SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 May 2004

Estimates for Public Services 2004.

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

The select committee met in private and met in public at 11.35 a.m.

Chairman

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the following Revised Estimates falling within the remit of the Department of Education and Science: Vote 26, Education and Science. I would appreciate it if members could operate within the proposed timetable that was circulated. It allows ten minutes for the Minister to make an opening statement, ten minutes each for Fine Gael and Labour spokespersons and five minutes each for Green Party and Sinn Féin spokespersons. We will then have about an hour left — somewhat less than planned due to the vote in the Dáil — for a question and answer session. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.

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

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N. Dempsey)

I apologise to the committee for being delayed. Apart from the vote, as members will be aware it was important for me to be present for the Order of Business for other matters. I will try not to take the full ten minutes to allow the maximum time for members of the committee.

For 2004 we will be dealing with only one Education and Science Vote. Last year when we met to discuss the 2003 Estimates I explained that the Committee of Public Accounts had approved the amalgamation of the four education Votes into one Vote. This change will have a number of benefits, not least of which will be a simpler and better presentation for all concerned. From a working point of view, increasingly issues must be addressed by the Department on a thematic or cross-sectoral basis and the new presentation will be helpful to us in the Department. We will make further changes in the next 12 months which will help to enhance the presentation.

The Estimates are drawn up on the basis of the priorities I previously outlined to the committee. As we never have enough money in any Estimate, a vital part of a Minister's job is to prioritise and make clear choices. The choices being made reflect the priorities set by me as Minister and by the Government. These reflect a plan for change and transformation begun in 1997 and cover a range of issues.

The choices the Government made regarding the economy involved significant tax cuts and tax reform. As a result we have almost 400,000 extra jobs in the economy. However, the successful economic policy and low levels of taxation have not been pursued to the detriment of investment in education and other key public services. In the case of education, the overall Estimate has grown from €3.2 billion in 1997 to almost €6.6 billion in 2004, a doubling of investment in education in six years. The expenditure can be illustrated in more concrete terms to show that this money is well targeted.

Since 1997, some 5,000 extra primary teachers and 1,600 more second level teachers have been allocated. This was a good investment in education. Spending on school building has increased fourfold. Almost 20,000 more pupils are in third level education. Despite misrepresentations by some of cutbacks in the further education sector, the facts only illustrate the huge progress the Government has made. In the case of post leaving certificate courses, the number of students has increased from 21,000 in 1997 to almost 29,000. My Department is completing a review of appeals from VECs, schools and colleges which exceeded their approved numbers this year. Those examples indicate the advances we have made in the past five years.

The 2004 Estimates show expenditure of €6.6 billion, an increase of more than 12% on the 2003 Estimate. The bulk of this very significant increase will go on four major commitments: maintaining services and employment in the education system; accelerating the primary school building programme; providing for strategic investment at third level; and providing for redress payments under the scheme for those who suffered abuse in institutions.

Two thirds of the increase in 2004 is attributable to commitments on pay, particularly benchmarking. While this is a significant cost, it is a valuable investment in public services. As I have said before, the service in education is mainly delivered by people. Investment in education means of necessity increased expenditure on public service pay to ensure that people will continue to be attracted to the teaching profession and the service being delivered will be of the highest quality. Another important aspect of the pay allocations this year is the inclusion of almost €100 million to meet the cost of improvements in the pay of part-time staff arising from statutory improvements, which represents an important advance.

As I mentioned, I have made disadvantage and special needs a particular priority.

Chairman

I have been advised that a division has been called on the Bill in the Dáil. The Minister may continue for a further two minutes.

Mr. N. Dempsey

That priority continues to inform my general approach to education and to spending priorities. I have continued to protect and consolidate the levels of spending in those areas. I announced the creation of an additional 350 new posts in the special education area. These will arise under a new speedier and more effective system for the allocation of such posts developed by my Department in consultation with the partners in education. This new system will involve a weighted allocation being given annually to all schools on the basis of their pupil numbers. The system will enable us to provide a more effective and speedy response to schools and their pupils. For the disability categories in question, it will put resources permanently in place, thereby providing a real automatic response. For the parents, pupils and the schools it will mean they will no longer have to go through the current system in which applications must be accompanied by assessments, etc.

In other areas of disadvantage the progress is continuing. The 2004 Estimates contain the full year costs of the improvements in student support introduced last year where student grants were increased by 15%. We have also provided an additional €115 million for payments under the redress scheme as well as an additional €10 per pupil million to fund the work of the child abuse commission. Other significant increases include an extra €10 per pupil for primary capitation grants and €8 for post-primary capitation grants.

We have made significant allocations for building programmes and have prioritised the construction of primary schools and third level research. There has been a 20% increase, from €167 million to €201 million, in the primary schools building programme and we have provided an additional €25 million as part of the multi-annual commitment of €140 million within the capital envelope for the programme for research in third level institutions or PRTLI. These provisions demonstrate our commitment to the PRTLI and the education system generally.

