Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 2

Estimates for Public Services 2003.

Vote 26 - Office of the Minister for Education and Science (Revised).

Vote 27 - First Level Education (Revised).

Vote 28 - Second Level and Further Education (Revised).

Vote 29 - Third Level and Further Education (Revised).

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates falling within the remit of the Department of Education and Science. A proposed timetable was circulated to members and I would appreciate if we could operate within it. As members will note from the briefing material circulated, the approval of the Committee of Public Accounts was sought and received to amalgamate the Education Votes into one single Vote and this change will take place from the end of June 2003. From the point of view of our timetable, we have allocated 15 minutes to discuss each of the four Votes. When Votes 27 to 29 are discussed, the relevant amounts from Vote 26 which cover the period after June will also included be in the discussion. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and his officials.

I offer an apology on behalf of the Ministers of State, Deputies de Valera and Brian Lenihan, who unfortunately cannot be present. They have asked me to indicate that if the select committee wants to discuss any elements of the Estimates that specifically pertain to their areas of responsibility, they will be delighted to come at some time in the future.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to discuss the Education Estimates for 2003. You, a Chathaoirligh, have already drawn attention to the change in the presentation of this year's Estimates, which is referred to in the brief. Previously the Estimates were presented in the form of four Votes which from June 2003 will be amalgamated into a single Vote which will follow the former Vote and subhead pattern as closely as possible and not result in any diminution of the existing number of subhead lines in 2003. This change to a single Vote complements the structural changes I have been making in the Department following on the report by Mr. Seán Cromien. Increasingly, more issues must be addressed by the Department on a thematic or cross-sectoral basis rather than by strict categorisation by first, second or third level. The amalgamation of the Votes will align the financial functioning of the Department with the approach taken in the Department's statement of strategy. Furthermore, it brings the arrangements for my Department into line with those for most other Departments. In order to give effect to this amalgamation, it was still necessary for technical, accounting and legal reasons, to include the four Education Votes in the 2003 Revised Estimates Volume for Public Services. The Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education and Science is an administrative title and covers the salaries and other costs of running the Department as well as various other miscellaneous legitimate educational activities, and is not the Vote dealing with the cost of running my own office only.

The Revised Estimates for 2003 provide for gross education expenditure to increase by 9% to almost €5.9 billion, compared to expenditure in 2002. In the context of difficult times for public sector expenditure, this increase will allow me to maintain the considerable progress made in recent years and also to make further investment in critical areas of disadvantaged students and children with special needs. Accordingly, while there is never enough funding to deal with all the issues one would like to, the Government has agreed to an overall increase in education expenditure. While difficult choices have to be made, there is no cutback in the overall level of education expenditure.

The 2003 Estimate for current expenditure for the Education Votes shows a 12% increase on 2002 expenditure. This will enable existing services to continue and allows for some expansion in priority areas. It also includes provision for the payment of a quarter of the benchmarking award backdated to 1 December 2001.

The capital provision for education for 2003 is 15% lower than 2002 expenditure. As I said, the overall level of spending in education will grow but there were difficult choices. Deputies will be aware that pupil-teacher ratios have been improved significantly in recent years with the appointment of many more additional teachers to our schools. However, it follows from this development that with approximately four out of every five euro that the Department spends going on the staffing of our educational institutions, it was not possible to maintain the more recent level of capital development while protecting and consolidating the improvements made in teacher numbers. This reduction in the capital programme follows five years of very significant increases in the schools and colleges building programme.

As the committee would not want me to comment on each of the various subheads, I will focus on a number of specific areas, starting with subheads A1 to A7 in the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education and Science, which comprise the administrative budget for the Department. An 18% increase in expenditure overall has been provided for and while some of this relates to normal payroll issues arising from the national pay agreements, significant sums are also being spent on new developments such as improved IT infrastructure and a new computerised financial management system for the Department. This latter development arises from Government initiatives such as the strategic management initiative, SMI, and the more recent developments in relation to overall financial management in the public service.

An important area under this Vote is the national educational psychological service - NEPS for short - which has made significant progress since its inception. The service continues to expand and improve. The 2003 Estimate shows a 30% increase in provision for this service mainly due to an increase in recruitment of psychologists from a figure of 87 in early 2002 to a figure of 121.

The allocation of €5.4 million for the National Education Welfare Board will allow this relatively recently established body to begin to organise and progressively expand a service established to provide a nationwide integrated service to deal with the educational welfare of children. The new Act provides a comprehensive framework for promoting regular school attendance and tackling the problems of absenteeism, early school-leaving and related issues.

Following the establishment of the State Examinations Commission, which came into effect on 6 March this year, we are continuing our programme of structural reform. The objective is to ensure the Department can focus on the vital areas of policy development, forward planning and evaluation. The next significant steps in the reform programme include developments involving the Special Education Council and the programme of regional offices for the Department.

The Special Education Council will operate as a body independent of the Department. A chief executive officer and senior staff have been appointed and action is under way to get this new body operational. The 2003 Estimate provides for more than €4 million to cater for the major start-up costs of this body. A statutory framework will underpin its work.

The Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill will provide a statutory framework within which the education of children and people who have special educational needs because of disabilities can be guaranteed. The consultation process on the Bill, which was extended due to the strong interest in the subject, has now been completed. The heads of the Bill have been approved by Government and the Bill is now being drafted.

As currently structured, the Department is highly centralised with the vast majority of staff located in three locations in Dublin, Athlone and Tullamore. These central offices are the first point of contact for 3,300 primary schools, more than 22,000 primary teachers, more than 18,000 post-primary teachers and the majority of second level schools. They are also the main points of contact for parents and others seeking information on a vast array of educational issues. We plan to set up ten regional offices which will act as a one-stop-shop with national educational psychological services, special needs organisers, National Education Welfare Board staff, inspectorate and regional office staff all based in the same building. The first office should be ready later this year. While more than €500,000 was spent in preliminary work in this area in 2002, the Estimate proposed for 2003 is almost €3.5 million.

I have indicated that the number of teachers has risen significantly in recent years. To illustrate this, Deputies might note that the number of primary teachers has risen from a figure of 21,000 in 1998 to almost 26,000 at present. Part of this rise includes the numbers of resource teachers allocated to children with special needs. The Government has continued to give priority to those with special needs. The numbers of resource teachers and special needs assistants supporting children with special needs have expanded considerably. As a result of this policy, the numbers of such staff have expanded enormously - the number of resource teachers has increased from 104 in 1998 to more than 2,000 at present. The number of special needs assistants has grown from about 300 to more than 4,000 full-time and almost 1,200 part-time staff at present.

Earlier this year I published the 2003 capital programme. Full details in relation to individual projects at first and second level are available on the Department's website. However, despite the overall reduction in the capital programme and in recognition of the position in some schools and the Government's commitment, the programme for the primary sector only involves a reduction of less than 3% for ordinary primary schools. When work on young offender centres is taken into account, the overall position is one of almost 3% additional spending in this area. I have acknowledged that this position is not satisfactory, but I had to make difficult choices. Existing current commitments were a first call on available funding.

I referred earlier to the significant and rapid growth in the number of primary teachers over a period of a few years. That progress has meant, ironically, that accommodation difficulties have arisen because we have been unable to keep pace with the physical improvements to buildings needed to underpin the considerable human resources put into the system and to provide modern teaching and learning spaces for teachers and their pupils. This problem has to be addressed in the context of the overall financial situation we face.

