities, which is already at a crisis level, we need to expedite the deliberations of that interdepartmental group and move towards establishing outreach centres in various communities to train teachers to deal with the various subject choices through the medium of Irish. Other academic qualifications could also be taught in those schools, but that is an immediate crisis.
There is only one show in town when it comes to post-primary education. The Minister failed to address in any detail yesterday the issue of supervision and substitution and the daily cost involved to the Department. As we are discussing the Estimates, will the Minister now tell us the number of supervisors that have been recruited in second level schools, the daily cost of that to the Department of Education and Science and how that cost relates to meeting the demands of the ASTI, notwithstanding that it is now, regrettably, outside the loop, for an increased level of remuneration for supervision and substitution, and also the pensionability issue? The mathematics will show that we are paying an enormous price. If there were some lateral thinking on the issue, it would be possible to meet the competing imperatives, in terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, for the Minister and the Department on the Government side and the views of teachers.
Commitments on the issue of science in primary schools were made in Fianna Fáil's manifesto in the last election. That is pie in the sky. We must deal with the issue at post-primary level and move to practical examinations. We should invest in classroom laboratories in second level schools. That might be a European-wide phenomenon but our economic prosperity is substantially due to a knowledge based economy that has been fuelled by a conveyor belt of graduates from our institutes of technology and post-primary schools.
Given our peripheral location, we can ill afford to take our foot off the accelerator in terms of investment in education. Our economic success is substantially due to that investment. Our institutes of technology, in particular, have been an enormous contributor to this but it is a sector which is not without crisis. I welcome the Minister's intervention in the Limerick Institute of Technology problem but we should learn from that. This is a sector that has been asked to grow rapidly. It has produced the necessary end product in terms of high quality graduates and technicians to meet our growing employment prospects in the sector but some kind of quality management initiative must be put in place for institutes of technology to examine management structures and take account of the explosion in growth of student numbers and staff. We have failed to do that.
I had intended to mention some other issues in the third level area including higher education grants, the level of drop-outs, the capital allocation for third level and the need for a centralised, local administration of higher education grant schemes because there is confusion for applicants. Some are dealing with VEC offices while others are dealing with council offices.
The picture is far from rosy. It is not always a question of throwing money at the problem. There have been increased allocations but we are still failing substantially large numbers of children in our primary schools in particular. Once they are lost at primary level, we can throw our hats at the problem because we will never redeem them in post-primary and they will have no chance of proceeding to third level education. We are condemning thousands of children to an existence of marginal employment opportunities, increased interaction with the criminal system, incarceration and the costs associated with that. At a time of unprecedented resources, the Minister and his predecessor have failed a substantial number of students in the education system.
I found it difficult to decide whether to come to this meeting because the experience of previous sessions like this with the Minister have been extremely disheartening and a waste of time. I came here out of duty rather than the expectation that anything worthwhile would take place in the interaction between the Minister and members. I would remind the Minister of the last time we sat down to deal with the Supplementary Estimates. He gave a clear commitment at that meeting, on 4 December, to publish information on the building programme but he has yet to fulfil that commitment. One wonders what is the point in coming here and discussing anything with the Minister.
Our experience over the past three years indicates that the Minister is either incapable or disinterested but he is not prepared to engage on education matters with members of this committee. That contempt which he has shown for members is borne out in the disgraceful standard of reply to parliamentary questions that I put down to his Department. That is the only way I can describe them. They are an absolute disgrace and fly in the face of any modern day thinking in terms of openness and transparency. They are the worst example of a Department doing its utmost to keep the lid on matters and refusing to provide the most basic information. It does so only when it is pressed to do it. That approach, which is so evident in the Minister's replies to parliamentary questions, shows an utter contempt for this House and for any sense of accountability or honesty in replies. All of us have tabled questions which were completely and studiously ignored and in reply to which we got a helping of waffle. That is the only way one can describe it. The Minister usually talks about comparisons between now and 1997, or whatever, and deliberately ignores the question asked.
In that context, I will make a few comments although I am not sure there is much point in doing so, given the Minister's lack of reaction or response to date, but I will mention them nonetheless. The principal concern I have about the current incumbent is the fact that he has no vision of our education system, nor was that evident in any of his public comments over the past three years. None of us knows what the Minister is interested in terms of education or what he is trying to achieve. His responses are always defensive and he simply trots out figures to fend off criticism. He has consistently refused to engage in any kind of debate in respect of education.
I want to go through the various areas where the Minister has failed in his duty and in his responsibility to those children who depend on him to provide a quality education service. Starting in the pre-school area, the Minister inherited a White Paper on education. The facts speak for themselves. This year, we have fewer State funded pre-school places than we had in 1997. That is a damning record. We all know the importance of early education. It is within the first five years of a child's life that the pattern is set down for all future achievement or lack of achievement but the Minister has consistently ignored the importance of early education and fewer children are now being funded in early education than when he came to office. He has done nothing in this area.
When the Minister was appointed to the Department of Education and Science, he said his priority would be to tackle educational disadvantage. In keeping with all his Government colleagues, and particularly the Taoiseach, that is all about style rather than substance. The Minister's press statements say one thing but his actions do not follow through. In the area of disadvantage, the very successful Breaking the Cycle pilot programme, which was set up some years before the Minister came to office, has not been extended during his tenure. Teachers will attest to the benefit of the Early Start programme in disadvantaged areas, but not a single additional place was provided during the Minister's term in office. Deputy Creed already referred to the fact that the Minister is statutorily obliged to establish the committee on educational disadvantage. He dragged his heels for two years on that and finally set up the committee around Christmas time, but it has yet to meet. That speaks volumes for his commitment to the area of educational disadvantage.