Chairman

We must adjourn as a division has been called in the Dáil. We will resume after the vote.

Sitting suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 11.55 a.m.

Mr. N. Dempsey

It is only fair to point out that the Estimates provide for some limited increase in charges. The student registration charge will increase from €670 to €750, an increase of 12%. The State examinations commission will apply a similar level of increase for the junior and leaving certificate examinations, with full exemption for medical card holders.

The overall gross Estimate is in excess of €6.5 billion, a doubling of investment since 1997. This considerable expenditure translates into tangible benefits for the learners we all serve. To that end, we have continued to target resources towards the disadvantaged and those most in need as well as directing funds wisely so as to enable our education sector to continue to contribute to the success of the economy now and in the future. These Estimates demonstrate the continued commitment of the Government to the education sector and, accordingly, I commend them to the House.

Ms Enright

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the select committee. Subhead A2 deals with travel and subsistence. Spending on home travel has risen, although this may simply be in line with inflation. Does this include the cost of the Your Education System conferences and payment of people from outside the Department who participated in them? There is also a doubling in spending on capital equipment under subhead A5, which deals with office machinery and other office supplies. What does that entail? Spending on printing, binding and stationery services is reduced considerably. As that section of the Department has been busy, can the Minister explain this reduction? There is a significant rise in spending on office premises under subhead A6. Can the Minister outline the number of properties leased or rented by the Department and indicate if they come under that heading?

The rise in spending under subhead B2, which deals with transport services, is not large. Will the Minister outline his intentions regarding the school transport service? Will the proportion of the cost to be borne by parents increase? Can the Minister explain why the cost of the service has doubled since 1997 although 20,000 fewer children are in receipt of the service?

Subhead B3 deals with international activities. There is a tripling of spending on miscellaneous international activities, including North-South co-operation, which comes under this subhead. What activities are included in that and are activities connected with the Presidency included?

Subhead B6 deals with career development. I have had communications from a number of teachers who work in career development for specific groups. These include the Business Studies Teachers' Association of Ireland and equivalent groups for other subjects. In a reply I received yesterday to a parliamentary question I submitted in early March, the Minister told me the numbers studying some subjects have risen while the numbers studying others have declined significantly. Will the Minister elaborate on the reasons for that?

Subhead B8 deals with youth organisations. Spending on youth special measures has been cut by €500,000. What special measures will be discontinued because of that cut? The young people's facilities and services fund was included in Vote 27 of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in 2003. I do not see it under that Department's Vote for 2004. The Vote for this subhead in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in 2003 was €15,877,000 whereas the Vote for the Department of Education and Science's subhead for this year is €6,794,000. Does this represent a cut of almost €10 million or is there another explanation?

Subhead B10 deals with grants to colleges providing courses in Irish. Does this include An Scrudu Cáilíochta sa Gaeilge? At the conferences the Minister announced some changes in the exam to benefit those who needed to take it within five years. Does he intend to reform the syllabus for the exam? Some of the colleges advertising this course do not seem to provide it. Has this been investigated? Will the Minister provide subsidies for those classes?

Subhead B17 on miscellaneous matters includes the development of the Department's local offices. Why is this under the B and not the A heading, as subhead A deals with the spend by the Department itself?

Subhead B18 deals with schools information and communication technology, ICT, activities. What are the Minister's intentions in this regard for the period 2004 to 2007? In reply to a parliamentary question last February, the Minister stated that the 2003 blueprint for the future of ICT had ended and that he was formulating a policy plan for the period 2004 to 2007. Is such a plan agreed and what does it entail?

Subhead B19 refers to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, which I will consider in conjunction with subhead B24 on the Residential Institutions Redress Board. As expected, there have been significant increases under both headings. I do not seek information in regard to Mr. Tom Sweeney, who is still outside Leinster House, as I know the Minister is still involved in negotiations on that matter. However, will the Minister deal with the issue in general, in particular in the context of the operation of the Residential Institutions Redress Board? Many aside from Mr. Sweeney have concerns with its operation and I would like to know whether the Minister intends to re-examine the workings of the board.

Has the Minister any idea whether progress will be made today on the situation involving Mr. Sweeney? If so, will he provide details? Perhaps the committee could reconvene this afternoon if it is necessary. The Dáil will break today until next Tuesday but the situation is more urgent than that.

Some 350 teachers have been allocated to children with special needs in the context of the National Educational Psychological Service. At present, children with special needs are not being assessed at the required rate and many applications are left sitting in the Department. While I have been told that those starting school in September have been prioritised, I know of a case where a child started school last September but still has not had her application assessed.