I am determined to ensure that the budget for school buildings can be maintained in the years ahead. I am in discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, in relation to putting in place a capital programme over the next five years to tackle this problem in a planned and coherent manner, starting in 2004. While much has been made of the cost of renting temporary accommodation, it is not possible to eliminate such accommodation entirely. New schools, for example, must prove their viability before permanent accommodation can be provided.

This year's school building programme gives an idea of how much progress has been made and how much work is being done in schools. In 1997, 30 school building projects were under way at primary level and only 12 projects were under way at second level, figures that contrast with the 2003 school building programme. Some 92 large scale primary building projects and 36 post-primary projects were recently completed, while 85 large scale primary and 38 post-primary projects are currently under construction or have been authorised to go to construction.

We have adopted the innovative approach of devising standard plans for various school sizes. The designs, which are being drawn up in the Department, will enable us to reduce substantially the design fees that are incurred in each project - currently about 13% of project costs. The fact that a standard design for four, eight, 12 and 16 room schools can be devised will mean that more money will be spent on actual buildings. In addition to the savings on design fees, the new system will enable us to respond more quickly to building needs when money becomes available.

Adult education is another priority of the Government. The 2003 Estimates contain increases in the allocations for adult education and for adult literacy to support the network of community education facilitators and to provide for the full-year costs of the back to education initiative. This funding will enable substantial progress to be made this year in implementing the White Paper on Adult Education, Learning for Life, which was published in 2000. A national adult literacy programme was the main priority identified in the White Paper. Investment has risen from a base of €1.08 million in 1997 to €17.9 million in 2003. Participants on VEC literacy schemes have increased from 5,000 in 1997 to over 28,000 now.

These Estimates outline significant expenditure in the education sector and significant increases in many specific areas. This has been achieved in spite of less certain economic conditions, as well as the other competing demands on the Government finances. The Estimates demonstrate the Government's continued commitment to the education sector and a commitment to all who are served by the educational system - children, students and adults - as well as a commitment to all the staff who work within it. I commend them to the committee.

I welcome the Minister for Education and Science and his colleagues from the Department. The Minister mentioned that although there has been a change in the structure of the Estimates, the subheads will remain the same. The Votes will obviously be different, but does the Minister have any idea how they will be divided up? If not, that is fair enough.

I will begin by discussing the Estimates for primary and secondary education and the schools building programme. There is obviously no need to reiterate what we have said in recent months about the condition of school buildings. The Minister will accept that progress has been painfully slow and that this Estimate will not address such problems. He mentioned that he is in discussions with the Minister for Finance about the multi-annual programme. Where does that programme stand? Is he confident that the programme will be provided for in the 2004 Estimates, when they are published in November? I welcome the new initiatives he announced in January in respect of the school building programme. The relatively simple measures that have been introduced, such as the sharing of school building design, will go some way towards saving costs.

I wish to ask the Minister about a matter that does not strictly relate to the Estimates, but which will have effects in the sense that it will mean that less money than we expected will be available. I refer to the decision that has been made about public private partnerships, which may have been discussed this morning in respect of the Cork School of Music. Where does that lie now? I am aware that a number of schools, particularly in larger urban areas, were expecting to proceed on the basis of public private partnership, with campus-style accommodation, etc. We thought such a system would be the salvation of many of these schools, but it does not seem that this will be the case. How does the Minister consider that this issue affects the Estimate? I presume it will not lead to any changes in the 2003 schools building programme. What effect will it have in the future?

The amount provided in the Estimate for new sites is a relatively paltry sum, as many schools are waiting for sites to be selected or for cheques to arrive from the Department. When will a final decision be made on such allocations?

The Minister stated that new schools must prove their viability before permanent accommodation can be provided. Has a separate provision been made for new schools in the Estimate? Perhaps it comes under another general heading. Adequate funds have not been allocated to provide for existing schools, but we must accept that there are areas where new schools are coming on stream and where there is a demand. I know that six Educate Together schools are waiting to hear from the Department and the Minister. They expected to hear by 30 April whether the schools would be given recognition by the Department. I would like to know when a decision will be made because the schools complied within the strict timeframes that were set down by the Minister. Having met a number of deadlines, the school authorities are wondering when they will receive a response. I would like the Minister to comment on this matter.

The money that has been provided for temporary accommodation in this Estimate is far short of that needed to meet the demand that exists. I have heard in recent days that one or two schools are expecting an announcement in respect of temporary accommodation in the next few days. I do not know if extra funding will be provided or if more schools will be given temporary accommodation, but perhaps the Minister could comment. I would particularly like him to be aware of the difficulties in places such as Sallins, where there is insufficient accommodation to cater for those expected to start school in September. If arrangements are not made, at least 30 children will not have a school place and will be expected to return to crèches or pre-school facilities. Will additional temporary accommodation will be provided in such circumstances?

I would like to speak about the primary sector from a third level perspective. The Minister is in discussions with the teacher training colleges at present regarding the provision of modular courses for second level teachers who wish to convert to primary school teaching. If the negotiations are successful before September 2003 and I hope they will be, will there be any impact on the Estimates? I am concerned about the changes that may be needed if the teacher training colleges decide they are in a position to provide courses of this nature.

The Minister mentioned the pupil-teacher ratio. Is he satisfied with the current system of providing teachers? Is he content to assess the ratio using numbers from previous years, rather than the pupil numbers in schools from the following September? It is obvious that a change in this system would benefit some schools and have negative consequences for others. It would probably be more realistic if schools worked from the figures that they will have in September rather than the figures from the previous year or two. I ask the Minister to comment on this issue.

I welcome the upgrading and improving of the IT infrastructure in the Department of Education and Science. I am sure the staff of the Department also welcome it. Many primary and secondary schools throughout the country also welcomed the upgrading of their infrastructure. They were led to believe and were given commitments in 2001 that a certain allocation would be provided, at least for 2001-02, and that similar allocations would be provided in 2003, but that has not been the case and is not the case in this Estimate. A number of schools borrowed substantially to introduce this facility in 2001 and they are still paying off their debts. The allocation which seems likely to be paid in 2003 is far less than was expected by those schools, which is disappointing. It will mean schools will have to fund raise to meet commitments they thought would be honoured by the Department of Education and Science as indicated in black and white in a circular which was sent to them.

I ask the Minister to comment on the fact that part of the capitation grant has been withheld. The Department has confirmed it will be paid in full in June of this year and that a review is being carried out into the manner in which the grant is paid, etc. It would be proper to pay the grant at the same time every year to allow schools to depend on its provision then rather than to have to wonder when it will come. Schools may have spent money it turns out they will not get for another few months. Will the Minister keep that in mind?

A vote is now being called in the Dáil and we had best leave it at that for the moment.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 1.05 p.m.

I will move on to the area of special needs. While I welcome the additional funding that is provided under the Estimate for resource teachers and extra teaching hours for children with special needs, it has yet to impact on the ground.

