I welcome the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, the Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, who has special responsibility for training and skills at the Department of Education and Skills, and their officials.
The proposed timetable allows for an opening statement by the Minister and then a discussion by way of question and answer on each subhead of the 2012 Revised Estimate. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to discuss the 2012 Revised Estimate for the Department. I have said the work of the committee, of which I was a member for several years, is very important. Effective engagement with it can benefit our efforts to deliver the best education and skills outcomes for young people and Ireland, especially when the resources available to deliver these outputs are limited.
I welcome the enhanced role in the budgetary and Estimates process being provided to Oireachtas committees. This builds on a commitment in the programme for Government to open up the process to wider public and parliamentary scrutiny. I hope it will allow for earlier and more substantive engagement by the committee in the Estimates process.
Members will be aware that a further innovation being introduced into the Estimates is the concept of performance budgeting where, alongside the usual expenditure information provided by Departments, Estimates will also include performance information. This will specify the outputs that will be delivered with the funding to be voted under the Estimates, with these outputs linked to the high level goals set out in each Department's strategy statement. The performance budgeting approach will increase the focus on what is being delivered with public funds. Due to the technical complexity of the Vote for my Department and the requirement to restructure the old format of the Vote to reflect the new performance budgeting goals, the movement of the Education and Skills Estimate to performance budgeting is taking place on a phased basis. The expenditure for this year's Estimate is presented in the traditional format, with performance budgeting information relating to the outputs to be achieved under each key programme included as an indicative appendix to the Estimate. From 2013, the expenditure and output information will be fully integrated into the new performance budgeting format. I welcome any observations committee members may have as to how we can ensure the maximum effectiveness of the new process.
On the economic background and the comprehensive expenditure review, we are all aware of the challenging economic environment that forms the backdrop to all decisions on the public finances. While the Government has undertaken to protect education spending as much as possible, we are not operating in a vacuum. Despite the significant reductions in public expenditure which have taken place, we are still spending €18 billion more each year than we take in through revenue. The Government deficit will be 8.6% of GDP by the end of this year and we are committed to closing the deficit to 3% in coming years. We need to do a lot more if we are regain our economic independence and be able to stand again on our own two feet.
In preparing our expenditure plans for 2012 and up to 2014 as part of the medium-term expenditure framework, the Government is required to ensure we spend our reduced resources in the best possible way. This was the basis of the comprehensive review of expenditure undertaken last year. The multi-annual approach to current expenditure, covering the period 2012 to 2014, will be more open, transparent and will allow for better structural planning. It will also allow for wider and better input on prioritising resources in the coming years. The comprehensive expenditure review entailed a detailed analysis of expenditure by all Departments and widespread consultation. The review provided Government with a complete set of decision options which assisted it in realigning spending with the priorities set out in the programme for Government, meeting our overall fiscal consolidation objectives in terms of expenditure and staffing, and exploring new and innovative ways of delivering Government policy. The results of the review, which the Government intends to repeat regularly, provided the basis for the Estimates for 2012.
On the Department's Estimate for 2012, the gross allocation is slightly more than €8.67 billion, representing a reduction of 2% on the outturn for 2011. This allocation provides for upward pressures arising from continuing upward demographic trends and for anticipated extra expenditure on redress payments. It also allows for the cost of a number of new policy initiatives designed to improve the quality of the education system. These include funding for the literacy and numeracy strategy, the important programme of junior certificate reform, and the roll-out of 100 MB broadband to secondary schools.
The Estimate also takes account of the requirement, arising from the comprehensive review of expenditure, to secure savings of €76 million in the Education and Skills Vote in 2012. The measures being implemented to secure these savings will yield €148 million in 2013 and €232 million in 2014. Notwithstanding the significant scale of these savings, to meet the multi-annual expenditure ceilings announced in budget 2012, my Department will be required to find additional savings of €77 million in 2013, rising to €147 million in 2014. I am sure the Chairman will agree that securing such further savings, while seeking to minimise their impact on the education system, will not be an easy task. This is where we find ourselves as a result of previous decisions. I do not profess to have a monopoly of knowledge in identifying where these savings can be found and I am willing to listen to views of committee members that might assist us in this task.
In addition to the gross allocation of €8.67 billion, provision of €362 million should be added for expenditure under the non-voted National Training Fund in 2012. This allocation to the fund is 11% above the outturn for 2011. Among other initiatives, it will allow for the introduction in 2012 of a new labour market education and training fund specifically targeted at the long-term unemployed which will deliver at least 6,500 places. The final specification of this fund is to be agreed with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The allocation also provides for a further roll-out of the Springboard initiative to increase part-time higher education opportunities for unemployed people.
The provision for gross voted current expenditure on the Vote for 2012, at €8.24 billion, is equivalent to 17% of overall Government gross spend. This percentage is up 1% on 2011. Education still accounts for the third highest element of current expenditure, after health and social protection. Committee members will have seen from the briefing material provided that pay and pensions expenditure still accounts for the lion's share of overall expenditure, at 65% and 13% respectively, giving a total of 78%. This again highlights the challenge of reducing expenditure on the Vote while seeking as far as possible to protect front-line education services. The pay provision will meet the cost of 91,000 posts across the education sector, representing one third of all public sector employment. It also covers the cost of 2,800 posts across the Department and a number of bodies and agencies.
The 2012 gross allocation in the Vote of €430 million for capital expenditure represents a reduction of 23% on the outturn for 2011. The drop in market prices for building projects does not necessarily mean a 23% reduction in construction output. This reflects a reduction in overall capital expenditure as set out in the Government's infrastructure and capital investment framework which is necessary if we are to meet our overall expenditure consolidation requirement to reduce the general Government deficit for 2012 to 8.6% of GDP. As a proportion of the overall voted capital allocation, the percentage spend on education for 2012, at 11%, remains unchanged from the 2011 figure.
Deputies will be aware that I announced a five year building plan last March which reflects the level of resources available to me over the coming years for school buildings. This is a break with the tradition under previous Governments. Schools now know where they stand and members of the public now know what we can afford and can prioritise over the coming years. This reflects the commitment in the programme for Government to have a clear and transparent schools building programme. I also expect the number of rented prefabricated buildings to continue to fall, with the recent offer to almost 200 schools to replace their rented prefabs with permanent accommodation. The 2012 allocation for third level capital is €65 million. Capital investment to benefit 5,000 third level students will be provided this year.
I will refer briefly to some key elements of current expenditure on the Vote. Provision for the cost of running the Department is made under the administrative budget agreement. Subheads A1 to A7, inclusive, provide for the day-to-day running costs of the Department. Subhead A8 provides for the costs associated with the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, while subhead A9 provides for costs associated with the preparation for Ireland's Presidency of the European Union on 1 January 2013. This allocation is a new addition which will probably be removed after two years as the Presidency is to rotate every thirteen and a half years. The 2012 provision for these subheads, at €91.5 million, is €1.7 million higher than the 2011 outturn. It includes a carryover of savings from 2011 of €1.14 million and provides for almost €1 million extra in respect of the staffing and operation of the National Educational Psychological Service. There are also costs in 2012 relating to maintenance and refurbishment of the Department's headquarters buildings, while €175,000 is provided for EU Presidency costs. The estimated cost in 2012 of salary and allowances to Civil Service staff employed by the Department, including the inspectorate, is slightly lower than the 2011 outturn.
Expenditure on the school transport scheme, subhead B2, at just under €170 million in 2012, is 1% down on the 2011 outturn of €171.5 million. The allocation reflects full year savings from measures introduced in budget 2011 by the previous Government that were identified in the value for money review of the scheme as well as further measures introduced in budget 2012. These further measures include the decision to increase the primary school charge from €50 to €100 and the maximum family charge at primary level from €110 to €220. These measures will be offset by a reduction in concessionary charges at primary level, with the charge reducing from €200 to €100. It is expected that 113,000 children, including 8,000 children with special needs, will avail of school transport in 2012.