I do not necessarily accept that this is the best way to progress. If a child is in first, second or third class, his or her needs are not any less than a child beginning junior infants. In fact, an argument could be made that older children may be passing an age at which they could be assisted, yet their applications are not being assessed. Moreover, some children progressing from sixth class to secondary school do so without having been assessed at primary level.

Approximately 6,000 children are awaiting assessment by the Department. However, a similar number are waiting to be assessed by the National Educational Psychological Service. It is strongly felt that this service is insufficient at present and is not able to do what is needed. Last year, the Department spent approximately €2 million on private assessments. A figure for this is not provided here and the Minister should outline what he expects to spend in this area for this year. The money is needed because the service is not operating properly but the Minister should agree that it could be better spent on the NEPS.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister at the INTO conference of proposals for the appointment of 350 extra teachers for children with special needs. Without trying to take away from their qualifications, does the Minister believe that all school principals are sufficiently trained to make the required assessments in this regard? Are they qualified to decide whether certain children should be allocated teaching hours or extra assistance under the new system? Many schools believe this will be a problem with which they will have to deal.

While applications are causing principals difficulty in terms of time, the treadmill is within the Department rather than the school system and this is where the delays seem to be. It is a treadmill of the Minister's creation.

On subhead B23 dealing with the National Educational Welfare Board, I am unhappy with the allocation of 73 officers. My constituency covers two counties yet does not have an educational welfare officer in either county. Other counties with very large provincial towns have just one officer. I have been in contact with the board twice and accept that it has been very helpful and reacted as quickly as possible. However, the roll-out of this is insufficient.

Some €10 million is allocated under subhead C6 which deals with the rental of temporary school premises. I presume this does not refer to prefabs or temporary accommodation but to the rental of proper buildings. How many schools are renting in this way and are any of the premises leased? Is this the best way of dealing with the matter?

On subhead C8 dealing with special needs assistants for national schools, I have learned that assistants hired recently are receiving half an hour less work per day, although they are dealing with students above senior infants. This means that they are seen as temporary staff, despite being present in school for the full length of time and dealing with children further up the system. They are poorly treated and, as a result, do not receive any holiday entitlements, pension rights and so on. The Minister should address this inequity.

On grants to secondary schools dealt with under subhead D2, will the Minister explain why the allocation fell by almost €400,000? The vocational education committees come under subhead D6 but may have been more appropriately dealt with under another heading. Will the Minister confirm that the child care issue which arose last year in regard to post-leaving certificate course students with children, which was rectified on a temporary basis last year, will be permanently rectified? Will the child care costs of such students be met?

There has been a significant rise under subhead D8 which deals with the National Adult Learning Council. What is the Minister's intention in this regard? With regard to special initiatives on adult education, I acknowledge the increase in numbers but am disappointed that they are capped. This is the wrong way to proceed and the Minister should reconsider it.

Will the Minister outline the arrangements made in regard to St. Catherine's College of Education for Home Economics in light of the fact that the college is due to be phased out? Will it receive a lesser allocation this year?

An issue arises in regard to the programme being put in place to assess different third level institutions. When is the review group into the third level sector, excluding the PRTLI, likely to make decisions on allocations? What will be the basis for assessment?

Ms O’Sullivan

I will adopt the same questioning model as Deputy Enright as we will not have the opportunity to ask detailed questions later. Earlier the Minister regularly repeated the mantra that he is targeting resources towards the disadvantaged. Will he outline exactly where he is doing so? When he made the statement earlier, he went on to refer to the special needs area and very little else. The slight increase in third level grants could perhaps go under that heading. However, will he tell us where exactly disadvantage is being targeted, particularly at primary sector level?

I will try not to repeat Deputy Enright's questions. In regard to the first page of the Estimates, is the European Presidency a factor in the increases in expenses for travel, subsistence and so on? The issue of the consultancy services under subhead A7 has not been mentioned even though it has more than doubled from €165,000 to €363,000. Why is that the case and do we really need to spend valuable Department of Education and Science money on such an increase?

I support Deputy Enright's remarks about youth organisations. We need more clarity about how such figures are presented. Having spoken to youth services, there is a perception that they have not received the increases they require to do their valuable work. A specific increase from more than €3 million to €9 million in the youth activities element of this subhead provides grants to certain church-based organisations. Why has that provision trebled when it seems that youth services are generally stating that they have not received the increases they need?

Deputy Enright raised the issue of courses in Irish. At one of the teachers' conferences, the Minister announced that one college would run courses for students coming from outside the country. Has he now provided specific funding for this purpose? Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann is being wound up and I have had some correspondence with people working there. In that context, what provision is being made for the valuable language development work the institute has been carrying out over the years?