In general terms the work being done by the NEPS is very good but I have come across some situations recently, as I am sure other colleagues have, where reports coming through from the NEPS psychologist are at huge variance with reports from the health board psychologists dealing with those children in regard to the hours that are recommended. There is a substantial difference in some instances. I would like the Minister to comment on that, particularly in terms of the requirements for children with autism which is a different type of requirement to that of children with other special needs. This is the area in which I particularly see a variance in the reports issued.

The Minister made a reference to the area of special needs. How does he intend to treat the special needs assistants within the schools, particularly those working with junior classes? At the moment their employment contract is different to the special needs assistants working with children who are in school until 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. Those in the junior infant classes are doing an hour less per day and their salary and benefits are quite different, which is inequitable. The teachers in those classrooms are being treated in the same way but the special needs assistants are not which is something that needs to be addressed.

The committee will be discussing the task force report on autism and its implementation later this month so we will not go into it in detail. What stage of implementation is it at, and what effect does it have on this years Estimate? What kind of provision is there for it and what is hoped to be achieved in terms of the recommendations in the report by the end of this year? It is important that we discuss this.

The same is true of the education for persons with disabilities legislation, to which the Minister referred. Obviously he cannot predict how quickly it will go through both Houses of the Oireachtas but assuming it is passed before the summer, as was mentioned in the Dáil yesterday, are there any funding requirements or does the Minister anticipate any requirements that will have an effect on the Estimate before us?

The Minister mentioned that €4 million has been allocated to the special education council this year. What does he expect to be achieved by that investment at this point? I believe only three people have been appointed to the council as yet. How many more positions will be filled on it? Some 70 special needs organisers are to be appointed throughout the country. Will they be appointed by the end of 2003 and will the €4 million be used to pay the salaries for those appointments?

The Minister spoke of moving offices to ten further locations - I will not speak of decentralising. I presume this has happened. Will they be open to the public five days a week from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.? I am unhappy with the current unsatisfactory situation in the special needs section in Athlone where the phones are not answered two days a week. If we are to provide additional offices, we should be in a position to man the ones we already have on a full-time basis. If something happens in a school on a Thursday morning it is not good enough that the teacher will have to wait until Friday to get in touch with the Department.

There was a report last weekend about the possibility of closure of some of the education centres. I do not know where the Minister intends to set up the ten regional offices or if he has particular buildings in mind at this time. Substantial money has been invested in two of the centres that are rumoured to be closing and perhaps a way can be found to locate some of these regional offices in such centres.

I wish to ask some brief questions in terms of the allocation provided in the youth work area. The Youth Work Act was passed in 2001. The national youth work development plan which the committee discussed in detail earlier this year is scheduled for 2003 to 2007. However, there is little funding for 2003 to implement that plan, which is disappointing. An increase of 1% was made this year, which in effect is a cutback if inflation is taken into account. Where does the Minister see this going? It is important that it is not put on the long finger. We need to deal with it sooner rather than later. One of the most disappointing aspects of this year's Estimates, certainly from third level and post-third level points of view, is the reduction in research funding. I would like this matter to be addressed today.

I accept that the previous Government made significant commitments in this area, which are, to an extent, beginning to bear fruit. The cuts announced in the Estimates are very much a backward step given what we could have achieved. It has been stated that our expenditure in this area is in proportion with the desire we have to move our economy forward to a knowledge-based model from the traditional manufacturing-style model. If we want to do so, we have to make the investment.

The stop-go matter is unsatisfactory. Universities took on people to carry out research in the expectation that they would have the wherewithal in terms of capital to do this. They do not have it at this point. Some people have been taken on who have contracts, but not the funding to provide them with the equipment they need to carry out their research. That cannot be tolerated. It is referred to in this year's Estimates and has to be addressed for next year.

What is the position with regard to capping the number of employees in the public sector? What is the position of the Department of Education and Science in this regard? Are there certain areas in which staffing structures will be changed?

Let us consider third level fees. A report in a Sunday newspaper two weeks ago said the Minister is unhappy with the report that is being carried out so far. I do not know if it was a quote. There is much uncertainty. We expected some sort of announcement before Easter. The Minister used the phrase "around Easter time". What will happen in September 2003 and what does the Minister intend to do?

There is an allocation in terms of redress in the Estimates as well. Is the Minister happy that there has been enough allocated to deal with the claims in the system so far? Does he have any idea of the scale of the awards or the likely cost? Will the technical amendments we were promised yesterday in respect of the commission of inquiry affect the Estimates in any way? Does the Estimate provided reflect the amount of money taken in from the religious institutions so far under the deal?

I also welcome the Minister and his officials. We received many facts and figures and I would like to get to the meat behind them in terms of progress, or lack thereof, in a number of areas.

Let us consider the schools building programme, noting that there is a cut in capital expenditure of 15% according to the Minister's speech. Money will obviously be crucial to the five-year programme, regarding which the Minister stated he was engaged in discussions with the Minister for Finance. Can he indicate at this stage the amount of money involved? The INTO has estimated that approximately €300 million per year over five years will be needed. This is just for primary schools and I presume that one could add a similar sum in respect of second level schools. Will the minister provide an estimate of the amount of money involved so that we will at least have some hope of progress regarding the 500-plus schools which are at architectural planning stage and will be stuck at that stage at least until 2004?

Let us consider schools with real problems for this September, such as those in expanding areas outside our cities, particularly in the greater Dublin area and the neighbouring counties. The principals and boards of management of these schools are stating that they have nowhere to put classes in September. Another category involves bad school buildings. The Minister will be aware of a case in my constituency where there is an insurance problem. I know amalgamation has been proposed in this case, which may solve the problem. Is there contingency money for these emergency situations for September so that no children will find themselves without classrooms?

There are obvious problems regarding buildings throughout the system. If the Minister addresses the urgent situation and the five-year plan, we will have some sense of where we are going. In addition, he should answer the question raised by Deputy Enright on the capitation lump sum. Schools are being given the amount per student, but the capitation allowance, which is particularly important to smaller schools, has been held up. What exactly are the plans of the Minister in this respect? Many of the schools plan to carry out minor work during the summer and they need to know about their funding.

The issue of disadvantage is of concern to the Minister. Where is it being addressed? Is there extra funding for the Early Start, Breaking the Cycle and Giving Children and Even Break programmes? Will the Minister respond to last week's proposals by the committee on disadvantage, which suggested particular initiatives to encourage teachers to stay and work in disadvantaged schools? There were specific proposals, which should make a difference if the resources are made available. If we are to see changes for children who have no hope at all of even getting through second level unless there is significant intervention, resources must be made available to develop the programmes to which I refer.

I welcome the €5.4 million in the Estimates for the National Education Welfare Board and the progress that has been made in addressing the hold-up that existed. I understand that the board had been seeking in the region of €11 million to do what it had planned to do in the first and second years, taking into account next year's budget as well.

In Limerick, for example, and many of the other areas which did not have officers in place under the old system - gardaí did the job under the old system - it appears that there is a total vacuum and that there are children that do not go to school at all, sometimes even at primary age, or who attend very irregularly. There is no system to address that problem and the children in question are really disadvantaged. A sum of €5.4 million has been made available, which is welcome, but there is a need for much more in the early stages of the National Education Welfare Board's operations so that it can put in place a nationwide system as soon as possible to ensure that that every child will have the opportunity to benefit from intervention under the statutory provisions.