The allocation of almost €70 million for expenditure on redress in 2012, subhead B12, represents an increase of 58% over the 2011 outturn. This will meet the cost of additional awards that will be made by the board as it processes the substantial increase in the number of late applications received prior to the cut-off date of 17 September 2011 for acceptance of late applications under the scheme. Deputies will be aware that the redress board is now closed for new applications and I hope the upward pressures will ease gradually over time.
The 2012 allocation for expenditure on student support, subhead E1, is slightly more than €336 million and represents a reduction of 5% on the 2011 outturn. This reduction reflects the further impact of decisions taken in budget 2011 and additional changes being implemented in 2012. These include a scaling back of the postgraduate student grant scheme, with no maintenance grants payable for new entrants starting in 2012-13. Some 2,000 students on the lowest incomes will continue to have their fees paid, while a further 4,000 postgraduate students will be awarded a €2,000 fee contribution grant. In addition, a reduction of 3% is being applied to all rates of student maintenance grant. The budget also provided for new means-testing arrangements for student grants, which includes the value of capital assets, for new applicants from the 2013-14 academic year. An implementation group has been charged with bringing forward proposals on the new arrangements. Any proposals will require further Government agreement and legislative change.
A new single grant awarding authority for student grants, Student Universal Support Ireland, or SUSI, as I have no doubt it will be described, will commence operation for all new grant applications for the 2012-13 academic year. It is intended that new grant applications will be made online, with access to the online application facility for 2012-13 student grants being available next month.
The estimate for teacher pay in 2012 is €3.8 billion. The provision caters for increases due to demographics, requiring some 750 extra teachers in 2012-13. This is offset by the full year effect of measures introduced in 2011 as well as measures contained in budget 2012. While the net result will be a reduction of 200 posts in 2012-13, the final position in this regard will not be clear until the allocation process is completed later this year. The budget 2012 measures will yield estimated savings of €16.6 million and include a net saving of 500 posts from the decision to end the separate allocation for guidance in post-primary schools, with schools required to manage guidance provision from within their standard teacher allocation. The standard pupil-teacher ratio for staffing allocations will remain unchanged at 19:1 and a reduced pupil-teacher ratio of 18.25:1 will be given to DEIS post-primary schools. The one point increase in the staffing schedule for fee charging schools will yield 50 posts, while phased increases in the pupil threshold for the allocation of classroom teachers in small primary schools will, after the appeals process, yield about 40 posts in 2012.
Budget 2012 also provided for the phased withdrawal over three years of 428 posts allocated to some schools under disadvantage programmes prior to the introduction of the DEIS initiative in 2005. In January, I asked for a report on the net effect, in terms of posts, of this budget measure on DEIS band 1 and band 2 urban primary schools that still had additional posts allocated under earlier disadvantage schemes. On foot of this analysis, the Government agreed to retain a total of 235 posts, on a concessionary basis, in DEIS band 1 and 2 schools. The reduction, following the review, will be 193 posts from primary schools outside DEIS band 1 and 2 schools and DEIS second level schools.
Arising from budget 2012, changes were made to the payment of teacher allowances, with no additional allowances being payable to teachers who acquire further qualifications after 5 December 2011. Teachers newly appointed after that date would receive limited allowances. These measures were necessary to contain the upward expenditure pressure of the cost of these allowances. A public service wide review of allowances is taking place, pending the outcome of which the payment of allowances to new teachers appointed after 1 February 2012 has been suspended. This does not apply to principal, deputy principal and, for a limited period, assistant principal posts.
The allocation for 2012 for capitation and ancillary grants in primary schools, subhead C3, reflects a 3.5% reduction in overall capitation funding as well as projected demographic increases. The reduction is on foot of a measure originally announced in budget 2012 of a 2% reduction in overall capitation funding for primary schools. However, following the changes announced regarding the retention of legacy disadvantaged posts in primary schools, it was necessary to increase the original figure of a 2% reduction in 2012 to 3.5% in order to remain within budget limits. Budget 2012 provided for similar reductions in capitation grants at second level. While all schools are subject to these cuts in basic capitation payments, all DEIS schools continue to receive the enhanced DEIS grant payment which is not being reduced. The provision for the pay of special needs assistants will cover the limit of 10,575 posts set in the employment control framework, as set out in the programme for national recovery.
Around €1.12 billion will be allocated in 2012 under subhead E4 by way of the current expenditure provision for universities, institutes of technology and other higher education institutions. This represents a gross reduction of 5% on the allocation in 2011. However, when account is taken of an adjustment for increased income in respect of the student contribution charge of €2,250 - an increase of €250 - the overall reduction in 2012 is 3% lower than in 2011. This is made up of a 2% reduction in core pay and non-pay funding for higher education institutions in 2012. While such measures are necessary to secure the level of savings sought in education, I do not underestimate the challenges these reductions will create for third level institutions, particularly at a time when the numbers of students entering third level are continuing to increase.
The 2012 allocation for voted current expenditure on skills development, at €390 million, represents a reduction of 5% on the outturn for 2011. This reflects in part reductions in staffing numbers as a result of the operation of the employment control framework. It also reflects a 2% reduction in further education non-pay grants and a 2% reduction in FÁS non-pay administration costs. The reduction in the voted allocation is partly offset by an increase in the national training fund allocation for training supports. It is intended this year to maintain further education and training provision at 2011 levels, with some 270,000 places being made available.
It is expected that the process of establishing SOLAS, the new further education and training authority, including enacting the appropriate legislation, will be completed by the end of the year. The Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, chairs the SOLAS implementation group. The heads of a Bill have recently been referred to the Office of the Attorney General for drafting and the Bill will be published as soon as drafting is complete. I also hope to complete the passage of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Bill 2011 which provides for the amalgamation of FETAC, HETAC and the NQAI before the summer recess. It is planned to establish the new Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland shortly after enactment.
This is a summary of the key elements of the Estimates for my Department for 2012, setting out some of the main outputs to be achieved and also indicating those savings measures that are necessary to allow my Department to keep within its overall expenditure ceiling. While none of us likes to be in the position where we have to contemplate cuts in expenditure, we are, as I said, obliged to take unpalatable measures if we are to regain control over our financial sovereignty. Agreement of the Estimates for 2012 will be an important step in that direction. I commend the Estimates to the committee and I am happy, together with my colleague, the Minister of State, to answer questions from committee members.
With the agreement of the committee, we can either go through each subhead individually, or we can have a general round of questions from each Deputy. Which way would Deputies like to approach it?
When there were oral questions last week, we dealt with current issues. I would prefer, therefore, to go through each subhead.
We will do as the Deputy suggests and start with subhead A.
When will the provisional outturn for 2011 become the actual outturn? We are still looking at the provisional outturn figures.
After the Comptroller and Auditor General has looked at the accounts.
I see there is an increase in subhead A4 - postal services. I presume the Department and all stakeholders are embracing more and more technology. We discussed this issue last year when there was also an increase in postal service costs. Owing to new technology, I would have thought at a time like this such costs would be reducing.
In subhead A6 there is a substantial increase of over 40% for office premises expenses. How much of this is accounted for by additional energy costs, over which we have no control?
I thank the Minister for his submission to the committee. There is always a difficulty for Opposition Deputies in discussing this topic. We try to get a sense of the impact measures will have on students and the education system in general. Some of the questions may be repetitive - perhaps the Minister has already answered some of them - and I apologise if that is the case, as they were written in advance of his submission.
There is a 1% reduction in subhead A1 - salaries and wages. Can we get sense of the number of employees in the Department in receipt of salaries over €200,000, €150,000, €100,000 and €80,000? I do not expect the Minister to give me the answer now, but it would give us a sense of-----
Will the Deputy give me those categories again?
I am looking for the numbers of employees in the Department in receipt of salaries over €200,000, €150,000, €100,000 and €80,000. Much of the media coverage on the Department and civil servants is very negative. How much of the budget is actually spent on higher salaries? We can come back to the Minister on this issue in the Dáil. It is okay if he does not have the answer now.
Why has there been a 6% increase in the amount spent on travel and subsistence in the Department? What is the average amount spend on an annual basis in this regard? This is one of the old chestnuts, but people like to know where the money is being spent. Why is there a 43% increase in subhead dealing with office premises expenses?