Subhead B19 relates to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. By the time the amended legislation is even published or is discussed by the Oireachtas, it will have been a year since the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy because of the under-resourcing and lack of co-operation of the Department of Education and Science in regard to the work of the commission. What extra resources is the Minister allocating to speed up the work of the commission? Which of the suggestions will the Minister take on board in respect of both Ms Justice Laffoy and Mr. Ryan? Does he have to wait until after the Christian Brothers judgment at the end of June to bring about some speeding up of the work of the commission because this holdup is a serious cause of concern to survivors of abuse, many of whom are getting older? There seemed to be a sense of urgency in September and again in January when Mr. Ryan reported, but it seems to have dissipated. What will the Minister do about it?

Deputy Enright raised the issue of the NEPS under subhead B21. I have similar questions in this context. People broadly welcome the new numbers of teachers announced for special needs but how will the 6,700 young people, who have been assessed for special assistance and are waiting for the go-ahead, be affected? Will they be left out or are they included in some way in respect of the announcement of the new teachers? While the announcement was welcomed by schools, parents have serious concerns that their children may fall through the loop. In effect, the schools will be given extra resources to use as they wish. However, the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill is very much focused on the individual child's need of assessment and support. How does the Minister marry those two factors and what will happen to the children who have not been granted the support they need? How will it work in a school which has more than the expected number of children who need this type of support?

In regard to the Residential Institutions Redress Board, like Deputy Enright, I do not want to inflame the situation outside the gates of Leinster House any further and I welcome that the Minister met Mr. Sweeney's constituency representatives yesterday. My party leader tabled a proposal which might be successful and I hope the Minister will give an indication that he intends to respond to it quickly.

The workings of the board relate to the Estimates in that people who have been at the gate with Mr. Sweeney feel the board is very much conscious of budgetary matters when making decisions, specifically where people are going to hearings of the board. The Minister needs to re-examine the legislation and make it more transparent. In particular, he must examine what happened in Mr. Sweeney's case, namely, when he went to a hearing, his award was reduced considerably. When he was before the committee in February 2003, Mr. Boland from the Department specifically stated:

The intention is not to focus the redress board on the facts of what happened because in the vast majority of cases that is too difficult to establish, but to look at what is alleged to have happened and look at the medical evidence. If that supports the alleged abuse, an award is made. That is why the board has a low threshold and why it should be and is expected to be attractive to applicants.

The Minister must agree that it seems to have ceased to be attractive to applicants. From what we hear, the medical evidence does not seem to be the only issue anymore. What people say at hearings seems to affect the amount they get. The Minister must address this issue. He is also discussing whether other institutions should be added to the list and he needs to bring this issue to a speedy conclusion.

I accept that the Minister has increased the capitation grant, which is welcome, but it needs to be considerably increased judging from evidence I have of schools' difficulties in their day to day running. This affects disadvantaged schools in particular because the parents do not have the money to top it up.

Subhead C9 refers to the centres for young offenders. In that context, has the final report on the Finglas centre been received? There have been suggestions that a decision is imminent in respect of it and I would be grateful if the Minister could supply further information. In regard to subhead C10 and special education projects, does the second listed item refer to youth encounter projects and, if so, does the Minister have any plans to expand the number of places on them because they do excellent work for children who do not settle in regular schools? There is a need for more of them.

Deputy Enright raised the issue of secondary schools, which I also listed. In regard to the child care provision in subhead D6 — vocational, will the Minister ensure that child care does not become an obstacle, which it has not been in the past, for people on tho vocational training opportunities scheme in particular?

In respect of subhead E6, on higher education, the various grants to different institutions have all been reduced. The free fees initiative and targeted programmes are listed separately for the first time. Why are they isolated and is it intended that it will raise the amounts? Is there an intention to isolate the free fees from the rest of the figures? Is there something on the Minister's mind which might explain why he has separated it? Is it perhaps to inform debate on third level grants?

Subhead E16 for third level research and development has been reduced from almost €54 million to €50.7 million, despite what the Minister said. Will he provide more information on why this is the case? When will the Minister release funding for third level capital expenditure in the context of the third level capital review? I am particularly concerned about Mary Immaculate College in Limerick which has serious problems. It expected to get money a number of years ago and because of the pause in the budget has not been able to get it.

Why are the receipts from the social fund in subhead G3, No. 5, increased considerably from €27.5 million to €45 million?

Mr. Crowe

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I am tempted to respond to the Minister's statement about the Government's choices on the economy in respect of significant tax cuts and tax reform, but discussing that would lead us into a different area of debate.

The Minister says he is serious about tackling disadvantage. I live in an area deemed officially disadvantaged and my constituency has high unemployment and high levels of children dropping out of school, so this issue needs to be tackled. We need to look at the Minister's budget proposals. He expressed criticism of the way in which, as Minister, he is expected to engage with the teaching unions, but it must be asked if that is the best way to put forward his views and his programme for the year. Do these Revised Estimates give us an indication of the direction his Department will take for the coming year?