Additional funding has been provided in some areas concerning young offenders. It is difficult to read the figures. We do not have figures for the 2002 outturns and, unless I am misreading the figures that have been provided, this makes it difficult to compare those of this year with those of last year.

As the Minister knows, there is a definite problem in respect of young offenders. The Garda Síochána frequently informs communities that it cannot do anything about a child who is causing all sorts of havoc because he is underage and cannot be put into an institution under aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There are young people causing havoc in communities and, apart from the need for various kinds of intervention, there is a real need for institutions that will allow the youths in question to have some chance of changing their behaviour before they become hardened criminals. Will the Minister comment on this? It is an extremely important issue for many communities and impacts upon the offenders younger siblings, who are being set a bad example and see young people getting away scot free with activities thatare causing serious difficulties in their communities.

Deputy Enright has asked the main questions I wanted to ask in terms of timing of the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill. Disability organisations are anxious that the assessment of needs under the education Bill correspond with the assessment of needs under the Disability Bill, even though it is under the aegis of a different Department. Can the Minister comment on the interaction going on between the Departments on that Bill as well as the redress Bill to which Deputy Enright referred? We have been told there are minor changes but will they have financial implications? I share the concern that there is enough funding in this area.

The joint committee earlier dealt with the problem of the Cork School of Music and I do not want to go back over anything that was said. However, I was unable to react to the Minister's reply so perhaps I could do so now. The Minister referred to the general Government balance, GGB, and the necessity for it to be balanced to satisfy the EU. He also referred to the low level of borrowing and the percentage relationship between borrowing and GGB. Notwithstanding that, the Tánaiste said this morning that we were under-borrowed. Is there scope for other public private partnerships to be implicated other than the Cork School of Music? Can the Minister comment further on the matter?

I welcome the fact that we are to have regional officers. The local authority of which I am a member - and which I will soon leave - recently discussed the ten year plans and one of the main issues that came up was the liaison between local authorities and these regional offices. It is desirable because local authorities have a great deal of responsibility on education-related issues. It would be particularly beneficial if these regional offices could liaise with the forward planners in local authorities.

I welcome the proposal to appoint more educational psychologists. However, Deputy Enright referred to the issue of what are seen as new reviews of the reports of trained psychologists in relation to children and schools that are not covered by NEPS. There is a perception that there is a cut-back in provision because of this measure. In effect, where one psychologist has concluded that a child needs special help, another psychologist, under the aegis of the Department of Education and Science, disagrees because of a different interpretation of the rules. There is a perception that this is a cut-back in provision and it is important that is addressed. I acknowledge there has been progress on special needs, but there are many children coming into and being identified in the system who need that extra special attention which will make all the difference to them.

I welcome the standard design proposals. It seems as though having standard designs for different sizes of schools will save money and anything that will do so and allow for other needy projects is to be welcomed. I wish to raise the back-to-education allowance because it directly affects education, even though it is within the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It particularly affects people who are looking for second-chance education, which comes under a heading about which the Minister has said he is concerned. That people in the scheme will not get paid during the holidays and that post-graduate back-to-education students will not be covered has thrown up a real funding problem for many people who want to get a second chance at education. I appeal to the Minister to use whatever leverage and powers of persuasion he has with the Department of Social and Family Affairs to address the issue. The committee received correspondence on the issue, which was passed on to the social and family affairs committee, which discussed the matter last week. While the scheme is administered under that Department, the effect of the cut-backs is to deprive many people of second-chance education, for whom it is the only opportunity and who have financial problems.

The Minister said he would tell the students by Easter what he was planning. It seems obvious at this stage that he is not going to make any changes for the coming academic year. Nonetheless, it is important to give people some clarity on the issue. This side of the House disagrees with the Minister on the matter, as do a number of Deputies in his party and the Progressive Democrats. At least some information needs to be given to people, who are hoping to go on to third level in the autumn, as to what the Minister's intentions are and I ask that he address the issue.

Deputy Boyle is replacing Deputy Gogarty.

I apologise for the absence of Deputy Gogarty and thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Estimates and ask the Minister various questions. The sincerity of the Minister's intentions cannot be doubted in terms of wanting to improve the education system and having an agenda to seek to bring about such changes. However, as other speakers have highlighted, the difficulty is that it is hard to see how it can be achieved with this set of Estimates, particularly in the given year. The increases in expenditure seem to be determined largely by commitments that the Government has entered into in relation to the PPF, Sustaining Progress and the benchmarking agreements. It is hard to see where additional positions are being provided for and how additional services can be identified in the coming year which goes across primary, secondary and third level, as well as further and continuing or adult education and the responsibility the Minister's Department has in other areas.

What does the Minister feel he can achieve in the coming year, and the years to follow in the lifetime of the Government, to bring about any of these changes? This set of Estimates seems to have the Department running to stand still. In many areas the Minister has referred to trying to improve the service, particularly in alleviating disadvantage. However, how this can be brought about cannot be pointed to in any increase under any funding heading. This is particularly interesting in relation to Deputy O'Sullivan's point about third level fees, whether they will be introduced or not and the Minister's opinion about disadvantage and how it determines whether people can get access to third level education. The argument many people make is that the funding and the quality of the resources at primary and secondary level is the real determinant as to whether people have the opportunity of qualifying at third level. A set of Estimates that would have identified and targeted particular areas, in primary education would have at least shown an intention to make disadvantage a priority of the Government.

It has been pointed out that the education and welfare board is now up and running and has its own budget. However, there is nothing to benchmark that against until we see next year's Estimates and it is difficult to see to what extent that has transferred resources from other Departments. Perhaps the Minister might give some indication of that. Unlike Deputy O'Sullivan's city, Cork had a school attendance officer system, which was a cost borne solely by the local authority. In this regard, I presume there has been a direct transfer from local authority cost to Department cost in the year to come. We need to know what additional resources are being provided and how.

In the circumstances, the Minister has done well to maintain funding in adult education, which has increased significantly in recent years. This is, at least, an area where disadvantage has been brought about through lack of participation in the educational system. The Government has a duty to rectify these imbalances. However, in the other area of informal education - youth affairs - which I realise is the responsibility of the Minister of State, the reduction in additional funding, particularly through the special youth grants that were part of the Government's national drugs strategy, is draconian. These slashing cuts raise questions about the Government's priorities at a time when there is a change in the economy that will result in significant numbers of young people finding it harder to become employed. These cuts may come back to haunt the Minister and the Department.

The other false economies have to do with the capital programme in schools, particularly at primary level. There does not seem to have been any attempt in this set of Estimates, given the Minister's problem with ongoing capital resources, to avoid future expenses by allowing for proper budgets in terms of maintenance and identification of buildings that need to be repaired as soon as they fall into disrepair. We know that this is a problem with many national schools and it will incur many unnecessary costs in the future because the Department is unable to respond quickly enough or has not put in place resources sufficient to allow boards of management to deal with problems rather than having to wait for them to get worse.

I am particularly disappointed that, although the Department has made commitments through various pieces of legislation and policy statements towards greater democratisation of the education system, particularly at second level, it has not followed through on this. I know that the training budget has been increased but it is used mainly for teaching teachers within the system. Funds are needed to deal with the changes that will occur in the vocational education committees after the local elections next year, the added responsibilities that boards of managements have because of the Education Acts and the need for student councils in second level schools. Where are the resources to train people to give assistance to others? If some policy can be put in place to deal with this, it will improve the operation of our education system and should result in a better use of resources.