There is a 100% increase in the subhead dealing with consultancy and the value for money policy review. Can we have a breakdown of the figures for consultancy services and value for money reviews? Perhaps the Minister might outline some of the background.
There is a 5% increase in the subhead for the NEPS. Why is that the case? Is it related to the controversy about SNAs and the role of the NEPS in that regard? Has the workload increased or are there more staff in place?
I thank the Deputies for their questions. If the information they are looking for is not immediately to hand, we will get it for them as suggested. I am not sure we have a breakdown of the figures for salaries. As I am told we do, I will come to that issue in due course.
Deputy Brendan Smith asked questions about postal services and office accommodation. The figure for postal services is down 26% on the actual outturn for 2011. The Deputy is correct that electronic communication should be leading to reductions but my note states that while the 2012 allocation represents an increase of €200,000 on the 2011 outturn, it actually represents a 26% reduction on the 2011 allocation.
The 2012 allocation for office expenditure represents an increase of slightly more than €700,000 on the 2011 outturn. It is more or less the same as the 2011 allocation. The saving in 2011 was due to the deferment until 2012 of a number of projects originally planned for 2011, including planned works in Athlone, Tullamore and Dublin which were estimated to cost in the region of €400,000 for 2012.
An additional €138,000 has been provided to allow for the full year cost of security services in Dublin. The contract was awarded with effect from June 2011 to a security firm at an annual cost of €331,000. The additional funding in 2012 is required to meet the full year cost of the security service. Prior to June 2011, the Office of Public Works met the Dublin security services cost. Both Deputies will be familiar with the campus of the Department of Education and Skills buildings in Marlborough Street. We have two public schools on that campus, which is an open space. We did not have it as a cost because OPW had it previously.
Some €171,000 has been sought to meet relevant costs incurred in respect of certain regional offices. Prior to 2012, office premises expenses in regard to these regional offices were provided for separately in a dedicated regional offices subhead. With effect from 2012, there is no longer a separate subhead for regional offices and the cost formerly met from the discontinued regional offices subhead will instead be met from a number of other administrative budget subheads, including this one. We do not have a specific figure for energy.
Regarding Deputy Crowe's questions on salaries, we have two people on a salary of more than €150,000. We have eight people on a salary between the range of €125,000 and €150,000. We have 20 people in the salary range of between €100,000 and €115,000. That is a total of 30 in those categories. There are 68 people in the €90,000 to €100,000 band; 172 people in the €80,000 to €90,000 band; 108 people in the €70,000 to €80,000 band; 55 people in the €60,000 to €70,000 band; 163 people in the €50,000 to €60,000 band; 222 in the €40,000 to €50,000 band; and 304 people in the €30,000 to €40,000 band. There are 171 in the €20,000 to €30,000 band, with four people earning under €10,000 and 55 people between €10,000 and €20,000.
On the question about consultancy raised by the Deputy, it has gone up by 100% from €50,000 to €100,000 which is a relatively modest sum compared with consultancy costs and charges elsewhere. The Deputy is lucky this is not the Department of Finance. The purpose of this subhead is to provide for the costs of certain consultancy services as required from time to time. Expenditure on consultancy services can vary substantially from year to year depending on the requirements for such services. I am not sure of the particular service being provided for this year. The allocation in 2011 was €100,000, of which only €50,000 was required. A provision was inserted to ensure that if we wanted to do something, the money was available to do it. We spent only 50% of what was available previously. That is the background.
What about the extra staff?
The answer to the question on the extra staff is the increase in the number of professional psychologists.
Regarding the EU Presidency, the Minister spoke about a figure of €175,000. What is that money spent on?
That is what we have put in for. There will be no informal meeting of education ministers during the Irish Presidency. We have been asked by Government at national level to curtail Presidency spend as much as possible, which has been substantial in the past. We are also keeping all the informal Council meetings of ministers to Dublin Castle. A deal has been done with a hotel group to provide accommodation so that, in terms of security and related costs, all the foreign visitors would be in the one area. The one event I am hoping to have, and we have not signed off on it yet, is that in the margins of or on the evening before an education ministers conference in Brussels, I propose, with the Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, to have a reception in the Irish College in Leuven, which will be fairly modest in terms of its cost. In terms of the time and space difference between Brussels central and Leuven, it is about the same distance as from here to Bray on a motorway. It is an opportunity to showcase the Irish Presidency on the Continent.
We have to have extra staff to cover the workload of this Department during the Presidency. A minimum of two interns will be recruited, one for the education area and one for the skills area. These will be needed to support the education and skills attaché in the permanent representation to the EU in Brussels in her work as chair of the education committee and liaise with the Commission, Council secretariat and member states. Effectively, as Deputy Smith will be aware, there is a doubling up of Ireland's role. There will be two persons where previously there was one. The Irish Minister will be present but we will also have the Irish President. For example, the Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, will take the Irish slot in the Council of Ministers and I will take the Presidency slot presiding over the meeting. That duplication, so to speak, has a knock-on effect in terms of staff and others. Likewise, the permanent representative, Julie Anderson, who is heading up the education side, among other things, will be in the chair, and therefore somebody will be needed to represent the Irish position. That is the reason for the extra cost. There are then the knock-on additional costs that flow from that.
With regard to subhead A5.1b, what does "current equipment" mean?
Can we come back to the Deputy on that?
Yes.
We will take a note of that and revert to the Deputy before the end of the meeting. If not, we will revert to him in writing.
We will move on to subheads B1 to B19, inclusive. I call Deputy Smith.
Regarding subhead B9 and the National Council for Special Education, I presume it is from that that the special needs assistants and others are funded. There is a welcome increase in the level of expenditure. In terms of the number provided this year, 200 places were not filled at the end of March, which means the number provided for in that employment control framework seems to have been adequate for this school year. Does that envisage an increase on the €10,000 to €175,000 provision?
I will get the note on that.
I have many questions on this subhead on which the Minister might revert to the committee for future reference. I can table them as parliamentary questions if the Minister would prefer. On the 3% increase in the national qualifications framework, are the changes resulting from the implementation of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Bill likely to lead to a reduction in expenditure? Is that 3% increase an actual increase-----
Which subhead is that?
B1. Is that a real increase or a benefit-in-kind? The Minister referred to transport services in his contribution. I refer to subsidised bus routes and the cut of 1% in savings. I note what the Minister said regarding the increase for families and so forth. This will have a huge impact. Does the Minister know how many people this will affect or did he refer to that in his statement?
There is an increase for international services. Can we get a list of international activities and conferences funded by the Department of Education and Skills under this subheading? It is a 7% increase from €995,000 to €1,019,000. Is that related to the EU Presidency or something else? There is a welcome increase for the UNESCO contribution on international education exchanges. Can we get a list of the detailed nationality, age profile and gender of students and teachers who benefit from this? Is it particular countries?
There is an increase for research and development activities, which is also welcome. Can the Minister give information on the research and development activities of EU pilot projects provided by this funding? People want to know where this money goes and the benefit of it. Perhaps we could be given a sense of that.
There is a 5% increase for teacher education, the in-career development and training provided to teachers in first and second level and further education sectors. What is the average time spent by teachers in in-career development and the training provided by parents and school management involved in first and second level? It is a 5% increase but who is applying for that and how does it work?
There is an 8% increase for the expenses of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Does this relate to the implementation of the reform of the junior certificate?
In part.
There is no increase in funding of projects in drugs task force areas. One of the pillars of the drugs projects is education and reskilling, and the major criticism is that there is no representation of the Department of Education and Skills at the table. The other pillars are represented. There is great concern among the projects. I recognise the Minister's difficulty in this regard but it is one of the areas where I do not believe the Department has stepped up to the plate in terms of its responsibilities. It is a key component and the Minister should examine it. It will not be this year because it has been decided but he should certainly do so next year. Across the board that is one of the criticisms one hears.
There is a decrease for educational disadvantage from dormant accounts. I presume this is coming to an end. Again, is there information on the projects and schemes that have failed to access funding under this programme? What schemes have been successful? One of the complaints that are made to myself and, perhaps, other members of the committee relates to community education and the difficulty organisations have. This is the one area where they can access funding, and while the 1% decrease might not be a huge amount, it is for those projects.