Last year we had the giving children an even break scheme. The Minister talked about disadvantage and trumpeted what he would do about targeting it, but when it comes to practice, he does not target. He simply spreads the resources around very thinly so that some schools in the most affluent areas benefit from that scheme while schools in the most disadvantaged areas have got little or nothing out of it. Decisions are being taken on purely political grounds. There should be clear criteria on how to qualify for this, but these are set so wide that every school can make a case for extra money. The Minister's Department did not announce the decision about the allocation of funding, his Fianna Fáil backbenchers in the constituencies rang the schools to tell them they were included in the scheme. When they received that telephone call many school principals realised it was just a political scam and not about seriously addressing educational disadvantage.
Yesterday in the Dáil, we raised the issue of capping access to psychological assessments. To cap that at 2% of children is a further attempt to spread the goodies around as thinly as possible so that schools in the most affluent areas have the same kind of access to psychological assessments as schools where 20% of children need such assessment. That does not do anything serious about tackling educational disadvantage. There is no serious targeting of funding and in disadvantaged areas where there is no potential to fund raise because of a lack of money in the parish, instead of providing children with the opportunity to get out of disadvantage, those schools are compounding disadvantage. The Minister's utter contempt for those kinds of problems has allowed that scandalous situation to continue.
The Minister talks about wanting to increase the participation of lower income groups at third level. Last year he established the top-up grant scheme to assist students on very low incomes, but we then discovered that students from very low income groups do not attend third level education. The criterion he set was that people should be in receipt of child dependant allowance, but not enough people qualified because children from families on social welfare do not get anywhere near third level education. A few years ago 2% of children from poor backgrounds were in college. That has gone way down and is now closer to 1%. No progress has been made in that regard. Yesterday, in reply to a parliamentary question on the top-up scheme, the Minister was exceptionally dishonest in the manner in which he gave that information and avoided the key points.
Having come through a period of exceptional economic growth with plenty of money available, it is a scandal that there are schools where principals, teachers and parents have to engage in fundraising, organising raffles, race nights and cake sales to pay for the insurance, cleaning and heating of their schools. It is an outrage that the State has not yet taken responsibility for the running of schools. People with money are voting with their feet and opting to send their children to fee paying schools, for private grinds, etc. The Minister should be endeavouring to achieve a high quality public education system, but as with many other public services in the past five years, the Government has run them down and left it to the people who can afford to buy into the services they want. This has happened in health and other areas. It is particularly true of education where we now have a very distinct two tier system.
It should no longer be necessary to grant aid essential ancillary staff such as caretakers and secretaries. Why not face up to the fact that schools need proper support staff. If they are not provided, principals spend a great deal of their time unblocking toilets, answering telephones, locking and unlocking doors and so on. These jobs should be done by ancillary staff. The Minister's move in relation to CE ensured that schools that most need additional staff have now lost them. This is another example of the way he has turned his back on disadvantaged schools. His new proposal goes nowhere near meeting the real costs of employing people as secretaries and caretakers.
The Minister has failed miserably in three other areas. He and his party came into power on the back of many promises, one of which was to restore the pupil-teacher ratio in career guidance and counselling services. The ratio was 250:1 in the bad old days of the early 1980s. It is now closer to 750:1. This is a serious indictment of a Government that had plenty of money to spend in the past five years. The Minister promised to restore that 250:1 ratio, but has failed miserably. He has appointed an additional 50 career guidance counsellors and has again let down the people he is supposed to be serving.
In February 2001 the Minister announced the establishment of a commission on teaching and got media coverage for it. He said he would give this his urgent attention and was drawing up terms of reference for the commission. That proposal has yet to see the light of day and speaks volumes for the Minister's lack of interest in matters relating to teachers.
The Minister has failed to make progress in decentralising his Department, which is now generally recognised as being seriously dysfunctional. To his credit, he commissioned the Cromien report, but since getting that report 15 or 16 months ago very little progress has been made. He has had much positive media coverage for commissioning that report, but it seems to have been left to gather dust. His Department has failed to accept the principles of accountability, to measure up to any kind of performance indicators or to interact in any meaningful way at local level throughout the country. This is another area in which the Minister has failed to make any real progress.
Ba mhaith liom mo leithscéal a ghabháil go raibh me déanach. Bhí mé i gcruinniú eile agus bheadh sé deacair freastal ar an bheirt chruinniú. Having tried to keep in touch with the issues raised at this meeting, I hope to avoid repeating any of the points made by my colleagues. The large volume of questions to the Minister for Education and Science yesterday indicated enormous disquiet and was a warning sign, if one was needed, that education was among the Achilles' heels of the Government. Many of those questions were tabled by Government backbenchers as well as Opposition Deputies. Evidently, there is a lot of trouble in the education sector. Many schools are extremely frustrated with the lack of progress. This is brought home to all of us at public meetings to which we are invited in our constituencies, which tend to be the most heated and frustrating experiences. Regrettably, some of the replies to parliamentary questions do not give any significant information to enable people to know where they stand.
From a policy perspective, it is not just a matter of putting money into the system, although that would go a long way to resolving many of the frustrations. In relation to local development levies where new housing is built, this money does not go to the Department of Education and Science but is centralised and allocated to the local authorities. Is the Minister making the case, as he should be, that the substantial housing construction in progress, including in the Minister's constituency and mine, is placing an enormous demand on the education system, above and beyond existing demands which are not being met? The development levy from the builders concerned is not directed to the benefit of the schools needed in the areas in question. I ask the Minister to make a very strong case on the issue and get the Government, even at this late stage, to ensure part of the development levies charged to builders goes towards building the required schools.
It has been mentioned that there are 850 schools which need sanction. Most, if not all, boards of management are frustrated by the lack of information as to where they are placed on the waiting list. To borrow an analogy from local government, the local authority housing lists are so organised that people can find out what their position is on the lists. The Minister has been promising that schools will be in a position to do likewise, but, instead, they are told they will be looked after shortly. In 1997 the Taoiseach went around the country telling people that everything was sorted and that they would be looked after in no time at all. Some of the schools concerned are still waiting for that promise to be delivered which is absolutely scandalous. I am not sure if the Minister is taking note of my comments — am I being heard?