There is uncertainty about whether fees are to be reintroduced for third level education. Will the Minister tell us whether the issue of registration fees is to be addressed? Is it the case that the increase we have seen in registration fees from last year to this is an indicator of the type of increase we can expect from this year to next? Is this a way of reintroducing third level fees by stealth, as happened with motor tax?

According to the figures before us, almost €173 million has been spent on building, equipping and furnishing primary schools. If we add up the sums the Minister plans to spend on capital investment in primary schools, we can see that there are problems. There has also been a reduction in capital investment in second level schools. There seems to be general agreement among the Government, the teachers' unions and parents' groups that there is a need for an investment of €1.5 billion in this area if we are to bring schools into the modern era. There is no agreement, however, on how this is to be paid for. The Minister is trying to deal with the budget he has been given by the Minister for Finance.

Many of us argue that we should have gone down the road of taxing those who could pay for the modernisation of many schools. According to a report by the Revenue Commissioners, studies show that in the 1999-2000 tax year 18% of the top 400 earners in the State had an effective tax rate of less than 15%, compared to roughly 20% for a typical PAYE worker. Almost 13%, 51 out of the 400 people in the study, paid less than 5% tax on their incomes and of those 29 paid no tax at all. During the budget debate Government backbenchers said the money was not there but clearly choices were made and they seemed to ensure we became short of money, not only for education but also for health and so on.

In the last week we have also heard bad news from the primary school sector. A survey carried out by the INTO in Wexford found that more than half the schools in the county were in need of building work, and a report carried out by consultants on behalf of the Department is expected to state, according to reports in the media, that 10% of primary schools in County Kildare are also unsatisfactory. There have also been recent reports that only a little more than €10 million is available for new capital works at primary level, with the overwhelming majority of the total capital budget already committed to projects. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this. The sum of €10 million is not much more than that earmarked for temporary accommodation, including the supply of prefabs. This is the Government's plan which seems to be revealing itself more and more these days.

The argument is that we do not have the money but it is clear that choices were made with regard to the schools building programme. There is enough funding from corporation tax to supply the equivalent of two schools building programmes. There is a need to be creative and innovative when it comes to tax. Has the Minister or the INTO looked into providing tax breaks for builders? A builder might be willing to refurbish a school at local level and offset the cost against his tax liability. Earlier we mentioned the Cork School of Music and the area of public private partnerships. I know that €10 million is being set aside for repayment of the debt and that we will be doing this for the next 25 years. We need to consider new options. The INTO has suggested to the Minister that he consider bonds. In the USA, for example, cities fund major projects; in Wales, a non-profit public company, Glas Cymru, issued £2 billion worth of bonds to buy the utility which supplies water and sewerage systems. We need to consider alternatives to make up the shortfall.

On pages 128 and 129 there is a breakdown of subhead E6 which deals with third level education. Under each university there is a breakdown of expenditure for the last year and the expected expenditure for the following year. There does not seem to be an estimate, for any of the universities, of the cost to the State of the free fees initiative for 2003. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain this to me. I am sure he is aware of the great uncertainty with regard to third level fees. Earlier we heard that we were promised a view on this. Is this absence in the report an indication that the Minister has no plans to pay for tuition this year, or is there another explanation?

As the Minister is aware, the committee on educational disadvantage recommended that an extra payment of €5,000 be given to teachers who work in disadvantaged areas. This has been mentioned by other Deputies. Teachers are leaving schools in disadvantaged areas and we need to provide an incentive for them to stay. We need to attract people for the best possible reasons. Will there be an increase in funding for disadvantaged areas? St. Brigid's national school is a 150 year old listed building. There is land at the back of the school that Dublin Corporation has said it will set aside for it. The school is seeking a guarantee from the Minister that it will be included in the building programme within two years. Is there any flexibility in the figures for such a school? The corporation has said if it does not get the guarantee it will sell the land.

If there are any further questions on this Vote we will take them now.

Deputy Enright mentioned approval for new schools. The deadline to hear if a school is included was 30 April and a number of schools have been in touch with me to ask about this.

I will ensure that question is dealt with at the appropriate time. Are there any additional questions on Vote 26? It is complicated by the fact that there are two parts to the Vote. We are dealing with the older Vote now.

One of the questions raised was how this will change the subheads and how they will appear in the future. We will ensure that we adhere as closely as possible the existing Vote and subhead format. In line with Delivering Better Government, however, and the SMI process, the consolidation of Votes will result in future in a more coherent presentation on the Department's programmes and activities and it will be easier for me to reply directly on issues such as disadvantage and state how much will be spent on social inclusion across the Votes. This is an attempt to modernise the Department's Vote and make it more like other Departments so it is more accessible to everyone, including Ministers and Members of the Oireachtas. It will be more transparent, in accordance with the commitment given in the Department's statement of strategy.

Ten locations for regional offices were announced previously - Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Mullingar, Naas, Navan, Tallaght and Finglas. Deputies Enright and O'Sullivan asked about the local connections to the Department and about the NEPS. We are trying to set up one stop shops for education services in each of the centres with a regional office for the Department, the inspectorate, the special needs organisers, the NEPS and the National Educational Welfare Board. It may not be possible initially because in some cases we are getting temporary offices while permanent premises are located but all of those services will eventually be in the one spot.

It is not foreseen that the regional offices would operate from education centres because there would not be enough room for them. It is also intended, at least in two or three places where there has been extensive consultation with the local authorities about the location of the offices, that they will be able to connect with local bodies and organisations with staff from the offices being the Department's representatives on CDBs. This is a need in the Department that I identified in my previous role as Minister for the Environment and Local Government. It came up repeatedly when we discussed the task-force for co-ordinating local government and local development. In that way we hope they will play their part in local initiatives.

CMOD published a report in December that examined the provision of education centres throughout the State to see how well they were delivering their services and if those services could be more streamlined. I read it and it is currently being studied in the Department. We have not made any decisions on it yet. It contains recommendations that three permanent centres should be closed but we have not made any decision on the matter.

That feeds into a process that the development unit is looking at. There is a need for better, more co-ordinated training and professional development for teachers, students who are going on student councils, parents on boards of management and parents' associations. It is in that context that we will look at the future of the education centres.

There were many recommendations in the CMOD report and it highlighted a number of shortcomings and overlaps we cannot afford. We will follow up on the report in consultation with all bodies, particularly the teachers involved in the education centres.

The redress board and funding for youth services come under this Vote and the NEPS assessment was also mentioned. We will have a special meeting with officials of the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children on that. Information on the divergence between NEPS assessments and private assessments of students would be useful.

The Department established certain criteria for the provision of special needs assistance, resource hours and teachers. As long as the psychological assessments comply with those criteria, the Department responds to the needs of special needs children. A difficulty has arisen in that some people who have been given psychological services have paid no attention to the criteria and have formed opinions that do not conform with the criteria of the Department. We had to ask our educational psychologists in NEPS to review some of those assessments. This did not happen in all cases. It is not a criticism of all the psychologists who gave reports outside of NEPS, but, in some instances, rather than referring to the needs of the child as per the criteria, psychologists just said that a child would benefit from extra resource teachers. No child would not benefit from extra hours of one-to-one tuition. There must be some standards and criteria and those criteria must be adhered to.

In the past, because of the huge volume involved, the Department did not have the opportunity to scrutinise applications in the way they should have been scrutinised. Neither did the NEPS. That is no longer the case. We do scrutinise applications and I absolutely guarantee that people who have special needs and meet the criteria will get the services they need, but they must comply with the criteria. In some instances, difficulties have arisen because our educational psychologists may not agree with other psychologists, be they in private practice or employed by a statutory body. It is not a cutback but an adherence to the criteria involved.

Deputy Boyle raised the fact that there has been a savage cut in the young people's facilities fund. The reason for the savage cut is that the fund has been transferred to the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. I do not know why the fund came under the aegis of my Department in the first instance, but it is rightly the responsibility of a Minister of State in another Department and it is to there that it has been transferred.

(Interruptions).

There was no reduction in money. We transferred the fund as it stood and there was no reduction in it. What was the other area?

The redress board was the other issue.

We undertook a general review of the Laffoy commission and the area of institutional abuse and a number of changes have been suggested by the redress board which would facilitate it. These are technical changes and we will facilitate them when we bring forward legislation on the Laffoy commission. I was asked if there is enough money to cover claims, and the answer is yes. We will have a duty and obligation to meet claims as they are decided by the redress board. These will have to be paid. The money that has been made available from the indemnity with the congregations is separate and is available for claims. If we exceed that amount there will be financial implications, but we have an absolute obligation to meet the costs of those claims and we will have to do so out of our Vote. However, I do not anticipate a problem in that area this year.

I think that might complete our deliberations on Vote 26. A large number of questions about Vote 27 have already been asked, but if any of Members who have not asked questions or commented wish to ask questions - particularly questions which have not already been posed - on first level education, I invite them to do so.

I wish to ask a general question. Those of us familiar with the voluntary secondary schools are familiar with the large discrepancy between the availability of funding to voluntary secondary schools as opposed to the vocational educational schools that——

That matter comes under Vote 28. Vote 27 concerns first level education.

I apologise, I will return to that matter when we deal with the Vote in question.

Does Deputy Hoctor have a question on primary education? No. There are a lot of questions with which the Minister will be obliged to deal.

There have been a lot of questions and the one all Deputies asked related to the multi-annual arrangement and the progress being made on it. We are in discussion with the Department of Finance and have had a number of meetings at official level in respect of this matter. It is being dealt with in the general context of the Government's capital needs over the next four to five years.

The plan we are considering will deal with all aspects of capital building for the school sector and will deal with modernisation, upgrading and providing permanent accommodation through new schools, extensions and so on. We are also looking at the funding mechanisms for what we intend to do and whether it would be funded directly from the Exchequer or be NDFA financed. This must be done in the context of the fact that other Departments are in discussions about their capital programmes and trying to adopt a multi-annual approach within the context of the GGB, to which we referred earlier.

We expect that by the middle of this year, a great deal of progress will be made on this matter. This will hopefully be done by the middle of the year, which would enable us to work out the amounts that we are being granted and what we are going to do with them.

A number of Deputies also raised the question of INTO estimates, etc., in respect of the needs of the building programmes. They are not INTO estimates. The figures that the INTO are quoting were provided by officials in my Department to both the Department of Finance and this committee.

Roughly speaking, there is a need for approximately €1.5 billion to meet current needs and the needs that we foresee over the next five to six years. It is in the region of €1.5 billion for primary and second level and approximately €1.5 billion at third level. That is the amount we need, but we will be lucky to get it. We will try to get it but there is no guarantee we will do so. If we do not get it, we will just have to work to try to make the best of the amount of money we get. Some €1.5 billion would cover all of our needs, particularly in view of the fact that it would be a multi-annual programme, and innovative mechanisms for the funding of it would enable us perhaps to front-load some of that. That would be the benefit of the multi-annual programme. It would allow us to front-load and to clear some of the building projects that we cannot get around to at present. That would then ease the programme further down the line.

I thank Deputy Enright for the comments she made and for the support that she and one or two other Deputies expressed for the idea of standardised designs. This will save money and will also speed up the process for many schools.

Regarding the question about the PPPs, we can still operate PPPs under our building programme and we might do so. However, the problem is that if we are doing PPPs for, for example, five new schools in a developing area and they are going to cost €40 million, it will mean that if I got the required figure of €200 million or whatever, it would come immediately out of my building programme fund as the rules stand at present. When we know what we are getting a decision will be made about whether to have five schools built together by a public private partnership, if there is a crisis in a particular area. I would be taking a hit in such a case. The multiannual programme would be helpful because it would mean we could front-load.

Is the Minister saying it would come out of the existing budget?

Yes. That is part of the problem we discussed earlier.

Is that one of the issues we hope will be resolved satisfactorily in the meetings that are taking place, or is it beyond the competence of the people who have met twice and are meeting tomorrow? Is it an issue on which the Minister is holding fast?

The purpose of the meetings is to tease out the various issues. EUROSTAT takes the view that there is no risk transfer. We take the view that there is if a company goes on-site and starts building and is not paid for two years. We also take the view that over the life-time of the 25-year contract the school could, for instance, collapse, or there could be a mud slide or a fire, and all the risk is with the builder at that stage. The committee is teasing out those matters and putting forward that case to put our best foot forward at European level.

I do not disagree with Deputy Enright on the amount of money we have for sites. It is very small this year. It will not allow us to do a huge amount. That has its own difficulties. We would not be in a position to buy sites of the order mentioned by Deputy Crowe. A figure of €5 million for a primary school site for St. Brigid's has been mentioned on the radio. It is our advice that it would cost considerably more than €5 million for half an acre for a site. I could not justify spending that amount of money on one half-acre site for a school. If the city council is waiting for word from me about it, there is no way I could buy that. I pose questions as well about why, if this was a school site, it was put in for designation for tax breaks and so on. I cannot afford to pay that amount of money for a site and I do not intend to do so. That is a difficulty. We are looking for alternative sites in that area for the school but that one is certainly not a runner.

A number of Deputies raised the question of separate provision for new schools. There is no separate provision for new schools. They all go into the building programme as they arise. On the associated question of the recognition of new schools, there is a new procedure in place. There are fairly strict time limits. The reason Deputies have been receiving representations regarding it is that 30 April was the date by which a decision was due. The committee did its job and gave me a report. I have raised a number of questions on the report on which I need clarification. As soon as I have clarification, decisions will issue. I will not delay them unduly because people are waiting. I wanted to make the best decision possible on the basis of the recommendations. It will not be too long before that is done.

Deputies Enright, O'Sullivan and others raised the question of temporary accommodation. There is a contingency sum of €10 million in the programme as published last January. It is there - it was not designated - and the allocations from that contingency fund will go towards urgent temporary accommodation. We will be making finalised decisions on those in the near future and trying to ensure that people get the opportunity to make some progress on this over the summer months.

As regards teacher training courses and modular-style courses, consideration is nearing completion in the Department.

I have a supplementary question.

Is it on this Vote?

It is on this Vote.

The Deputy might address it now and give the Minister a chance to gather his notes together.

Does it also deal with youth organisations and so on?

We had a question on them under Vote 26 and the Minister indicated that he had disposed of that area to another Department.

No. That was the youth facilities fund.

I am concerned about the youth development plan which I know is on the desk of the Minister of State. I understand there is no funding available for it this year and that the whole thing is in abeyance, despite the amount of work that has been put in by many people in this area. Could the Minister say anything that might give hope to youth organisations?

I also note that the centres for young offenders are getting a slight increase. Perhaps the Minister would tell us where these centres are and how many people are in them at present. Is there a waiting list of people who are being sent to them by the courts? What is the capacity and what is the demand for places?

Youth education projects are funded on a year-to-year basis. Are there any plans to put them on a firmer footing, because it is difficult to retain staff and these are important projects? There are only small number of such projects. Is there any plan to increase the number in the short-term or in the long-term? I bring these three issues together because it seems that if we put more resources and effort into youth organisations and youth development plans, and put together incentives and opportunities for younger people to get involved in out-of-school activities in a positive way, perhaps the centres for young offenders would not be in such great demand. Perhaps we need to start refocusing. I am disappointed that so little is being done in the area of youth work. I would like the Minister to address that issue.

Special schools for young offenders are the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan. As I indicated earlier, both Ministers of State indicated to me when apologising for not being present that they are willing to come before the committee. The subhead for special schools for young offenders provides for the operating costs of the various residential special schools for young offenders. The schools in question are Trinity House which is in Lusk, Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre, St. Joseph's Special School in Clonmel, Oberstown Boys Centre in Lusk, and Oberstown Girls Centre, also in Lusk. The pay element of all of that is €21,203,000 and the non-pay element of €4.3 million, making a total of €25.5 million. As regards the number of places available, I do not have up-to-date details because it changes from time to time. As far as I am aware, despite some recent publicity, there are places available as needed, but that can vary, depending on the number of people remanded. The operational capacity for the five special schools as of December 2002 was 115 for boys and 15 for girls. The current operational capacity, that is as of last month, is 119 boys and 15 girls. That can vary. In a recent case we were told it varied because there was some refurbishment going on in a centre. A capital programme is currently under way in those particular schools.

A total of 552 staff are employed, 212 of whom are care staff. There are 67 teachers and the remainder of the staff comprises management staff, nurses, clerical and administrative staff, maintenance and ground staff, night supervisors, security personnel, cooks, domestics, cleaners and so on. If members want additional detail, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will be delighted to come in——

It might be useful to have that detail. We have overrun the time for dealing with that programme.

It would be useful to tell the Garda and judges as well because there is a perception that there is nowhere to put these young people.

I accept that.

We have to move to Deputy Hoctor's question on Vote 28.

I want to return to the question on voluntary secondary schools and vocational schools. There is a major difference in the funding for those schools. Vocational schools always received a larger amount of funding from the Department each year compared to that given to voluntary secondary schools. We know the reason is that voluntary schools are privately owned to a certain extent, but will the Minister indicate whether we have advanced towards achieving a level playing pitch with regard to the funding of both kinds of schools?

I do not know whether teachers' salaries, benchmarking, special awards, etc., are included in the figures before us. The Minister said he may withhold salaries until some other agreements are reached regarding holiday time or some aspect of that. Will the Minister clarify that and explain how it fits into these particular figures?

I am not sure if my question relates to this section but student teachers do not receive any income support during their work experience and, in many cases, they have to pay for materials, transport and so on. Will the Minister examine that question because it involves the payment of a small amount of money by the State but it would be helpful for those students?

When the Estimate was being calculated in November the substitution and supervision money had to be provided. Is there any change in that now? Is there money left over that the Minister had expected to have to pay out for that work or was something provided for that at the time?

What was the first part of the Deputy's question?

In November, when the Estimate was being calculated, the substitution and supervision issue had not been sorted out. Is there any change in that regard? Is there any money left——

The Deputy is asking if there is any spare money.

No, there is no money to spare and that is because we are now paying teachers to do that work.

On the question Deputy Hoctor raised about the equalisation of funding at second level, there has always been an historical difference in the funding for many reasons, not least that members of religious orders, who are much maligned now in this whole area, often ploughed their salaries back into the community and did much of the work we are now paying to get done. That was taken for granted to a certain extent. The Blackstock group examined this area in detail for the purpose of devising a system which would be equitable and transparent. The group made recommendations on a grant-based approach to try to maximise the discretion given to schools. The school services support fund was put in place at second level in accordance with the recommendations of the Blackstock report. In addition to that, the mainstreaming of CE funding to all schools via that fund enabled progress to be made towards a standard and equitable system of funding for all the ancillary services. There was also the introduction of what were called equalisation grants for voluntary secondary schools which are designed to reduce the disparities between VEC and secondary schools.

To give an idea of where we have come on that so far, there is no question that there is still a gap but from September 2002 the support services grant for all voluntary secondary schools was increased by a further €28 per pupil, which we are providing for in this Estimate. For secondary schools, this further increase has the effect of bringing the grants introduced in 2000 to €116.88. I will have to try to convince the Department to stop coming up with figures like 88 cent and so on; I think it is to do with the conversion from pounds to euro. From 1 January 2003, it is €127.04 per pupil and that is provided for in these Estimates. That increase is in addition to the equalisation grant in 2002 for secondary schools of up to €44.44 and a maximum of €15,554 per school. That is a total amount of approximately €8 million, which has been welcomed. We will try to make more progress on closing the gap but I cannot give a timescale for that because it is contingent on resources being made available.

On the general question on benchmarking, the 25% payment, backdated to 2001, is included in our Estimates this year. We do not have to make allowance for any other payments because there are none in the current year. The benchmarking payment is contingent on the modernisation programme being accepted by the unions. The union members accepted it, generally speaking, on a 3:1 basis.

The first part of the programme is the standardisation of the school year, which we want in place for the school year 2003-04, and we have opened discussions on that. If we do not make progress on these issues we cannot pay the benchmarking money. It is as simple as that. The school year has to be standardised this year——

What does the Minister mean by "standardised"?

Schools will take the various mid-term breaks as well as Christmas and Easter holidays at the same time.

Throughout the country?

Across the country.

What is the advantage of that?

It will be a significant advantage for parents who have one child in primary school and another in secondary school. Currently they may be off school on different weeks which causes major problems for parents, especially if the schools are not in the same town. From a Department point of view, a significant number of teacher hours are lost because of oral examinations and so on. If schools were off at set times, we could organise oral and practical examinations in those periods and pay people to do that work. Currently we pay three times for teachers who are involved in oral or practical examinations. We pay them their salary, we pay their substitute and we pay the teachers a fee for doing the examinations. If that can be standardised there will be significant advantages. However, the key to all of this is that parents and students know at the beginning of the year when the schools will be closed. If schools take half days or days off that they should not take, everybody will know about it. Currently nobody knows because it is impossible to keep track of that. It is important, therefore, that we do this.

What about the traffic? We talked about being flexible.

I left that responsibility behind me.

There is collective responsibility for that.

There is a noticeable decrease in the traffic when schools are off.

I am sure the Minister is aware that when various festivals and other local events take place, schools collaborate and decide to close for the day of the event. I take it that schools have to be open for a set number of days. In regard to other forms of education outside school in terms of local events in which children might traditionally have participated, I take it that such local flexibility may not be possible because schools will have to work in accordance with the centralised system the Minister is introducing? Is it true that the Minister intends that all oral and practical examinations will take place when schools are off?