There is a 58% increase for the residential institutions redress scheme. The big question about redress up to now is the concern that many of the victims have about those who have availed of this, such as lawyers. I met a man today who told me that one group of solicitors got approximately €17 million. Perhaps the Minister would provide a breakdown in that regard. One of the things people frequently said about this subject is that if the commission had been in place first, with the redress being made afterwards, we might have had more of a sense of what would happen. It is done now, but we will have another opportunity to look at the redress scheme again. Could the Minister give members a note about the 58% increase for that? I have other questions on this subject but I will probably submit them as parliamentary questions.
There is a huge increase for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Perhaps the Minister could give the committee some extra information on that. There is also a welcome increase of 44% for school information and communications technology activities. Could the Minister provide a list of schools that are upgrading or await upgrades of school broadband? I presume there is co-operation with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, in that regard.
There is a welcome increase for North-South co-operation. Will the Minister provide information on the initiatives in the field of education that benefit from North-South co-operation, the number of children or students who have benefited from the George Mitchell scholarship fund, the number who have attended and so forth? I presume it is under that heading in the budget. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
There were a number of questions. Could Deputy Smith repeat the question he asked?
I apologise. I jumped ahead to the wrong heading.
That was under A5. I will come back to that. We will take them in sequence. I will answer Deputy Crowe's questions with the information I have readily to hand. We have taken notes of his queries and we will give replies in written form or in response to parliamentary questions.
With regard to B1, the national qualifications framework, as I said in my opening remarks, we are merging those three separate bodies into one. It provides for the cost related to the establishment and maintenance of the new national qualifications framework as provided for in the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999. In doing so, the subhead provides for the running costs of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, the Further Education and Training Awards Council, FETAC, and the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC. The 2012 allocation of €7.714 million for current expenditure, while higher than the outturn for 2011, represents in real terms a cut in allocation when issues of a once-off nature are taken into account.
FETAC was in receipt of significant additional backdated fee income from FÁS in 2011 of approximately €600,000. This fee income was once-off in nature and therefore will not be received in 2012. In addition, as well as general savings in current expenditure, the anticipated savings arising from the amalgamation will not arise in 2012. These additional costs will arise in the current year. It is considered that the allocation for 2012 will enable the three agencies to deliver an appropriate level of service in accordance with their statutory obligations and also defray costs that may arise from the forthcoming amalgamation, especially with regard to IT and accommodation.
Subhead B2 relates to transport services and the Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, can respond on that.
Deputy Crowe was wondering about routes and subsidisation.
We have heard many stories during the year about the difficulty of the increase for and the impact it will have on families. Have any routes been lost and have any routes been increased? There is a 1% saving. How is it being made? I can see the big increase for families in that regard. The 1% decrease does not appear to be a huge decrease in the spend, even though the families have to pay out such a huge lump sum.
Any of the changes being made are the result of a value for money assessment that was carried out on the school transport system about two years ago. One of the conclusions of that assessment was that there was a degree of inequity between children who accessed a local bus as an entitlement and those who accessed it on a concessionary basis. For example, the charge for a child who was boarding a bus which they were entitled to board because of where they lived in relation to the school was paying €50 a year, yet a child who was availing of a concessionary ticket was paying €200 per year. I attended a number of meetings nationally with parents and schools, not long after the initial budgetary announcements were made. One of the questions I was asked was whether we could bridge that gap and provide more equity. The mechanism for doing that is to increase the normal charge from €50 to €100 but, as a consequence, to decrease from €200 to €100 for concessionary tickets. That has brought a degree of equity into the system that is welcomed by parents in general. It is also important to bear in mind that any family with a medical card is exempt from school transport charges and there is also provision for families that are required to pay the charge to do so on an instalment basis. We have been as supportive of families as we possibly can be in implementing the charges. It is also important to note that Bus Éireann itself, between 2010 and this year, has reduced its administrative overheads on the scheme by €3.2 million, again at our behest. There is constant and ongoing communication between the Department and Bus Éireann to minimise administrative overheads as best we can.
Okay.
We will write to Deputy Crowe with a breakdown of subhead B3, international activities, along the lines requested.
The note provided outlines that the subhead provides for expenditure arising from a range of international activities as well as membership of certain organisations such as, for example, the international apprentice competition, arrangements for international conferences, membership of the European University Institute and the College of Europe and the European Union PEACE programme. We will get a more detailed breakdown on the subhead.
The Minister is aware of how the big red light goes on when people hear of conferences. That is what led to my question.
It is a fair question. When one sees relatively small sums of money being reduced from current account expenditure, domestically, and then one sees the figures all rolled up into one for convenience of reporting, one can get the impression that something else is going on.
Research and development is ongoing. It is to fund individual researchers and research institutions for specific educational research. For example, in the Educational Research Centre in St. Patrick's College, we funded some work on the PISA report which was published recently and ongoing work. Provision is made in such allocations to have the capacity at short notice to commission a piece of research. It does not necessarily mean that we will use the money if we do not want to do so but it is in the subhead and therefore one does not have to make a federal case for it and look for the money as it is already provided, although it does not have to be spent.
In-career development relates to teachers' centres, which is part and parcel of continuing professional development, CPD, under the Teaching Council. When section 30 is activated later this year teachers will be required, as is the norm with lawyers, doctors, architects and others, to show evidence of having done continuing professional development in order to be registered again as a practising professional. We will look in the future at the possibility of providing much of the CPD online rather than requiring attendance at teachers' centres which can be costly. It is a significant amount of money but reinvesting in the professional skills of teachers and upgrading them is considered good value for money in the main but we can perhaps get more out of it from doing it in a slightly different way.
On subhead B7, as I outlined at the conferences attended by both Deputy Crowe and Deputy Smith, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, invited 40 post-primary schools to participate in helping it to roll out and test how a junior certificate curriculum might work on the ground in a classroom setting. We got three times the number required, which is a very positive indication in itself, but there are costs associated with doing that kind of work, which is the reason for the increase from €3.4 million to €3.7 million.
Deputy Crowe has raised a topic that is dear to my own heart, namely, the non-appearance of people from the world of education, as distinct from the Department of Education and Skills, at some of the drugs task forces. The Department of Education and Skills is not like other Departments that have a direct hands-on engagement with the public because it operates either through schools or the VECs. What I would like to explore with both Deputies is to see whether we need to have an educational person represented where it has not been possible in the past for education personnel to be there. Perhaps the new local education and training boards, LETBs, might be the appropriate body to have a representation and that can report back to us. It is a question of bodies and numbers.
I have just been corrected. I am now informed that the Department is represented at senior level on the structures underpinning the national drugs strategy such as the oversight forum on drugs and the drugs advisory group, DAG, and the Department's representative on the DAG acts as a liaison to two local task forces; the south inner city and the Dublin 12 areas. While I accept that fully, the reality from my experience and that of most Members, is that while the representation is officially in place, frequently the person is not present.
I thought the Department's representatives were withdrawn from the task force. A person who was on the drugs task force in Tallaght was withdrawn. It is one of the pillars of education.
Deputy Crowe may come back to me with specific questions but I am told that a senior official is based in the Tallaght area. As Deputy Crowe is aware, the project there is a large one. I see a future role for the LETBs on the ground in an area such as Tallaght where one has a drugs task force. The person concerned is probably a more appropriate person but that does not mean he or she will not be connected back to the Department.
Going back 15 or 20 years, on-the-ground presence from departmental staff in terms of attending meetings was never as satisfactory as it was for other Departments. That is probably just a reflection of scarcity of numbers and workload. It is certainly not a reflection in any way on the personnel directly involved.
Subhead B10 relates to dormant accounts. It is self-evident that there are fewer dormant accounts and they have been utilised. The note outlines that funding is made available in the subhead to readdress economic and social disadvantage and educational disadvantage. Receipts come from the National Treasury Management Agency, which is responsible for managing the Dormant Accounts Fund. Funding was provided in 2011 for the institute of technology access programme, the Limerick DEIS programme and preschool initiatives. The allocation for 2012 is €1.6 million and will be sufficient to cover existing commitments which will be concluded by mid-2012. The Government will consider a new dormant accounts programme late in 2012, assuming the enactment of a dormant accounts Bill 2011.