At least 100 questions must have been put to the Minister and some of us are going to score points as we go through this process, but the difficulty in my area is that children are going to school hungry. Do the Estimates reflect what society and the Department are doing about those children? Early school leaving is the result of several factors — low esteem, poor adjustment, low aspirations, low intellectual stimulation and poverty. Every year, 15% of young people leave school without a leaving certificate, while 3% leave without any qualifications. Up to 1,000 pupils do not transfer annually from primary to post-primary schools, while one child in ten still leaves school with significant literacy problems. Three in four of our prisoners had poor attendance in school. There are small increases in some areas of the Estimates but there is no sense of this problem being tackled. It is all very well for the Minister to say that disadvantage is being seriously addressed, but anecdotal evidence suggests the problems associated with it still exist. We still have a system where children are attending run-down schools and while there is a programme designated to deal with the problem, such schools add to the low self-esteem of pupils.

Turning to the man protesting outside Leinster House and the redress board, I welcome that the Minister met us yesterday. We are all trying to come up with solutions. In this regard, the committee should do anything it can to resolve this issue, which is not about money. The man in question is not on hunger strike to get a payment. There are other people who also feel badly let down and hurt by society, and while the Taoiseach apologised on behalf of the nation for what happened to those people in institutions, many of them are still hurting. Mr. Sweeney is a focus for that hurt. We want the redress board to work properly but the Minister needs to re-examine its remit. If there is anything the committee can do to resolve Mr. Sweeney's situation I would welcome it. I look forward to an initiative from the Minister in this area in the next day or two.

I have raised my questions but I am concerned that once a year we debate the Estimates but get no sense of the huge change that society needs. Perhaps the Minister should focus on that rather than figures which tell us nothing about the state of the educational system.

Ms Hoctor

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I also welcome the significant increase announced by him and remind members of the doubling of education expenditure in the past six years. I will focus on the grant-in-aid for young people, particularly youth workers, but I commend the Minister on the injection of funding into the primary sector and adult education. People now have the opportunity to return to school, having perhaps missed an earlier chance to do so.

I have become increasingly aware of the need for greater investment in youth work. The population of Nenagh, which stands at 7,000 at present, is growing rapidly but there is no full-time youth worker in the town and problems have arisen as a result. Will the Minister look at that situation in the context of the increased allocation in funding? In raising this point I am being local but there are similar situations throughout the country where money must be put into services for young people. It is an investment for life and it is the responsibility of the Department. I have made personal representations to the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, on this issue and I call on the Minister to look at this again as we are examining the Revised Estimates. It is a wise investment because young people are the future and while great work has been done in early and adult education, those in the middle are losing out. Youth activities must be funded more positively as the lasting effects will be evident in the long term. There is more I could say but other speakers have covered the other issues.

Mr. Stanton

I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Minister will be aware of voluntary secondary schools requesting assistance in providing a chaplaincy service. I understand vocational, community and comprehensive schools are grant-aided by the Department in this regard but not voluntary secondary schools. What is the Minister's position on this matter and what discussions has he had? Has he reached any conclusions? How much would this cost? Could it be included in the Estimates?

There are more than 6,000 special needs applications with the Minister's. Will he explain why 4,000 applications are with him since last September? Any applications made since then have also not been considered. Members are getting representations from schools and parents who want to know what is happening with those applications. Does the Minister agree that it is not good enough to do nothing for more than 6,000 children whose parents and teachers feel they have special needs? Does he see the need to put more resources into that section of the Department so that it can at least reply to the students concerned?

Has the Minister decided to totally abandon the Youth Work Act? I see no reference to it in the Estimates, although it was passed with great fanfare in 2001. It was supposed to achieve great things. Funding has been allocated for general expenses but the Minister should point out references to the Act if I have missed them. Commentators point out that many young people are hanging around the streets at night in urban jungles with no leadership, no facilities and nothing to do. They are being preyed upon by people involved in drugs and get involved in violence and anti-social activities. Many, including the Department and the media, have neglected this area. There has been no emphasis on youth work and its value.

Subhead D11 — miscellaneous payments — deals with the recoupment to school managers of the cost of authorised supervision substitution and of the cost of certain part-time teachers. This may involve certified sick leave, maternity leave, maternity leave in lieu, adoptive leave, adoptive leave in lieu, bereavement leave and so on but there are other approved school absences occurring due to changes in administration. What is the extent of this? Is it true there are teachers who, through no fault of their own, are sitting in classrooms when their class has been taken away by other teachers? In the past these teachers would have stepped in and taken the classes of the teachers who were gone but now substitutes are being brought in for approved school absences. What is the extent of that? Is it true that principals are filling out vast numbers of forms in this area? Has the Minister any points to make? This matter may have gone to arbitration as it has gone on for quite some time. I am aware there is unease about it among principals in particular and there is a cost.