I have a related question. I take it that school transport will be available only on the set days schools will be open. These changes will have implications for the availability of school transport. It will be positive from the Minister's perspective, but from the perspective of many others it will result in a loss of flexibility.

I can come up with 25 reasons for not doing this. However, I do not believe there are any good reasons for not doing it. A major complaint made by parents and management bodies is that the current system is all over the place. Pupils have days off school when inservice training or oral examinations take place. Due to the current state of the system, it is difficult to keep track and plan in advance. With a standardised school year, one could plan much better. The idea behind these proposals is to ensure that students get the class and teacher contact days they are supposed to get. The minimum number of days is 183 at primary level and 167 at second level.

With regard to Deputy Stanton's question concerning festivals and local events, there may be room for some slight flexibility, but it will not be the case that, for example, the primary schools in one town will decide to take a school break one week and the local secondary school will decide to take it the following week, although there will be some room for manoeuvre.

In response to the question regarding oral exams, this proposal will facilitate better planning and co-ordination in that area and in regard to school transport. In the past school transport has been provided for students in a town, for example, where there are four schools, only one of which was open. This proposal will diminish the likelihood of that happening, which will have a beneficial effect.

Is this the only matter holding up the benchmarking payments?

The Minister's suggestion is a good idea. He might consider introducing this change on a regional, as distinct from a national, basis to ensure that the relevant issues are taken into account.

In terms of the benchmarking payments, will take account of parent-teacher meetings taking place outside school hours? Is there a timescale to achieve that? I presume the Minister will not make these changes immediately and across the board. How does he intend to do this?

In relation to this matter, I refer Deputies to the partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress. Specific commitments have been signed up to by teacher unions, school management boards and various other people. The most immediate change is the standardisation of the school year. In order to organise that, people will have to know over the next few weeks the standardisation for the next academic year. The specific commitment is that it will be in place for2003-04. That is the basis on which people will be paid.

In regard to parent-teacher meetings, the commitment is that talks will have opened about the extension of the current commitments, that the commitment made in the PPF will be honoured - which is that half the staff will be in and half will be off - and that progress will have been made in discussions on extending that in future years. We have to be able to report to an independent body that is monitoring the situation that we have made progress on that matter by the end of the year before payment under benchmarking.

In regard to staff meetings, the commitment is that half the staff will be in and half will be off. These changes are designed to reduce the amount of time lost in terms of pupil-teacher contact.

We have exceeded the time allocated for Vote 28. Vote 29 is on third Level and further education. I can take one question from each member. Does any member who has not asked a question wish to ask one?

There seems to be a mistake in the addition in a column in the briefing document, although perhaps I am wrong. In regard to E6 - on page 26 of the briefing document - the figures listed do not seem to add up to €628,775, although I may be reading that incorrectly.

A number of questions were raised in relation to this. A question was also raised in regard to research on the PRTLI. In regard to the PRTLI and the various projects under way in relation to it, the Government is committed to the continuation of the fairly substantial levels of money for research through the PRTLI. Some of that involves capital expenditure, which relates to what I said earlier. I do not want to labour the point about this going into the mix for capital funding over the next five or six years. This is a key priority and one I emphasise that is still there. We do not have the money for some of the capital expenditure planned for this year and we are examining how we might advance that. The total amount given out in grants under the PRTLI is €605 million, which has made a significant impact. New research funding have been allocated to 15 third level institutions, including six institutes of technology, nine new research centres were completed in 2002, four in 2001, 62 new and expanded research programmes were established, 40 new inter-institutional programmes and initiatives were established and there have been over 2,000 peer review publications to date. That represents about a 250% increase in output in those particular funded areas. This is an important area to which we are committed not only to maintaining but also to expanding in the years ahead. I hope we will be in a position to do this.

The review of third level fees is ongoing and I expect to have a finalised report in a matter of weeks. I do not wish to make any presumptions as to what might be in the report or what recommendations will be made. When the review is completed, I will bring it to Cabinet and we will make the announcement at that stage. There is no provision in the Estimates for any increase in registration fees or third level grants. During the Estimates process I indicated that while the review was taking place, I was freezing everything and did not intend to increase registration fees or grants. When the review is completed, it may have an impact one way or the other on the grants issue.

A question was asked about the amount of money for free fees. The cost, if my recollection is correct, is €240 million. The total amount spent in student supports is between €370 million and €380 million, of which a total of €240 million goes on free fees while €40 million goes on other student supports. It is a lot of money but it is badly needed. Those who deserve it most should get the most.

I have met students who have now finished college but still have not been paid their grants for the last year. Can the Minister put something in place to deal with this? I have brought up this matter on a number of occasions. With the change in the tax year why can the Minister not make the application forms available earlier in order that students would know by June before they start college whether they would be eligible for a grant? It would take much of the pressure off students and parents. At least they could then make calculated decisions. Why must they actually be in college before they get the grants? If there is an error, the matter is put to the bottom of the heap and, in some instances, not rectified until the student leaves college, having had to take out loans, even though he or she was eventually deemed eligible for the grant. This puts them under terrible pressure. Why not move the process to an earlier time? Is there any reason for not doing so? Will the Minister examine this issue?

I agree with the Deputy, particularly given the change in the tax year. The process could be speeded up and the matter dealt with much earlier. Last year there was a particular difficulty because of the change of Government and so forth, for which I accept full responsibility. However, I will not accept responsibility for previous years, even in my Cabinet ministerial role. I do not see the reason local authorities must wait until August to start processing higher education grants. I also do not see the reason parents should have to wait until the forms come out to contact their tax office to seek a P21. If they were to do this in January or February, they would have the P21——

Why not make the forms available earlier in the year?

The forms are dependent on the scheme changes. It has been usual to increase the level of grant, at least in line with inflation, and make changes. Last year, for example, there were substantial changes in the top-up grants. New courses come on stream that have to be approved. There are a number of reasons. However, there is also a case to be made - it has been made - for a single agency to do this, rather than the 80 currently doing it. I am pursuing this with my colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

Is there a danger that it will be even later this year because the grants have been frozen?

No. It will be earlier this year.

Will the Minister give a commitment that he will endeavour to have this process take place much earlier, given the change in the tax year? All people need to know is whether they are eligible for the grant, which is a financial matter. After that, they can discuss the courses.

Usually, all they need do is get their P21, have a look at last year's scheme and add 5% to it. That will give them an idea of whether they are likely to be eligible. I accept the Deputy's general point that we need to do this earlier.

If it is one's first child to go to college, one will not be familiar with what is needed to apply for the grant and if one rings the council or VEC, one will be told that the form is not yet available. Perhaps when the CAO information is being distributed, students could also be given basic information on what they will need in that regard.

It would make a huge difference.

That is a good idea. I am not sure that I could ask the CAO to do it but the principle is correct. Everything the CAO does is strictly contractual. It is a private company. However, the Department or one of its agencies should produce the same type of booklet as the CAO and distribute it in January. It could advise parents to contact the tax office immediately to get their P21, which is what will be required. We have a booklet but it is not distributed that early.

We have dealt with the outstanding matters. I thank the Minister, his officials and members of the committee.

Barr
Roinn