The last subhead is B12, which relates to the Residential Institutions Redress Board. Members will be aware that the purpose of the subhead is to provide for the payment of awards and related expenses by the redress board to persons who as children were abused while resident in industrial schools, reformatories or other institutions which were subject to State regulation and inspection. The 2012 allocation is approximately €70 million and it will facilitate the board review committee to continue to make awards and meet related expenses of applications on hand. The allocation represents an increase of 58% over the 2011 outturn which will meet some of the additional awards that will be made by the board as it processes the substantial increase in the number of late applications prior to the cut-off date beyond which the board cannot accept late applications.
From the briefing I have had with senior officials in the Department, the anticipated time for applications was exceeded by approximately five to six years. Eventually, in consultation with Judge Esmond Smyth, who was the chairman of the board, it was agreed that we would have to draw a line under the receipt of applications. Legislation was enacted to give effect to that power because it did not exist. The expectation and advice was that one would get a flurry of late applications when people finally got their act together. Those applying from the United Kingdom only fully realised the situation at a late stage. The people concerned are damaged and in some cases their late application was because for whatever reason they did not get their act together, which is not a pejorative reflection on them. It was also the case that the delay was the fault of solicitors or legal agents acting on behalf of the applicants in getting in an application. What then happened is that they could not substantiate the application when asked for additional information. The powers of the board now include one to terminate an application if repeated requests for additional information to substantiate the original application cannot be met. Consequently, this is a prudent provision. According to the senior official who was dealing with it and has since moved to another section, while it is unlikely the money will be drawn down fully, the Department must make provision for it. That is the reason for its inclusion.
At some point, the Minister should provide a breakdown, in respect of the victims, of the money spent. It is scandalous that solicitors and God knows who else have received €15 million or €17 million.
While I can provide the information I have to hand, were members to table a parliamentary question for written reply, I would be happy to give them chapter and verse. The total legal fee bill to date is €160 million and the average legal cost is approximately €11,000. Moreover, legal fees comprise approximately 8% of the overall outlay. While that is the information I have to hand, the Deputy might revert to the Department for additional material.
While some questions pertained to subhead C, does Deputy Brendan Smith have questions on subhead B?
In respect of subhead B5 on research and development activities, is the Department drawing down funds from the European Union in this regard? I refer to the Seventh EU Framework Programme for Research and Development and how other Departments and some State agencies have been highly successful in the past decade in drawing down substantial funds. Are such programmes available to the Department of Education and Skills as such? As regards subhead B17 on miscellaneous expenditure, does the section 29 appeals body pertain to admissions to schools or to what does it refer?
On subhead B5, research and development activities, the moneys involved do not include funds for third or fourth level research which is provided under subhead E13. Appeals under section 29 have exploded in volume.
Do they relate to admissions to second level schools?
Yes. A parent or a pupil refused admission for whatever reason can appeal the decision directly to the Department. This relates to the associated legal costs, one reason, prior to my arrival in Marlborough Street, the Department had initiated a document on an enrolment policy for consultation that was published in draft form last June. While the Department does not wish to get into the business of managing school enrolments, submissions were requested by the end of the Halloween mid-term break and a significant volume of submissions were received from right across the spectrum, both primary and secondary, which are being processed. As part of the legislative programme, the Department will bring forward legislation to enable schools to comply with broad guidelines on their admissions policies and the necessity to have them published. Famously, there was a recent case in Clonmel, with which members are probably familiar, in which the school concerned won its case against a claim. This is a broad area and 80% of the schools in question have no difficulty in accepting applicants, except perhaps in a case of a particular individual who is well known and that can result in a section 29 appeal. As for the bulk of applications, 20% of schools refuse places to applicants on grounds of space and in accordance with their enrolment policies.
Are the difficulties predominantly at second rather than primary level?
I will provide the Deputy with a breakdown that fortuitously has been placed in front of me. In 2001 there was one appeal at primary level and 28 at post-primary level. In 2011 there were 104 appeals at primary level and 263 at post-primary level. This increase is exponential and the reason the Department was obliged to move in this regard. However, it will bring forward legislation.
Does the Minister know how many appeals are won? I believe parents are under a false impression of what can be achieved through that mechanism.
No, I do not have that information.
This is something that could be considered because parents do not realise the consequences. They think that making an appeal is straightforward, as though it is the thing to do, rather than giving the matter some thought. Some cost savings may be made in this regard.
Yes, and it tends to ensure principals and senior teachers in schools spend their so-called summer holidays immersed in this process.
It does not save anyone.
It also does not create happy campers in returning to school in September.
We will move on to subhead C, about which Deputy Brendan Smith had some questions.
Under subhead C2, how many model schools are there? Are all such schools primary schools?
I referred to subhead C4 in error. However, I welcome the increase in financial provision for special needs assistants. On the number of special needs assistants for the coming school year, does the Minister envisage having the same cap of approximately 10,775 or will it be closer to 11,000?
Does subhead C4 pertain to model schools?
No, subhead C2. Subhead C4 concerns the budget for special needs assistants.
I beg the Deputy's pardon.
There has been an increase in the provision for subhead C1 which covers the salaries of teachers, etc. I seek a breakdown of teachers' wages on the basic scales 1 to 25, the amount spent on substitution and supervision activities and on those involved in part-time teaching schemes for special needs and disadvantaged children and adults.
The Minister may not have the details sought.
There has been an increase in the provision for subhead C6 regarding superannuation payments, etc. of teachers. Who availed of the pension payments under the national teachers superannuation schemes? How many availed of them?
Deputy Brendan Smith raised the question of model schools, of which there are nine nationwide. I can provide their locations. They date back to the 19th century and literally were best practice exemplars. There are three in Dublin and one each in Athy, Bailieborough, Dunmanway, Galway, Limerick and Monaghan in the Deputy's constituency.
Are they all primary schools?
Yes. There were other ones. For example, the building housing the Model centre in Sligo, in which the Niland collection is located, was formerly a model school.
As for the breakdown sought under subhead C6, the allocation of €493.198 million in 2012 represents an increase of 1.25% over the figure for 2011 and provides for ongoing pension costs and the payment of additional new pensions, as well as lump sum gratuity costs of €85.879 million based on projected retirements of approximately 880 retirees and death gratuities. Approximately 740 gratuity payments have thus far been processed in 2012 in respect of retirements up to 29 February which, as Deputy Seán Crowe is aware, was the latest retirement date at which retirees could maximise their entitlements. That is all the information I have to hand in the briefing note. I am unsure whether it is adequate in response to the Deputy's question.
On subhead C7 - special education initiatives, the funding relating to applied behavioural analysis, ABA, skills has been increased. This also relates to the Middletown Centre for Autism, Armagh. People are asking what is happening in respect of that initiative and, in particular, about funding for ABA programmes for kids. I presume the funding was for a pilot scheme.
In the 13 centres?
Yes. What is happening in respect of the pilot scheme? Will it be rolled out because many parents strongly believe this method works for their children. Any criticism of the Middletown Centre for Autism concerned the slow roll-out, as problems arose in respect of who owned the land and so on. However, I presume both the Minister and the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland, Mr. O'Dowd, have considered this initiative and how it will be rolled out.
The Deputy has been involved in the education space for some time and undoubtedly is aware that there is history in this regard. The ABA, applied behaviour analysis, schools were functioning in parallel with the education system. There was much professional dispute as to whether ABA as a methodology was appropriate. The schools were brought into a pilot scheme in 13 centres and have now been integrated into the system after much negotiation. It has not been to everybody's satisfaction, however.
The Department's policy on educating children with autism is centred on an inclusive child-centred approach and promoting the use of a range of autism specific interventions including ABA, TEACCH, treatment and education of autistic and related communication-handicapped children, and PECS, picture exchange communications system. Under this approach each child can benefit from a number of different interventions to ensure the optimum individualised educational programme for him and her.