We are all aware the Minister approved information leaflets to be sent out which, I understand, were produced in the Department. What was the cost of this? They were not produced for nothing. Where is the cost set out in the Estimates?

It has been brought to my attention that the standardised school year poses major difficulties for boarding schools because they teach over six days and have longer holidays at Christmas, thus enabling students from abroad to take a longer break. Has the Minister received any representations from such schools and will he be flexible where they are concerned? Does he agree that failure to address their concerns may mean the closure of these schools, many of which are fee-paying, with a resulting increase in expenditure to the State?

Mr. Curran

I shall keep my questions brief to afford the Minister an opportunity to reply to the many questions posed. I wish to look at three specific areas involving subheads E.1, E.3 and E.4 which relate to grants. The overall budget has increased by 12% but many of the grants in these categories have increased by more than 20%. Is that as a result of the rate of grant increase or the numbers availing of it? It appears to be substantially greater than the overall increase in the budget of 12%. In most of those cases, the increase was more than 20%. Also on the issue of grants, will the Minister explain how subhead E15 — alleviation of disadvantage — works and for which there was a substantial amount allocated of €27 million? Under subhead F9, public private partnership costs have increased from €11 million to €23 million. If public private partnerships are successful, that figure will rise significantly. Where does the concept of public private partnership fit within the Department and where does the Minister see it expanding? I assume the figures are small at present because there is only a small number of such partnerships.

Ms Enright

A booklet on third-level fees and grant issues is sent out to students each year outlining details of what is available. I asked the Minister about this last year because the booklet is not published until after the CAO process and the leaving certificate. He said he would endeavour to have it published earlier this year. I checked about two weeks ago but it had not been published. Has the Minister any intention of getting the booklet out earlier in future?

Chairman

Subhead B16 deals with English as a foreign language. This does not cost anything but the allocation of visas continues to pose difficulties for students from certain countries. People in those institutions have told me they have enormous difficulties sometimes. A working group which involved three Departments made some progress but perhaps the Minister would look again at the issue. I would appreciate a report for the committee on the modern or the European language initiative in primary schools.

There appears to be a reduction in funding under subhead E16 — third level research and development. A delegation from Science Foundation Ireland and others came before the committee a few weeks ago and made a strong representation. Everyone was impressed by what they were doing and perhaps the committee would like a report on it.

I always raise the issue of gaelscoileanna and the difficulties they have in setting up and getting approval but the Minister always says they are treated the same as everybody else. I am sure I will be told the same today but I continue to raise the matter in any event.

I join Deputy O'Sullivan in mentioning Mary Immaculate College in Limerick. I think I am the only one who escaped from there and got into a bad line of business, so I am frequently under pressure from the college authorities to raise that specific case.

Subhead F9 appears to deal with public private partnership costs for post-primary and third level. Will any primary schools come within that category either this year or next year?

In regard to Mr. Sweeney and the difficulty that has arisen, I commend and thank members of the committee for the constructive approach they have taken. The committee, including myself as Chairman, would like to be of any assistance we can.

Ms Enright

Lest anyone thinks the schools building programme is not an issue, the Minister announced a multi-annual envelope of funding last year. My idea of multi-annual funding is that the Minister will know for, say, five years or whatever, what envelope of money he has to spend and where it will be spent. That is how the roads programmes work in the county councils. One still does not know when a school is likely to be built and that is a major issue.

In regard to the junior certificate curriculum and the science facilities, I have come across one school in the Chairm an's constituency where there is an application for a new school building but there is also a concurrent application for science facilities because it cannot implement the junior certificate science syllabus. Originally it was all supposed to happen together but it appears the science facility will have to be upgraded even though the school is at band 2. It seems a terrible waste of resources to upgrade facilities and yet have to move into a new facility in two or three years' time. That is an example of what is happening.

Ms O’Sullivan

When the Chairman mentioned gaelscoileanna he reminded me of Educate Together. There is a general difficulty in setting up gaelscoileanna Educate Together schools and new schools. A major effort is required on the part of the group of parents who decide to establish such schools. In the counties around Dublin — the Minister will be familiar with this — there is a problem in the Laytown-Bettystown area of Meath, and there are also problems in Westmeath, Kildare and so on where there are huge expanding housing areas and an urgent need for school places. I will not refer to the Limerick school places issue because it is a different matter. The problem centres on the fact that there are not enough places for children. Does the Minister have any plans for the Department to take an initiative with regard to these areas of huge demand and areas not moving quickly enough through the system?

Mr. Stanton

Deputies O'Sullivan and Enright have spoken about the issue of science in schools. I raised an Adjournment matter in the House concerning a school where the science laboratories have not been upgraded in 33 years since the early 1970s and where teachers are expected to teach the new curriculum. The school has been refused funding under the summer work scheme and there is no sign of anything else happening. There are many such schools in the country.