I will reply to the Deputy.
I look forward to the replies. In my area, as the Minister is well aware, a number of schools are badly affected by lack of progress in the building programme, including St. Oliver Plunkett's national school and John Paul national school in Malahide. There was a very large meeting last night at a school, St. Cronin's in Swords, which already serves 1,200 children — a number that is rising rapidly. In 1997 the Taoiseach promised that six extra classrooms would be provided urgently in the school, but it seems we are still no closer to achieving this. Certainly, there is no sign of action on the ground and we have not been told when it will happen.
Perhaps we will have some announcements in the next few weeks.
As we were also given promises during the 1997 general election campaign, any promises made will ring equally hollow. I hope the Minister is aware of certain small schools such as Lusk and Ballyboughal national schools and St. George's national school, Balbriggan. The message to him from a number of such schools is that, if the Government intends to use them as polling stations, it may have to think again. There is an element of militancy among school boards of management which has not been seen before. This has been intensified by the lengths to which people have had to go to establish their basic rights in education. People like Kathy Synnott and others whose cases have been less publicised are establishing their constitutional rights through the courts.
The sad reality is that many schools, as in the case of Ballyboughal national school, have been deemed substandard by the Health and Safety Authority. In others, school boards are looking at the 1989 Health and Safety at Work Act. Professional people on the parents committee of St. Cronin's national school are alarmed at the health and safety aspects of their children's education. I am alarmed to hear that there is a suspicion of asbestos problems in some of the schools I have mentioned and, in terms of possible legal action, the Department does not appear to have any clear idea of what lies ahead. There seems to be complete chaos in the Department, which needs the leadership of a new Minister.
The caretaking system in schools has been collapsing due to lack of resources. The FÁS scheme made it possible to keep a certain tenuous infrastructure in place which has now gone. The money given over to the Department from FÁS is not adequate to provide an acceptable salary for caretakers working under very onerous conditions or repair worn out furniture in schools.
In the primary sector, capitation funding is approximately half what goes into secondary level. Is there any objective on the Minister's part to level the playing field to ensure parity for the primary sector in this regard? The areas of greatest disadvantage are suffering most. Understandably, when teachers are in short supply, they are attracted to schools where parents are sufficiently affluent to provide them with the basic necessities they might otherwise get from a properly functioning Department of Education and Science. I am aware of schools where meals and basic supports are provided, not by the Department but by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, other charitable organisations or by parents making their own arrangements. Is the Department providing any funding to meet the nutritional needs of disadvantaged children? Is it a matter on which he considers it necessary to act?
People with disabilities have been going to the courts in an effort to secure their basic rights. For example, there are needs that people with disabilities have in terms of mainstreaming in education such as dual enrolment in a special school and in a mainstream school. That does not seem to be allowed by the Department of Education and Science but it is a need for a number of children. I support the objective of trying to mainstream where possible but it is not possible to put round pegs in square holes. The Department is failing to see the individual needs of people with disabilities. The CAVAS units were welcome for a number of children but they may not be exactly what is needed in every case. I am anxious that the Department appreciate the individual needs of people with disabilities. That is not seen in current policies.
In relation to secondary level, the schools that come to me are generally those that are very frustrated with lack of progress in the building programme, as many primary schools are also. The Loreto College in Balbriggan and Pobailscoil Íosa in Malahide are examples. They are schools that have been patient for many years but they are not being given straight answers. They are told they will be dealt with "shortly", that they are "in the process" and that there is nothing abnormal about their situation.
There is a very short-sighted view taken by those in charge of the building programme. Malahide community school, which was built in an old prefabricated style, is energy inefficient and bad in terms of educational suitability as it does not allow for playing fields for sport. It is a good example of a school that needs to be replaced. The Department is dragging its heels in providing a replacement school and it says the school can be patched up. A bit of work can be done that will keep it going. The Minister may be out of office but those children will still need education. They will not get the kind of education to which they are entitled if the Department just patches up a school like that, a school that has catered for many disadvantaged people over many years. I fail to see any long-term thinking or vision from this Department when I see plans like that coming forward, and that includes the energy-inefficiency of the proposals for Malahide community school. That will be a cost to the Department in the long run. It is an uneconomical as well as a bad educational decision.
The committee has met representatives of outdoor education centres. It is clear when comparisons are made between Northern Ireland and the Republic that there are major differences. The educational needs of the population in the south have a low priority when compared to the north. Only 5% of schoolchildren in the Republic experience outdoor education; in the north that is between 10% and 12%. It is not adequate in either case but it is clear, on those figures, that the north is at least twice as good in terms of its provision. When we have a charter to bring this type of opportunity to all, we will I hope, improve on that further.
It is obvious this Minister is just holding the fort for the moment and does not see himself cutting any kind of reputation in education except a bad one. The incidence of disadvantage in education is growing due to a lack of basic facilities being put in place. At third level, we have the worst EU record for on-campus accommodation with the result that students are forced to live in overcrowded, bad conditions, renting at exorbitant rents from rack-renting landlords. It seems the Minister is not prepared to tackle that issue, which would benefit this and future generations.
I thank the Minister and spokespersons for their contributions. In accordance with the timetable, we will now proceed to consider the Revised Estimate for Vote 26. Do Members wish to speak on Vote 26?
I want to ask about the appropriateness of adult education funding under subhead B1 concerning other services. Is it appropriate that this is funded from national lottery funds? Should that funding come direct from the Exchequer? I realise there is no threat to the continuance of this funding but do not believe it is appropriate. I would also like guidance from the Minister as to where funding for the library service comes under these Estimates? Is it primary, post-primary or is it the office of the Department?
The numbers involved in the primary and post-primary inspectorate are increasing. Is that increase across the board or is it related to specific additional inspectors being recruited for specific services in special education and for children with special needs?