Education intervention for children with autism needs to be child-centred and tailored to meet the needs of each child rather than matching the needs of a child to one particular or exclusive intervention. This view is informed by advice received from international experts on autism, the National Educational Psychological Service and the inspectorate. An analysis of research, including the report of the task force on autism, supports this approach too, while autism societies in other countries also caution against relying on just one format of intervention.
The Department's policy is to provide for children with special educational needs, including autism, to be included in mainstream schools unless such a placement would not be in their best interests or the interests of the children with whom they are to be educated. Some children may be supported in a special class attached to a mainstream school. These students have the option, where appropriate, of full or partial integration and interaction with other pupils. Other children may have such complex needs that they are best placed in a special school. Students with special educational needs have access to a range of support services including additional teaching and care supports. In special schools and special classes, students are supported through lower pupil-teacher ratios. Special needs assistants may also be recruited specifically where pupils with disabilities and significant care needs are enrolled.
From my involvement with the ABA schools, particularly the one in Drogheda, there has been much progress in that they have been mainstreamed to the satisfaction of the parents. That does not mean every parent was satisfied.
With regard to Middletown, I have had significant discussions with the Northern Ireland Minister for Education, John O'Dowd. At the next joint ministerial meeting in May, we will be getting a report on Middletown and its future. This was a ten-year plus project when it started off. Things have moved on in the specialist area of autism and supports for parents since then. The original mission envisioned may not be necessarily appropriate for today. I will be getting that report in detail. If Deputy Crowe wants to put down a parliamentary question after I receive it, we can make copies available to him. I suspect, however, he will have his own sources for getting it.
Will the number of special needs assistants, SNAs, stay the same or increase?
The cap remains for SNAs.
Will that be at 10,575 posts for the next school year?
Yes.
Is subhead D2 the grant for children who wish to attend schools under the patronage of minority faiths? Is that what the remote area boarding grant facilitates? I know children from the Protestant faiths who want to attend second level schools under the patronage of minority churches. Is this available to islanders as well?
How are the so-called specialist colleges, covered under subhead D6, funded? The annual grant for the VECs does not cater for specialist colleges.
Is this the subhead concerning private schools which the Minister referred to in his speech?
Subhead D1 refers to substitution costs. How many teachers and how many hours are involved? There will be a 2% reduction in spending for second level teaching salaries. What percentage of this budget is paid to teachers teaching in private schools?
Subhead D2 only refers to schools in the free voluntary sector.
Subhead D4 refers to superannuation of secondary, comprehensive and community school teachers. Will the Minister supply a breakdown of the grade of teachers who availed of the pension payments under the secondary teachers superannuation scheme?
The purpose of subhead D1 is to meet the costs of salaries and allowances of teachers in secondary, comprehensive and community schools. The 2012 allocation of €1.148 billion represents a 2% reduction on 2011. It provides for the increased costs associated with demographics and increments, the literacy and numeracy strategy and the costs of teachers' allowances, offset by the decision with the effect from 2012 to 2013 to allow schools to manage the guidance provision from within their standard teacher allocation. It also reflects the one point increase in the staffing schedule for all fee-charging schools and changes in the DEIS staffing schedules at post-primary level. These changes will increase the pupil-teacher ratio for fee-paying schools to 21:1 with effect from the forthcoming academic year.
It also takes account of full year savings of the measures undertaken in budget 2011 with regard to the discontinuation of resource teachers for Travellers, reduction of LCVP, leaving certificate vocational programme, posts, phased reduction of language support posts, a 10% reduction of salary for new entrants and the moratorium on filling certain posts of responsibility.
The purpose of subhead D2 is the payment of grants available to voluntary secondary schools within the free education scheme. The range of grants available is designed to meet the general running expenses of schools such as heating, cleaning, painting, the stocking of libraries, the purchase of equipment, the employment of non-teaching staff, the costs associated with the participation in certain school programmes, instruction through Irish and the purchase of equipment for pupils with disabilities. The reduced allocation in 2012 reflects a 2% reduction in overall capitation funding. It also takes account of the projected demographic increases of over 1%.
Will the Minister elaborate on the various provisions such as school accommodation provision, post-primary services, language initiative and temporary school accommodation rental covered in this subhead?
The Commission on School Accommodation was established to advise the Department on planning for additional accommodation in secondary schools. It has been superseded in part by the advisory body.
The provision was set up to meet the costs arising from the work of the commission and to meet other costs that may arise in the process of identifying mechanisms for the selection of patrons of new schools. This work is ongoing. We have announced the patrons for primary schools while post-primary schools will be announced in the next four or five weeks.
The commission is an advisory body established in 1996 to advise the Department on policy matters relating to school provision. Last June, I announced the establishment of new arrangements for the recognition of new primary and post-primary schools. These new arrangements included for the formation of a new group, the new schools establishment group, to advise on patronage of new schools to be established. The schools accommodation commission has more or less morphed into this new body.
With regard to the commission, at Question Time last week we discussed the new committee established by the Minister to do an inventory of the school accommodation available in four to six provincial towns. Would the commission not have done that type of work with regard to the accommodation available throughout the country? I find it strange that the Department does not have an updated inventory of school accommodation. There are four second level schools in Cavan town and my understanding was that the planning section of the Department had all of the details for each school of pupil capacity and the type of laboratories, etc. available. Was that information not updated through the work of the commission and the ongoing work of the planning section?
There are two distinctions to be made. The commission advised on the need to build new accommodation on greenfield sites where there was a growth in demand. The inventory project to which I referred was similar to work undertaken some years before I entered the Department. Taking County Kildare as the pilot area, the cost and amount of information were such that it was not possible to extend the process on a nationwide basis. We are signing off on the design of the procurement tender documents in order to put more efficient and effective processes in place. We have the information in the Department; it is not the case that we do not know, it is just that we cannot find it, effectively, without increasing costs. It is like going to a library without an index; one knows the book one wants is there, but one cannot find it. The documentation is in the system for any project that received a grant. We are trying to see if a computer system acquired some years ago will be suitable for the purposes of storing this information, as there is no point in compiling an inventory if we cannot readily access it on a regular basis. It is a work in progress designed to examine the position in Cavan town, for example, to see what accommodation is available in primary and secondary-----
All of the local public representatives would be able to give the Minister that information.
Yes; in some cases there is much informal co-operation, but that will change if the personalities change. There are no guarantees. We are considering the matter and I hope in a number of weeks - or months to be more realistic - I will be able to return with a detailed progress report. We are starting with either five or six target towns, but the full report has not yet been given to me. We will test the process on the ground to see how we can get the information as quickly as possible and in as cost-effective a manner as is possible.
What about the working area grant provided for in subhead D2?
With regard to the remote area boarding grants scheme, grants are paid towards boarding or lodging fees for persons who satisfy eligibility criteria in respect of their remoteness from the nearest school providing suitable free second level education. I will have to get the Deputy more information on that matter.
This affected people who wanted to attend a second level school within the ethos of their faith and did not have ready access to it.
Yes.
That is from my constituency work.
That is the case. For example, the school in Multyfarnham is included in the free scheme, but it has been able to arrange its affairs openly and transparently in order that it can charge for day pupils and boarders. There are 11 counties that do not have Church of Ireland or Protestant schools and where boarding is necessary. I do not know whether island children are allowed to receive a grant to attend a boarding school on the mainland, but I will find out for the Deputy.
Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin took the Chair.
With regard to subhead D6, how are specialist colleges funded?
We are not entirely sure what the Deputy means.
There are annual non-capital grants to vocational education committees, excluding specialist colleges. How are they funded? Does this take in the colleges of music? What is meant by specialist colleges? The Minister may revert to me on the issue, if he so wishes.
We will do so, if the Deputy does not mind. We will take note of the specific question asked.
When will we get a sense of the impact of changes to support and scholarship schemes, particularly the effect on those who may drop out of the system as they come from a lower socioeconomic position? When will we have the figures?