A delegation from Science Foundation Ireland appeared before the committee recently. Members of the delegation stated that to be competitive with the best in the world, young people must be given hands-on experience in schools. Each class is supposed to undertake ten experiments in a school year but this cannot be done without proper laboratory facilities for reasons of safety. The school in question is using camping gas because the gas supply system in the school has broken down. If young people are to be encouraged to take an interest in science subjects such as physics and chemistry, they must be exposed to hands-on science experiments. This cannot be done in schools which do not have the equipment or laboratories. Will the Minister ensure as a matter of urgency that facilities are put in place in all schools?

Chairman

If we are not interrupted by another vote in the Dáil, the Minister will have 20 minutes' speaking time. Many issues have been raised which are on the committee's work programme and are of interest generally. I ask the Minister to supply written replies to the other questions not dealt with.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I will endeavour to do that. I have a note on every issue raised. Some issues were raised by all speakers. I was asked general and specific questions about the provision for disadvantage which has been prioritised. The Department is providing €544 million this year for various schemes which fall under the heading of disadvantage. The early education sector has been allocated almost €8 million to schemes such as the Early Start project, the Rutland Street project — with which some Deputies may be familiar — the pre-school for Travellers, and the centre for early childhood development and education. Most Deputies will agree that this is an area that requires more investment and it will be a focus of greater attention in future when the review of schemes to combat disadvantage is completed.

At primary level, approximately €73 million is being directly expended on disadvantage through the disadvantaged areas scheme, the Breaking the Cycle scheme, the Giving Children an Even Break scheme, home-school-community liaison, support teachers, book grants and Traveller-specific education. The major funding is €23 million for Traveller education; €18 million for the Giving Children an Even Break scheme and €14.5 million for the disadvantaged areas scheme.

At post-primary level, approximately €35 million is targeted specifically at disadvantage through the disadvantaged areas scheme, the book grant scheme, the home-school-community liaison scheme, the Traveller teacher resource and Traveller capitation scheme. Approximately €30 million has been earmarked for those schemes which overlap between primary and post-primary levels. The school completion programme is included as is the early literacy scheme, including reading recovery and the junior certificate schools programme scheme. The visiting teachers for Travellers scheme is also included as are a number of projects in the local drugs task force areas estimated to cost approximately €2.5 million.

In further education, €175 million will be expended on the different groups mentioned by the Deputies, such as Youthreach, back to education initiative, adult literacy, VTOS, Travellers, drugs courts, the equality initiative and child care. Some Deputies asked questions about youth issues. Some €20 million has been allocated for special youth projects, youth encounter projects and the young people's facilities and services fund. Funding for access to third level education is mainly by means of the maintenance grant to third level students and the millennium fund and amounts to approximately €197 million, almost €200 million. That is an overview of the various schemes. The National Educational and Welfare Board is a scheme aimed at truancy and those who leave the school system and is being allocated €6.5 million.

Deputies O'Sullivan, Stanton and Enright raised the issue of special needs education. The announcement of 350 extra resource teachers for those with special needs within the system is designed to accommodate the applicants waiting to enter the system, those likely to come on stream before the end of the year and those who will be starting off during the course of next year. The weighted system has been generally welcomed and I acknowledge what Deputies have said about the system. It will be a miracle if we get this absolutely right from the beginning. The Department is continuing to allow for some unforeseen difficulties such as higher levels of special need in particular areas and so on. We hope the system in place will be able to deal with these difficulties. We also hope to have an overseeing group consisting of officials from the Department and from the partners in education so that if particular difficulties arise they can be examined and rectified.

There are significant advantages in the new system from the point of view of the parents and the pupils. The main advantage is that the whole system will be streamlined. Deputy Enright raised a number of points about increasing the number of staff in the special education section. The new system will mean that much of the paperwork and bureaucracy involved in the scheme from the point of view of the Department, the schools and the parents, will be reduced or removed completely. I do not mean the system will be absolutely perfect but we will try to have it as near perfect as possible. We hope to work out the details as much as possible before the system is finalised. It will be a good system that will be of benefit to everyone and we hope it starts on the right footing.

On the question of the standardisation of the school year raised by a number of Deputies and in particular the question from Deputy Stanton about boarding schools, it is wonderful that something that has been discussed for donkey's years and demanded by a variety of groups suddenly becomes the Minister's brainchild or whim or whatever else, depending on who is talking. I do not say Deputy Stanton used those terms but I have heard this referred to as my brainchild. This was being demanded for a long period. It was part of negotiations on benchmarking and Sustaining Progress. The issue of boarding schools was raised at the teachers' conciliation council. The council did not agree with the view being expressed and did not grant a derogation for these schools. The agreement must, therefore, stand. As a conciliation council agreement, it can only be set aside with the approval of the Oireachtas. I intend to abide by it and hope everybody else will do likewise.