In relation to adult education and lottery funding, I do not mind where the money comes from as long as it is available. That kind of thing can be tidied up in time administratively. The funding has increased substantially, as the Deputy will appreciate, and its coming from the lottery makes it suitable from our point of view. The funding for the library service comes under primary or first level.
The school inspectors work in different areas. One of the questions raised by Deputies was that of disability and devolution, not just decentralisation, to local organisations. That has delayed — though it is an essential period — the implementation of the Cromien report. That is a matter of industrial relations and of discussions with the various sectors, particularly the inspectors concerned. They will be changing their positions and working from local areas. That is virtually ready to go although I would be happier if it had been ready some months ago. It is an indication of the time scale for implementation of any of the changes that one would like to make in a large organisation which is nationally distributed.
The Estimate says in relation to school transport that the figure for 2001 was eight while for 2002 it was nine. Do these figures refer to staff in the administration side of the school transport scheme?
Yes.
Is that in the Minister's Department? I thought this scheme was administered substantially at a local level.
The main administration is in the hands of CIE. It is delegated to it but the figures mentioned relate to administrative staff in the Department. The administration throughout the country is handled by CIE.
At the risk of opening a Pandora's box, what sort of progress does the Minister think ten extra staff will make on a backlog of 850 school building projects?
There was a big increase last year.
There was no sign of it on the ground.
There was a large increase last year and I am providing for a further increase this year. The question the Deputy raised in relation to the future operation of the scheme is being examined at present. I have mentioned before that a template has been developed for PE halls. It has been tested and seems to be working well, having gone through all the planning authorities. A similar approach is being taken in primary schools, along the lines mentioned by the Deputy. The possibility of contracting out certain projects other than PPPs, which was also raised by the Deputy, is under consideration.
Why has the Department been so slow to embrace public private partnerships?
There is a large amount of detail in the first batch of five PPPs, which I launched. Special groups were set up to oversee and administer them and to make sure they are above board in every way. About 85 million was allocated for a group of five second level schools, which is a major undertaking. Irish developers did not come forward to participate in the initial tranche of PPPs, by and large, as they saw it as a test case and they wanted to wait to see how it worked. Many issues which would not ordinarily arise in a commercial contract come to the fore when one deals with public service contracts, as we have seen in many other instances. While many developers did not invest, enough private sector interests became involved to allow the first group of PPPs to begin. We were ready to proceed in September, but there was a delay in securing final approval so we could not do so until November. The five projects are going very well at present and we were notified a few weeks ago that we can proceed with some more. We are trying to draw up lists of schools and PE halls. We have virtually completed preparations for the maritime college and I expect it will be ready for construction shortly. It takes time to prepare new projects which are brought forward on a public service basis, especially as one has to comply with EU rules. Once it has been proven that the new system works, one can move much faster. The way is much clearer from all points of view, as the basic work has been done.
I would be interested in having a discussion on how the EU influences this, as most EU countries have excellent education systems. That is a wider issue, however, and this is obviously a financial debate. I argued earlier that the financial allocation to the schools building programme should be augmented by development levies. I am anxious for the Minister to respond, outlining whether the Government sees merit in the suggestion. The direct need for schools is related to the amount of housing, which can work to increase the profits of builders in a given area. I would like the Minister to outline, based on his Department's projected Estimates into the future, if he sees a role for that.
The Minister spoke about examining the building programme. Has this examination resulted in any new thinking or is it an examination of puzzlement? There is a lack of information for boards of management wanting to know, for example, if they should tell their insurance companies that a playground is to be ripped up within the next six months, year or two years. This uncertainty means that school authorities face further hardship — their premiums increase because they cannot give their insurance companies the full information. Does the Minister recognise the need to give straight answers to boards of management, just as housing applicants receive straight answers from local authorities? It would be helpful to be told one is sixth on the list, for example, and can expect builders to begin work in September. Can the Minister say whether such information will be available after an examination?
One cannot really say that builders will move in on a particular date, as a long process must be gone through before one can tell. Almost every school will encounter difficulties of one sort or another, meaning that one cannot specify a date. People keep asking me to specify dates, but I have to tell them the status of a school's application. Some schools are not at the stage of architectural planning but want to reach that stage, while others at that stage want to progress to the next stage. It is not easy to give a short answer to the Deputy's queries——
Any answer will do.
——but our objective is to develop a website where schools can obtain the information they seek. This will take some time. This year's events have been influenced by the fact that everybody expects an election soon and school authorities have similar expectations.
They just want information; the Minister is the person who has politicised it.
I have explained previously to Deputies that I had received some extra money. Deputy Creed mentioned the multi-annual budgeting system, which the EU requires. Under the system, we should have been down somewhat this year, but we did not suffer a decrease. The Government decides how to allocate moneys in its Estimates. The global position must be borne in mind for EU purposes. We did not take the drop that was indicated and we will not take it next year. Having sorted out that issue, we had an extra 65 million in the budget to allocate among the different sectors. PPPs are developing and, as I said earlier, we are trying to assess how many of them can be done. Technical factors affect the numbers which can be achieved. Once that has been finished within the next couple of weeks, we will be able to produce a list of the projects which are going ahead and those which have gone ahead already. As far as I remember, St. Cronan's, which has been mentioned, has been approved for one of its schools, but the authorities want both schools to be handled together.
The Minister agreed that they should work together.
They received confirmation. The question of one of the schools was raised and it was approved by the Department.
That was in June 2001.
No, this happened about a month ago. The schools' authorities informed the Department that they wanted both schools to be taken together.
I ask the Minister to address the development levies, as we have to move on.
There has been a big change as regards development levies paid by property developers and we will examine them as a means of funding the schools building programme. I am concerned by developers who build valuable houses and receive a great deal in return. The Department secures a land reservation for schools.
It is not much use if one does not have a school.
No, but one also gets a price agreement about that, which is the other thing that is useful. Much of this land turns out to be worth 1 million an acre so one gets a better price. I appreciate the principle of what the Deputy is saying. There is a big change now because it is the Government that pays all, or virtually all. We abolished the——
It is the taxpayer who pays.
It is the Government on behalf of the taxpayer.
I know.
I am not trying to claim anything for the Government. It is the taxpayer who pays all. The point is the Deputy is talking about a general principle and that is the difference. We changed that to take the burden off the local parishes and the local areas. The problem is that the local areas were in a better negotiating position and could put more pressure on a developer than the Department, which is at a distance. That is something we must not allow to run away from us and I have had to become involved in a number of cases to ensure that did not happen. I had to make it clear that we were providing a critical service, as the Deputy says, for the community for whom the developer is building. On that basis, making the site available at a reasonable price would satisfy our requirement. We have had arguments in cases where the local authority tried to make us provide the road into the school. There was a long delay with a school over that issue, but in the end the authority changed its view. We make provision from the gate in, but it was trying to push us out.
The State takes 43% of the total cost of every house it taxes, one way or another. The county manager in our local authority has the power to do it and can take £8,600 per site. The authority is getting £86,000 per acre for the provision, so it says, of roads, water and sewerage services, for which the Department should be paying. However, it is the person who buys the site or the house who pays for it and it is the same everywhere. Those are the latest figures I read.
The danger of a levy is that it becomes a tax on the householder, rather than on the developer.
Someone has to pay it.
Setting aside the bluff and bluster going on here, the Minister promised to establish a database on school accommodation and to put in place a system of prioritisation for approving building projects. He has failed to do those things and, along with his Government colleagues, continues to regard funding for school buildings as a political slush fund. That is precisely what is happening at the moment. The Minister is holding back from making announcements and is letting a few trickle out via the local Fianna Fáil Deputy in the constituencies concerned to try to hold on to as many good news stories as he can as the elections gets closer.
Yesterday, I put a perfectly straightforward question to the Minister in the Dáil, which could have been understood by a three year old. I asked if he could give us the details of the building projects that have been approved since 1 January last and he used his full six minutes to bluff. When I asked him if the information was in his file, he said it was not, but that he would get it for me. He undertook to give me the information before the end of business yesterday.
No, I did not.
The Minister did.
The Deputy told me that I should do that, but I did not undertake to do so.
Let us not have another broken promise or a reneging on a commitment at this committee. When will the Minister have that information?
I will have it for the Deputy next week.
What is the reason for the delay? I gave the Minister notice of this last Wednesday and he has had more than a week to prepare. Surely, he knows what——
The question referred to is Deputy Seán Ryan's.
I submitted it. The Minister was asked to give details of the number of building projects that have been approved since 1 January.
All the ones that are under construction have been approved.
The ones that have been approved——
There are approvals to go to construction and approvals to go to stage 3 or stage 5. One cannot turn that out instantly.
The Minister knows very well what projects have been given approval since January.
Is this the projects that were approved in that time?
They have been approved to go to construction.
We will get that information for the Deputy.
The money to construct the project has to be approved by the Department. When one goes into the planning stage, the money should be there. Are we suffering from commitments?
I want to move on.
I want to pin the Minister down on this, given that he reneged on his previous commitment. What day next week will he have that information?
I cannot tell the Deputy that. I have to ask my officials to provide it. While all this is going on——
The Minister knows that word has already been given to the Fianna Fáil backbenchers.
——it is the same officials that are answering all the questions that are asked.
That is because the Minister failed to put in place a system that works.
They are not available to do both things. I want the officials to complete the list. I will not be able to complete the list of PE halls for another week or so because they are complicated and they depend on sites. If we do not own the site there will not be a PE hall on it and there are other complications that go along with that.
When will the Minister have the information for which he was asked yesterday?
I will get it to the Deputy as soon as possible.
What does that mean?
I said that I will get it to the Deputy as soon as possible.
That is not good enough. The Minister was given a week's notice of yesterday's question and it is just not good enough to say what he has said.
The Deputy is being unreasonable about the amount of work required to compile the information.
How many projects were approved? It cannot be more than a couple of dozen. Why can the Minister not pull out that list and give it to us?
More than a couple of dozen have been approved.
Since January?
I gave the Deputy the figures yesterday of the ones that are approved for construction.
The Minister did not. He did not give me the details, which is what he was asked for.
The Minister has said he will provide the information next week, which is what he will probably do.
I am trying to put a list together for the Government, in fact.
I bet he is, on a constituency basis.
Not at all.
We have drifted to the matter of buildings. We were on Vote 26. We have a half an hour left to deal with Votes 27, 28 and 29.
Do we vote on Vote 26?
We are not in a position to have votes. I am instructed that the Votes are here for our consideration, not to be voted on.
On Vote 27, over 2001, there was a reduction of 16% in the capitation grants available to meet the operating costs of national schools at a time when schools, particularly at primary level, are clamouring for an increase. That seems extraordinary and I ask the Minister to comment.
Regarding library grants, I also ask the Minister to comment on the cost of a very glossy publication, recently sent to every primary school, which was jointly produced by his Department and the Department of the Environment and Local Government. It featured his photograph and that of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and aimed to encourage children to join the library service. How much of the cost was underwritten by the Department and has he made any submission to the Electoral Commission in respect of that expenditure as part of his election campaign?
I do not have the detail of the answer to the question about the library service, but I will get it for the Deputy.
Does the Minister think the type of campaigning we are seeing is appropriate? I refer, not only to that document, but to various other documents produced by his ministerial colleagues. In the run up to a general election, the Minister is taking up very high profile positions at taxpayers' expense.
This is a joint venture between the Department of the Environment and Local Government and my Department to try to get young people to use libraries.
Every school received a copy of——
I will ascertain the cost for the Deputy.
Is it an expense which the Minister must declare to the Public Offices Commission?
No.
It is sharp practice and an abuse of taxpayer's money.
The Deputy's first question was related to capitation grants on which I explained the position earlier. While it appears to be an anomaly in this context, it reflects the early payment of the capitation grants at the end of December 2001. This was done in the Supplementary Estimate which we discussed here. I explained the matter at the time.
Will a Supplementary Estimate be required?
No, the measure was to help the cash flow of schools at the time and could, ultimately, become a regular feature of the system. It was done at the end of last year and explained to the committee when we discussed the Supplementary Estimate.
As I mentioned, there is a disparity between capitation grants for first and second level schools. The desirability of levelling the playing field has been frequently expressed in the context of the importance of primary education. Does the Minister believe there is a need to raise the level of capitation grant available at primary level to that available at second level?
On my visits to primary schools around the country, my experience has been that the vast majority of primary principals and managers are delighted with the very large increases in capitation grants they have received. On the comparison with second level, I explained the support services grant I introduced to help with equalisation. I have received letters from management recognising the fact that this grant has made a difference for the first time.
I asked for the Minister's opinion.
One cannot compare primary level needs with those of second level. Second level schools are normally very large with a much greater number of pupils. As such, they have greater expenses in many ways. In addition, the second level capitation grant must cover a very different range of expenditure. Second level schools provide a broader curriculum, including technical subjects where the cost of materials may be greater than at primary level. Specialist equipment and rooms are also required for some subjects leading to higher maintenance and replacement costs. The Deputies will be aware of this.
While I accept that there may be a case for examining the two levels at some stage to ascertain the ideal ratio, there will always be a difference between them because they are very different. It is also a very difficult issue when one considers that more than 50% of primary schools have two teachers, whereas one finds very few such second level schools.
As they have a very small number of pupils, this is all relative.
They are given a basic sum also. It must all be tailored.
I do not know any rich two teacher schools.
There is none in Ireland.
Under subhead G, special needs assistants in national schools, why is the Minister's definition of special needs so narrow? In replies to parliamentary questions I have noticed what appears to be a lack of understanding of the extent of special needs among primary school children. The view among the Minister's officials is that this is confined to the category of students with disabilities.
Surely, as a city representative, the Minister will be aware of the kind of special needs which arise in places like Darndale, Coolock and many other parts of working class Ireland where some children may have one or both parents who are drug addicts, may not have eaten before going to school or may never have seen a book in the home. These children have very special needs because of their social circumstances, yet the Minister is not prepared to include them in the scheme. I know of many schools in my constituency and that of the Minister with classes, particularly at junior level, where up to one third of children would fall into the category of having very definite special needs. Many of them have employed classroom assistants through the CE scheme, which has recently been eliminated leaving the schools and the children high and dry. Why will the Minister not broaden the definition of special needs to include these very real and particular special needs?
On centres for young offenders, is the Minister aware of the information provided for me yesterday by way of a reply to a parliamentary question which showed that the annual cost per place in the Finglas children's centre now exceeds 250,000? The centre holds young offenders of 13 or 14 years of age. Even at that cost, the children are not getting on terribly well as the Garda is regularly called out to remove them from the roof or deal with them in other ways. The Minister gave a commitment several weeks ago that a special investigation would be carried out into the centre, from which he has since backed away by stating it will be an inspection.
It is on the way.
Could we have a special investigation, not the inspection the other centres are having, but an inspection particular to circumstances there?
An inspector has been appointed whom the Deputy has been invited to meet.
The inspector was appointed to inspect, not investigate the centre. As all the centres are being inspected, there is nothing special about the appointment.
There is a special and very full investigation being carried out in Finglas. The Deputy was invited to meet the person concerned to express the concerns she has expressed here and elsewhere.
The Minister stated it would be an investigation.
Surely, the annual cost of the centre per child should be considered?
It is an investigation. Why will the Deputy not meet the person appointed when invited to do so? She can then sort out the matter directly.
He is the Minister.
We have appointed a person from outside the country to carry out the investigation.
Is there a timescale for publication of the report?
It is under way. The Deputy has been invited to meet the person concerned and express her concerns, which would be the best thing to do.
Is the Minister aware that each place costs more than 250,000 per year?
Yes, that is the figure the Deputy was given yesterday for the Finglas centre.
Yet the Minister is not prepared to spend a couple of thousand euro on a pre-school place.
The figure is a gross, not a unit cost. Nevertheless, there is no question that it is very expensive.
I turn to the Deputy's earlier question about disability which is very relevant. Classroom assistants are special needs assistants, the number of which has risen from 299 to 3,000, a huge increase. The Deputy argues that in certain areas, particularly areas of intense disadvantage, classroom assistants are needed even though the children concerned would not come under the special needs assessments. In other words, if one is assessed in the usual way one will not qualify for a special needs assistant because the criteria are not fulfilled. This is a serious issue, which I have come across in one or two places and it is one I will endeavour to address.
The Minister has done nothing about it. The situation has deteriorated as a result of the destruction of the CE scheme.
New grants have been provided.
This should not be new to the Minister as he represents that type of constituency.
That is what I was trying to say. I was giving the Deputy credit for introducing the idea, but I have already commenced an investigation into that area. One does not create new categories without approval from somewhere. One cannot just say that more money will be allocated to this or that area.
The Minister has been in office for three years. There is no point in setting up a review at the end of his term.
That is not the case. It was part of the CE schemes. Where the CE schemes are being provided through capitation grants, in some instances it appears there is insufficient money to provide what was previously available.
Did the Minister not know that need existed?
The Deputy disparaged what I did, yet we took a very objective approach with the Breaking the Cycle programme. We dealt with every child who was disadvantaged regardless of the school they attended. I support the scheme which the Deputy was involved in setting up. Schools in my area which are very well off were brought into that scheme and schools that were very disadvantaged did not get into it. That is why the Department was anxious that an independent study be carried out by the education research centre. International criteria were used to establish disadvantage and my actions were based on their findings in regard to the number of students within the school who were disadvantaged. In the first instance we spent £26 million on that and more is due shortly.
We move on to Vote 28 on second level and further education.
Will the Minister indicate the daily cost of the supervision and superannuation arrangements arising from the strike by ASTI members?
The answer is the same as that given yesterday. The money has been provided to the boards of management of the schools.
How much money?
Advance money has been provided for six weeks at the daily rate of 68.56 on the basis of a minimum of two hours. They have also been given money for training at the rate of 100 per day.
Is the Minister aware that many schools that received the advance payment have expended the money far more quickly than the estimated six week period and are now running out of funds? It appears inevitable that this will cost significantly more than was estimated.
We do not have any hard evidence of that. Some cases have been raised in the media and they are being looked into by the managerial bodies. The Deputy asked about the alternative to ASTI——
I did not.
The Deputy did.
Before we embark on a discussion of that subject, I wish to know what the supervision and substitution arrangements are costing.
I gave the Deputy the rates.
The rates were given for six weeks. How much does it cost per day?
The total cost was outlined in the reply to the question.
The gross sum that has been dispersed to the schools is 7 million and covers the preparatory stages, training and so on.
Was that expected to cover a six week period, including training?
Yes.
When does the period expire?
It started on 4 March but the payment was made on 28 February.
Is the Minister aware of the huge extra burden of work on principals and deputy principals in trying to operate these contingency plans? I have had correspondence from some principals who are literally at breaking point. All the normal school business has had to be put on hold while they go about recruiting, training, employing, paying and supervising the new staff. Does the Minister have any proposals for providing any kind of support by way of grant aid or personnel from the Department to assist in the extra administrative work that has to be carried out?
We have given additional funds to the joint managerial boards for any administrative moneys that will be required.
How does that assist the principals?
They deal with the principals.
They are not passing it on.
Ideally, we would like to see a resolution of the problem, but that may not be until after the election. Together with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and everyone else, I would rather that ASTI would join in and put their proposals with the other teaching unions, and the other public service unions, to the benchmarking body. In the meantime we have to ensure that the schools continue to operate and that is the reason for the contingency plan that is currently in operation.
The alternative is to multiply by 17,000 teachers on any day to get the other sum about which the Deputy inquired.
What is the proposal of the Minister and the Department in regard to providing remedial and resource teaching for pupils who graduate from primary level? There has been a considerable number of inquiries to my office about this matter and I am sure that is true of all Deputies.
There is a problem in providing sufficient continuity. The only way this will be properly dealt with is by means of a national body which I hope to set up shortly — the national council for special needs. Everything is now ready for that body to become operational and we will be able to advertise shortly for a director. The staff will be provided to pursue this area adequately. In the meantime, I am conscious of the issue and it is being pursued. Resource teachers are available on the basis of assessed needs. It is not so much a question of money or the availability of money from the Department, it is more a question of the organisation to make sure it happens at that level and its subsequent acceptance at second level.
How many second level schools have any service in this area?
It is the equivalent of some 220 full-time people.
With full-time people?
Some of them would be doing part-time hours.
Do the rest of the schools not have a service?
No, they would be scattered throughout the schools. In other words, one might be doing two or three schools or whatever.
Yes.
One must remember that a whole service is developing that did not exist before. That is what is happening. As I said, in respect of classroom assistants, numbers have increased from 299 to 3,000 in just over two years. Anybody who sees that figure will recognise that it represents a quantum leap forward in support for disability.
I was asked about vision. Much vision has been put into practice. When Deputies talk about vision here, they do so in terms of how it can be realised. I said from the start that disadvantage and disability were two areas to which I would pay attention. I visualised much development in respect of disability, which is happening. In the long-term, it will be recognised; I do not expect to get much credit for it in the short-term.
On the secondary education Vote, in respect of building schools and the criteria that govern decisions on the type of building that takes place, does the Department take into account criteria such as energy efficiency and long-term maintenance costs, as well as the building cost itself, in working out the economic investment return on the building? Does it also take into account the difference between refurbishing a single-storey building and not having playing fields on a site and putting up a two-storey replacement building and having playing fields on that site? Those are the kinds of criteria that are being evaluated in Malahide community school at the moment. The view that the refurbishing of a single-storey school is satisfactory represents short-term thinking. Does the Minister see other criteria having an input in this regard?
In respect of disadvantage, is there any heading in terms of secondary or primary education that meets the Minister's concern about the nutritional problems of disadvantaged children coming to school? Does any heading relevant to the Department of Education and Science point to the Minister's wishes to tackle disadvantage in that area?
There are some excellent examples of breakfast schemes, which are becoming more popular. The scheme is run by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in conjunction with locals.
Not the Department of Education and Science?
It is not for the Department to say: "I am the Department to feed you". That is not what is required. What is required is the community to work with the school. One wants the parents to be involved in the scheme. One sees great examples——
In other countries, it is done by the Departments of Education.
The Deputy should come to my constituency and I will show him great examples of the scheme in action.
We do not want local Deputies ringing up to say: "We will be feeding you next week".
In other EU member states, the schemes are run by the Departments of Education.
It is a growing area. The scheme is not only for those who need nutrition. As parents might not be at home, more children might want to stay at school. Therefore, the question of canteens is becoming a bigger issue. That is a new branch of expense that has to be included in the future.
In respect of site limitations, there are also financial and practical considerations and common sense must prevail. Some designs have been created specifically for high energy efficiency in schools. I cannot tell the Deputy where they are, but some schools have been designed that way.
They are not in Malahide anyway.
These are new designs. One problem we have is that the standards set for the future are extremely high not only in terms of health and safety, but in many other areas. That means that anything one does will be much more expensive. That has to be dealt with at the same time, together with mainstreaming children with disabilities and other things that are needed. All these matters are being addressed at the same time. In addition, there are all the older schools and the schools from the 1970s which have not aged very well, for a variety of reasons. There is a huge programme to be put in place.
At the rate we are now working, most of these matters will be addressed in about four years, provided the rate of expenditure remains the same. We will certainly maintain that rate if we are back in Government.
We will now consider Vote 29 pertaining to third level and further education.
The only question I have on third level education concerns the institute of technology sector. The institutes of technology have achieved an enormous amount in a short time. There was an explosion in student numbers, technicians and diploma, certificate and degree courses. In many respects, the institutes have been the stimulus for considerable inward investment because we had to train personnel.
The institutes of technology have been asked to deliver in terms of the areas I mentioned and they have done so in a substantial way in a very short period, which has put enormous strain on the sector. That is evident in many institutes of technology, which have stumbled from crisis to crisis. Those in Athlone, Limerick, Letterkenny and Tralee spring to mind. Has the Minister any proposals to assist management in these colleges — in terms of the dearth of management skills — to deal with the explosion in numbers of students and staff, etc?
Earlier I referred to the top-up grant scheme, which the Minister set up last year, and the lack of uptake of that grant. That funding was then transferred to some of the third level colleges. I was trying to get information on that yesterday. Media reports and quotations from student leaders suggest that it has been transferred to universities. Is that the case? Can the Minister confirm that? Also, is it the case that the funding has been transferred only to the universities and not the institutes of technology? If so, what is the reason?
With regard to training colleges, the funding through Higher Education Authority and other sources seems, from the figures we have, to be inadequate because of the shortfall in teacher supply. Will the Minister address that issue? The capacity issue in Marino could be addressed with funding. Will the Minister increase considerably the numbers in the colleges of education?
In terms of maintenance grants, the Minister pointed to an EU-related problem in terms of hold-ups concerned with tendering that has to be done nowadays. It also seems to be a problem because other EU countries provide higher standards in terms of maintenance grants——
I do not mind that. I was asked about the time.
I know.
It is a good job we are not building a swimming pool.
I know, but it is just another interesting comparison with the EU. In terms of maintenance grants and on-campus accommodation, we have a long way to go.
They have very few students, incidentally. They have very few children and very few students. The Deputy should have a look at the figures.
We are supposed to cherish our children so let us see if we can do it. Will the Minister have maintenance grants and on-campus accommodation at EU level in any timeframe he would like to mention?
With regard to maintenance grants, we have free fees, which is very helpful to everybody involved. That must be taken into consideration.
With regard to the institutes of technology, the change in legislation so the Higher Education Authority deals with the allocation of cash represents a change, although I appreciate the Deputy is talking more about policy and management skills. The institutes of technology have risen to meet huge demands, in terms of skills particularly, and have been very successful in doing so. It has all happened in a very short time. They have their own institute of directors. Management support systems are being provided for them. That is an area which is active and I recognise they need a great deal of support.
As regards the disadvantage fund, I did not quite understand what Deputy Shortall said. We have not given the disadvantaged fund to anybody. Funds are given to each of the universities and institutes of technology. Their access officers operate that.
I was talking about the top-up grant and why there was not a high up-take on it. Was that money not then transferred to the colleges?
No, I do not think so. Does the Deputy want to know if the funds were not fully utilised?
Yes.
No. That would have either stayed with, or gone back to, the Department. We will work further on that. More than 7,000 qualified for the grant and the calculations allowed for up to 10,000. The Deputy is correct that we did not reach that figure. Adults over 23 will be included from Easter. That will bring in a cohort originally recommended by the group.
Was the balance of money from the disadvantaged fund given to the universities?
Not to my knowledge.
Has the Minister answered the other questions?
No, he did not.
There was a question about the number of teachers. We have increased the number of teachers from about 500 to 1,440. One must also remember the demographic dividend. That is going back in. It is thought that having 1,400 teachers means we will catch up with needs very quickly.
What happens in the meantime?
The teachers the Deputy mentioned are unqualified teachers at primary level, but they are not unqualified people. Most of them have the higher diploma but are not recognised as primary teachers.
They are paid like unqualified people.
The question of shortening was also raised. I have asked my Department to look at the question of providing modules for people who seek the conversion.
I asked that question about an hour ago.
At least the Deputy got an answer. I have not yet had an answer to my question.
We have very good primary school teachers. This is partly due to their very good training system. I would not like to dilute the conversion course.
There is a spare capacity in some the colleges that could be filled.
Is the Deputy referring to module courses?
No, I am referring to further B.Ed places.
We will look at it.
We have concluded our discussion on Vote 29. I invite the Minister to make his concluding comments.
I thank the Deputies for their contributions. Many things are developing. I hope to have legislation on disability available later this evening. I will issue it as a White Bill. The Bills Office is not in a position to produce a Green Bill. The White version will be the same as the Green one. I will soon make announcements on the Cromien report and will employ directors for the different regions.
We will deal with that at next week's meeting.
I will manage to do a good deal more than was thought possible. I am trying to provide as many buildings as I can. There is a very great demand.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the presentation of the Estimates. Regrettably, the education system is failing substantial numbers of students. The broad brush approach of expenditure is no longer the best way forward. Expenditure will have to be targeted and focused. Money should be spent at primary school level. Students who fail at that level cannot be redeemed at second level, regardless of the resources available. Nor do they have any chance of progressing to third level. Approximately 15,000 students leave secondary schools each year without having obtained a leaving certificate. There are numerous children with literacy difficulties. It is not time for back slapping. A great deal of work has to be done. I regretfully conclude that the unprecedented level of resources available to the Government has not delivered tangible improvements for the thousands of disadvantaged and marginalised students.
There is not much point in making any further comments.
Will the Minister come back to tell schools, boards of management and this committee, where schools are and what their future is? I am sure the Minister will not accept any advice from me but it will not benefit Fianna Fáil in the election if it is seen to be information that is drip fed. It has happened too many times before and has been seen as empty promises. I ask the Minister to give the information to the schools. We are still below EU spending levels. That cannot be denied.
In 1997, 40% of the leaving certificate cohort continued to third level and further studies. Last year it was 90%. That is quite a dramatic change. That figure includes PLCs.
That is because PLCs are now being tracked. I do not believe there is the substantial increase the Minister claims.