This is in reference to subhead E-----
Yes. Subhead E12 refers to the alleviation of disadvantaged status and there is a drop of 18% in funding on the figure for the previous year. Has there been any comparative analysis of the socioeconomic background of students attending third level institutions in recent years? Has there been an increase or decrease in the demographics? At Question Time on the last occasion we discussed the presidents of many of these institutes. Does that issue come under this heading? There was criticism of their salaries and perks and although the Minister is unlikely to make changes this year, will that issue come under this heading? I am specifically referring to the money allocated to the HEA for the salaries of the presidents of these institutes.
Subhead E4 is relevant, but I will respond accordingly. As the Deputy knows, we are building on work done by my predecessor on student grants, as there were 60 to 70 grant awarding bodies. The process has been centralised in one agency. I hope this will leave the service in respect of third level student grants and supports much more efficient and faster, with on-line functions. I know the Deputy was delayed in coming to the meeting, but in my opening remarks there is a reference to area operations which I will not take the time to repeat.
To answer to the question of how soon we will see the benefits and the fall-out in terms of people dropping out of the system, that will not happen until much later.
With regard to the salaries of the heads of third level institutions, universities and institutes of technology, subhead E4 is relevant. The total amount allocated was €1.18 billion which has been reduced this year to €1.11 billion. My position remains the same. I have asked a number of the non-medical heads of universities to comply with a request that they bring their salaries under the €200,000 mark. We will keep an eye on the matter.
At the Teachers Union of Ireland conference in Wexford there was a welcome announcement of a specific number of third level scholarships for children from disadvantaged homes. The Minister also mentioned that there would be a termination of other scholarship schemes. I hope it will be possible to continue the Easter week commemoration scholarship schemes, of which there are seven to commemorate the signatories to the Proclamation. There was also a Donogh O'Malley scholarship scheme at one stage. The Minister might indicate whether it is his intention to continue these schemes. E11 is a special subhead for a few favoured colleges. Why is there is a specific subhead covering three colleges and one initiative? Subhead E13 was touched on earlier. Has the Department suitable programmes to draw down financial assistance from the directorate headed by Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn? I know from a previous existence that Teagasc, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and other State agencies were successful in drawing down substantial funds over a number of years, thereby bringing revenue into the State to take on postgraduate students to engage in a wide range of necessary research and development. It was funded through the seventh framework programme of the European Union.
I will come back to the Deputy regarding the scholarships and give him a comprehensive reply in writing. We have trawled through different scholarship schemes, which in some cases were based on academic merit. For example, a person who came first in Ireland in a subject got a scholarship and we have refocused those in-----
One of them was based on whoever achieved the best results in the leaving certificate.
I will reply to the Deputy in detail in writing, as I do not want to try to answer the question from memory.
With regard to grants to third level colleges under E11, the funds are used to meet the core grant funding and grant in lieu of tuition fees to three third level institutions. They are the National College of Ireland, which is in the Dublin docklands, having been originally set up in Sandford Park by the Jesuits many years ago; St. Patrick's Pontifical College, Maynooth, the religious side of NUI Maynooth; and the Milltown Institute, a Jesuit institution. Funding is also provided under this subhead to the private providers who are successful under the Springboard initiative. The remainder of the Springboard funding is provided to the public providers under E4, the higher education grants subhead. The increased allocation in 2012 is mainly to cover the full year costs of Springboard courses that commenced in September and October of last year as well as those that started in early 2012.
With regard to E13, I will have to find out the provision. There is no reference to it in my briefing note. It states that, in summary, it is estimated that 300 PhD awards and 90 post-doctoral awards will be made this year, which is a significant increase in activity. The funding provided in 2012 will enable the continuation of existing projects and scholarships and will allow the newly established research council to make new awards under the various schemes and to introduce a number of targeted enterprise awards.
The capital programme comes under subhead F. There has been significant investment over recent years and we all recognise huge pressures remain. However, the summer works scheme and the small capital grants scheme will not be run this year. Both schemes generated a good return to the taxpayer through the work carried out, and the investment produced a great dividend for schools. If there is leeway during the year, for example, through under-spending on major building projects, could provision be made for similar work to that successfully carried out under the summer works scheme to be undertaken? It would be a small investment which would generate a terrific return in upgrading schools and providing new accommodation.
I understand where the Deputy is coming from and I welcome his support for the schemes. They were based on a demographic challenge to provide accommodation but we have concentrated on the five year building programme, which includes extensions and other work. We made money available late last year on a once off basis but the summer works scheme has been suspended while we concentrate scarce resources on meeting accommodation needs.
Property prices have reduced by 40% while tendering prices have reduced by approximately 25%. While the capital cost has reduced, the reduction in the allocation from €455.074 million last year to €357 million this year will not equate to a pro rata reduction in purchase prices.
I refer to the cost of public private partnerships. There was a great deal of criticism at the time about these projects. How long will they run? My understanding is the Department pays rent on these properties.
The Minister referred to the schools building programme in his opening remarks and I presume that comes under this subhead. Schools are supposed to know where they stand and the public is supposed to know what the Department can afford and prioritise in the coming years. I have spoken to many school principals and there is still a great deal of confusion about this programme. For example, schools that were listed on the programme prior to last year have disappeared from the list. Some had signed off on architectural drawings but they did not appear in the revised programme. The public, the parents of the children in these schools and the principals of the schools that were in the system and have disappeared from it for some reason are not clear about what happened. Perhaps I am reading this wrong. Has this been the experience of other members?
The contract between the Department and the private operator relating to a school provided by public private partnership provides for an annual payment subject to the services outlined in the contract being provided to the satisfaction of the Department. Payments are made to the relevant private operators by means of a unitary payment, UP, which comprises loan repayment, capital and interest for the project financing, which covers design, construction and equipment, building and equipment life cycle funds and facilities and management of the schools. The latter includes maintenance, cleaning, salaries and sundry expenses. In addition to UPs due in respect of the National Maritime College, the Cork School of Music and the nine second levels schools which came on stream in recent years, the increased current allocation in 2012 will provide for the full year costs of six new second level schools which were completed in October 2009. They are Bantry community college, Gaelscoil Bheanntraí, Kildare town community school, Abbeyfeale community college, Athboy community school and Wicklow town community college. The contract period can range from 20 to 25 years.
Deputy Crowe referred to schools disappearing off the list. I visited one such school in Tramore last Friday. Some schools with temporary or substandard accommodation were on the list and architects and design teams had been appointed in accordance with the prolonged structure that was the traditional way of doing business. In June 2011, we had to examine the massive demographic cohort having regard to the Department's experience some years ago when everybody panicked and we collectively, as a society, did not have the information about the late surge in demand. As the Deputy may be aware that has been transformed as a new GIS system which tracks the child benefit payments from one year old onwards. Therefore, we have an idea of the location of those people. That is not a guarantee of where they will go to school but it is a much better indicator than anything the Department has had previously. Based on that and an overall assessment, a decision was made, for which I take political responsibility, to prioritise net additional new accommodation. That was the good news for that priority. The bad news was for a school that had been in substandard or prefab accommodation, in an area of static demand and no projected increase in population, which was deemed fit for purpose and was, of necessity, taken off the list in terms of a guarantee for work in the next five years.
If a project in the planning stage falters for planning permission purposes or if there is a difficulty with the contractor, there are other projects that will come on stream. If any of the projects on the list falter, there will be another to take its place. Therefore, the money will not go unspent. We had to make a choice in terms of priority and I made that choice.
On paper the GIS system appears good whereas for gaelscoileanna it is not the same because demand probably comes from different areas. The issue was handled badly. The first the schools knew about it was when the new list was issued. People are telephoning the Department asking why their school is not on the list when they had expected their school to be at the next stage.
We have to get away from the culture practised by different governments and different Ministers of keeping everybody in the dark in respect of where schools were on the list and promised, in advance of capacity, to deliver. It was a torture machine for parents, boards of management, teachers and school principals.
I was in Tullamore for two days this time last year or a little later. The telephone never stopped ringing. One could not do a day's work or maintain one's sanity because people were telephoning seeking up-to-date information. I have reduced the amount of representation that has come through my office to allow the Department get on with the job. We had this experience in the past in respect of social welfare and, many years ago, in respect of telephones when Deputies tabled parliamentary questions asking when an old age pension would be paid to Joe Bloggs or when Mary Murphy would get her telephone, and it gummed up the works. It meant professional civil servants, such as those beside me, simply could not do their job. The issue was sorted in respect of social welfare and modern technology helped in that area.
One of my predecessors, Noel Dempsey, published a list. If a list is published with certainty, that means some schools will not be included. I accept people had been assured and had got renewed assurances, close to election day from a Minister but not necessarily in writing from the Department, that they were on the list and in the queue. Those schools were not on the list. The breach has been painful for some but it is clear now and people know where they are and why. That does not mean a school that is no longer on the list cannot continue to advance to the point where it is ready to go on site or go to tender for a contractor. If the Department has signed off and if a new school is needed, we need a set of drawings and planning permission but there is no guarantee beyond that point that a school will automatically proceed to the next stage, which is going on site, because that is subject to availability of resources.
We will move on to subhead G.
I wish to ask a general question. The establishment of the local education and training boards is caught up with the whole further education sector and the establishment of SOLAS. Speaking on behalf of my party, I welcome the proposed developments in regard to further education and SOLAS and the establishment of local education and training boards. In October 2011, the Minister announced he had reached agreement with SIPTU, the representative body for the chief executive officers of vocational education committees, in regard to redeployment under the Croke Park agreement. When is it proposed to appoint the chief executive officers of the new entities? Is it correct that the Minister hopes to have legislation enacted by the end of this calendar year for the establishment of SOLAS?
I will take the CEO question and the Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, will deal with the other question. We thought we had made some progress in regard to the appointment of CEOs but I was premature in my optimism. The matter is still being negotiated. There are 16 new local education and training boards and 22 people in permanent positions as CEOs in VECs throughout the country. A mechanism and seniority has been agreed in principle but not necessarily signed off and an issue on the salary range has still to be decided. Talks are taking place in the Labour Relations Commission on these matters but it is impossible to give a concrete timetable. I hope we can identify the 16 new incoming CEOs in order that much of the preparatory implementation work can be commenced and run in tandem with the enactment of the legislation and the coming into existence of the local education and training board for Cavan-Monaghan.
We discussed the issue at a previous committee meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, and the Minister. The transformation and the new structures are a major project. The longer it takes, however, the more uncertainty and doubt can set in which may damage the overall project. Some of those who have worked in FÁS, the adult education sector, the further education sector and in the VECs have doubts in respect of the structures to be put in place. The sooner it can be advanced, the better. I appreciate it is not simple matter and a huge range of ingredients have to be brought together. I urge that every effort be made to progress it from a legislative point of view and from the point of view of reaching agreement with all the stakeholders. The last thing we need is uncertainty and doubt about what should be a welcome and innovative development.
We are trying to do that but we must move as quickly as we can. I appreciate and agree with the comments made by the Deputy
The Deputy had a query about the establishment of SOLAS. We hope to have the legislation in place towards the end of the year. The heads of the Bill have been referred to the Attorney General's office for drafting and the Bill will be published when the drafting is complete. Significant background work has been ongoing for the past year. We are running two pilot schemes in Cork and Dublin. If the merger between the education and training boards or the VEC and FÁS was to take place tomorrow, what issues would arise? Significant work has been done in Dublin and Cork. The IVEA is working closely with FÁS in terms of merging the infrastructure, personnel and the further education and training provision. The information that has come back to us from those groups has proven to be valuable in trying to pre-empt some of the issues that may arise with the creation of SOLAS. I agree with the Deputy that time is of the essence and we are moving as quickly as possible.
In regard to the structures, it is true that some within the VEC sector had concerns about how SOLAS would relate in terms of the governance of adult education locally. The Minister and I had a fruitful and positive meeting with the CEOs and the chairs of the VECs four weeks ago and addressed as many of the concerns as possible. Following on from that, every single entity, either public or private, concerned with further education and training had an opportunity to play their part in a consultation process. Some 151 submissions have been received from groups throughout the country. Recently we met representatives of those groups for half a day at the Croke Park conference centre. That consultation process is ongoing. We are anxious the consultation continues all the way up to and after the creation of SOLAS to ensure the concerns and ambitions of all those involved in further education and training, be it the public or private sector, are taken on board.
Have the difficulties that arose in the Department in respect of the European Globalisation Fund been solved? There was major criticism when people did not seem to have the information. I would like to think staff have been trained and given the necessary information to assist those applying for funding.
I wish to raise questions on FÁS training and integration supports dealt with in subhead G2. The thinking behind the changes was to respond to the employment needs of jobseekers. FÁS used to run a course on installing water meters and so on, but now a person must pay €1,000 to do such a course. One would imagine that the provision of courses would be tailored to meet demand. It is clear there will be a demand for such a course down the tracks.
The Deputy is correct that issues arose in respect of the first application Ireland made on behalf of the Dell workers in Limerick to the European Globalisation Fund. The major challenge at the time was to interact with each worker to ascertain his or her individual training needs. There were issues around how the consultation and intervention had taken place. We were in constant communication in the Department with the Dell, SR Technics and Waterford Glass representatives and took on board their concerns and the conclusions at which they had arrived from their own experience of administering the scheme in their regions. We met the representatives two weeks ago in Marlborough Street to put together the final consultation process and bring it to a conclusion. We took on board all the concerns they expressed about the administration of the scheme and were using their wisdom, gained from experience, to prepare an excellent application for the Talk Talk workers in Waterford. We recently lodged the application. This is the first application to be lodged by the Government and we hope we have learned from some of the issues that arose previously.
To respond to the Deputy's question on the FÁS plumbing course, I understand a number of private sector companies have been offering courses to people who want to get involved in water meter installation. FÁS wisely arrived at the conclusion that there was a significant number of unemployed plumbers who did not need training to install a water meter and it is more than confident that the extra numbers who will be required to carry out the significant water meter installation programme are available, albeit unemployed in the construction sector. We hope a significant number of them will be able to take up employment when the water meter installation programme begins. A number of companies are charging significant amounts of money to take such courses.
That concludes our examination of the subheads. The party spokespersons may now make their closing remarks before I call the Minister.
I do not know the heading which relates to private fee paying schools, but the Minister referred to 50 teacher posts for fee paying schools. If two teachers were recruited for each private school, would that give a figure of 100 teachers? How did the Minister arrive at the decision to employ one extra teacher, rather than two or three?
There are 55 private fee paying schools in total, some of which cater for pupils from minority faiths and are receiving a block grant which they allocate using a means test system. Fees are paid to the schools in question. The 55 schools are not all the same; if memory serves me correctly, there is a group of 22 which cater for pupils from minority faiths and different denominations and which have different histories. We are legally obliged to pay the salaries of the teachers employed in these schools. The teachers are paid a salary similar to what they would receive in a voluntary school. I have, however, reduced and eliminated all of the discretionary additional moneys allocated. Obviously, contractual commitments and arrangements were honoured because it would have been unjust to those who had entered into commitments on foot of a promise that a grant would be paid to have terminated it unilaterally. There are no additional capital or building grants, other than what was previously agreed and had come through the system in the normal way.
Some of these schools enjoy a considerable advantage, although others are struggling. I referred to one of them in the reformed faith community, Wilson's Hospital in Multyfarnham, which conducted an analysis of its own funding and found that if it was in the voluntary sector, it would receive better educational supports, but in order to provide accommodation for pupils from a scattered low density community, it needed to fund the boarding school. In consultation and negotiations with the Department it came up with a mechanism that worked. It is possible that other similar schools may explore taking that route. We have asked all 55 fee paying schools to tell us how much they raise in fees and what they do with the money. We think we understand where it goes, but we do not know for definite. When I receive that information, my Government colleagues and I will decide in consultation what steps might be justified to reduce the amount of money going to these 55 schools. The figure frequently bandied about in the media amounts to a subsidy of €90 million which goes exclusively on the salaries of the teachers engaged in these schools.
That concludes the select committee's consideration of the Revised Estimate. I thank the Minister and the Minister of State and their officials for attending.