Deputy Curran raised the increases in student support under subheads E1, E2, E3, E4, and E12. The increases are required to meet the full year cost of implementing the proposals for a special support package in 2003-04, which increased specific grants by 15%.

As regards third level research and development activities, the reason the allocation is lower than in the previous year is that we frontloaded approximately €5 million of this year's expenditure into last year's allocation.

A query was raised concerning in-career development and the reason some subjects are becoming more popular while others are becoming less popular. This is because inservice training in certain subjects is coming to an end. The full cycle of inservice courses has been provided and is due to conclude this year. Some subjects are coming on stream for full inservice training this year, including history to which the Deputy specifically referred. I am not sure so much inservice training is necessary simply because a course changes, given that the information in a subject, history for example, does not change. We need to focus more on pedagogy and organisation. The Department is finalising a reorganisation of the in-career development unit, the teacher training section and so forth. I hope this will result in a greater emphasis on meeting the needs of schools and ensuring that teachers take part in inservice training which benefits their schools.

As regards An Scrudu Cáilíochta sa Gaeilge, we are reforming the system, the examination and the syllabus. We have changed the marking scheme and made a number of other changes. We are also allowing teachers in the system who have not yet done An Scrudu Cáilíochta sa Gaeilge a further two years in which to do it. The changes will set a more predetermined course which will be of considerable benefit to teachers already in the system, including a number of excellent teachers who may not have obtained their qualification in this State. This group deserves an opportunity.

The moment I announced that An Scrudu Cáilíochta sa Gaeilge was to be changed, demands were made to abolish it. I do not favour its abolition because it is important that teachers have a certain level of competence in Irish. We have, however, made some distinction by ensuring that those who will be involved in all-Irish schools — scoileanna Ían-Gaeilge — or teach in Gaeltacht areas should have a higher standard of Irish. The budget for training and so forth will be a matter for Marino College. Any changes will be discussed with the college. While no decision has been made in this regard, I do not believe the Departm ent should subsidise the cost of examinations. Given that we do not subsidise the cost of leaving certificate examinations, we should not subsidise the cost of An Scrudu Cáilíochta sa Gaeilge. I could take the attitude that this is a postgraduate qualification and deal with it as such.

A Deputy asked why the local offices are a separate item. They are costed separately at the moment because this is a new initiative and we want it to be as transparent as possible. I presume this allocation will eventually be integrated in an administrative budget but as we roll out the system, we want to be as open and transparent about its cost. This is the only reason the local offices appear separately.

I hope the report on Finglas, including recommendations, will be completed in the next month. The Minister of State in my Department, Deputy Brian Lenihan, intends to take immediate action on receipt of the report. The decision to commission the report has been generally welcomed but there have also been other reports.

Deputies highlighted an increase of almost 30% in the allocation for travel and subsistence. As a result of an increase in travel and subsistence expenses in the previous year which gave rise to a requirement to pay arrears in 2004, we have increased the allocation for this year. Additional administrative and technical staff have been employed, including a significant number of appointments to the inspectorate, and this is expected to increase travel and subsistence costs. Additional demands have also been placed on Department staff during the first half of this year due to attendance at meetings elsewhere in Europe. These account for a significant proportion of the increase.

The increase in the allocation for office and machinery is mainly due to computer costs incurred by the introduction of ESI net, an on-line school system being prepared by the Department, and preparations for a long overdue primary school database.

I have addressed the PLC course issue on a number of occasions and referred to it in my opening remarks. The PLC sector a valuable one, which has grown considerably in the past ten years and the Department would like this growth to continue. As with any scheme, if the number of places almost doubles over a short period, it is important that the scheme is reviewed from an educational and taxpayers' point of view. We have a fixation in education about inputs but we also need to occasionally measure outcomes and outputs. There are many valuable courses in place but it is no harm to review them, particularly in the context of the McIver report on post-leaving certificate courses. That report contains a number of recommendations that will have to be implemented. In addition, no sector in education can be allowed to grow without being monitored and checked. The allocations and the number of places on PLC courses can affect the second level school allocations, including teacher allocations. It cannot, therefore, be left unfettered. However, I believe strongly in this sector and we now have an opportunity to be effective with it, build on its strengths and ensure that the system works well for us.

I do not have the details on rented accommodation and the Department's properties with me. The Office of Public Works manages property matters. It is necessary at times to provide temporary accommodation for schools because of changes in staff numbers and so forth, so that subhead is important. We try to limit it as much as possible. We also offer the opportunity to schools to opt for grants to provide permanent accommodation instead of renting accommodation.

Ms Enright

Does that figure include prefabs as well as accommodation rented by a school or are they separate items?

Mr. N. Dempsey

Rental is straightforward rental and that could be a local hall or a prefab.

Chairman

We will have to conclude the meeting. There is a vote in the House.

Mr. N. Dempsey

We have a list of the questions so we will provide the rest of the information to the committee.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance.