A suggested timetable for today's meeting has been circulated which is intended to assist Members to discharge the business before us. It is not a rigid timetable and I propose to adopt a flexible approach to it. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. Today the Select Committee will consider the Estimates for the Department of Education and I am sure many Members will wish to contribute and I look forward to a constructive discussion.
Estimates for the Public Services, 1995.
Vote 26 — Office of the Minister for Education (Revised Estimate).
Vote 27 — First-Level Education.
Vote 28 — Second-Level and Further Education (Revised Estimate).
Vote 29 — Third-Level and Further Education (Revised Estimate).
I welcome the opportunity of appearing before the committee today to discuss the 1995 Education Estimates. I look forward to hearing the views of Members and to responding to their contributions and questions on the Estimates and the issues arising from them.
As Members are aware, I have secured substantial increases in resources for education in recent years. Total education expenditure has increased from approximately £1.64 billion in 1992 to over £2 billion in 1995. That is an increase in excess of 26 per cent. The 1995 Estimates reflect the commitment of the Government to the education sector, a commitment which is clearly articulated in the policy document, A Government of Renewal, and in the White Paper on Education which states:
The Government will aim to provide, during its period of office the resources for the development needs identified in this White Paper, within the framework of the budgetary parameters set out in the Government of Renewal Policy Document, including the acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty convergence conditions.
The amount which can be made available in any given year will have to be decided by the Government in the context of its financial position and its other public expenditure priorities at that time.
An important principle informing the approach to funding is the recognition that, and I quote:
The state should serve the education rights of its citizens to participate in and benefit from education in accordance with each individual's needs and abilities and the nation's resources.
This implies prioritisation of those with greatest need; it implies diversified provision to meet varying abilities and aptitudes; and finally it implies that provision for education must take account of the nation's overall resources. This latter dimension embraces the priority needs of other social services, for example, the health and social welfare services, and also the budgetary and fiscal parameters underpinning the management of the public finances, including Ireland's international commitments, specifically its commitment to the Maastricht convergence conditions.
It is appropriate in the context of the consideration of the 1995 Estimates by this committee to emphasise two underlying themes of the White Paper which are accountability and value for money. The new framework for education outlined in the White Paper will emphasise the rights of people served by the education system to understand and participate in the decision making which affects them and to be informed about the effectiveness and outcomes of the educational process of which they are a part.
The White Paper also emphasises important dimensions of accountability. It underlines the need for improved communication and information for parents and the community served by schools and colleages. It also, as a complementary dimension of this, emphasises the importance of accountability, through regional and national structures to the nation as a whole for the effectiveness and efficiency which policy is formulated, evaluated and implemented and the efficiency and effectiveness with which resources are used.
The White Paper also locates education and training as an integral part of wider economic and social planning. One of the principles articulated in the paper is that, and I quote:
The development of the education and skills of people is as important a source of wealth as the accumulation of more traditional forms of capital . . . thus investment in education is a crucial concern of the State to enhance Ireland's capacity to compete effectively in a rapidly changing international environment.
This integral linkage of education into economic planning processes builds upon authoritative reports in recent years from national and international bodies, for example, the National Economic and Social Council and the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development — OECD. It also reflects the central place afforded to education in successive national understandings with the social partners.
Though it may not always have been recognised, the debate on the allocation of resources to education is at the centre of the debate on economic policy. In short, in the context of funding of education, the White Paper establishes the importance of investment in education rather than seeing education simply as a social service expenditure. Accordingly, the White Paper establishes key benchmarks for the continuous evaluation of investment in education by the Government in the context of the annual consideration of the priorities for public expenditure.
In the time remaining to me I wish to outline some of the main funding increases at each level of education which are contained in the 1995 Estimates. At first level, provision was made in the 1994 Estimates for the EARLY START pre-school programme to operate in eight locations. In 1995 this scheme will be extended to 25 additional schools. The basic rate of capitation grant to primary schools is being increased from £38 to £40. The new basic rate is 43 per cent higher than the rate which applied when I took office as Minister. The rates for special schools and Gaelscoileanna will increase in line with the increase in the basic rate. The supplementary grant paid in respect of pupils in designated disadvantaged schools will increase from £55 to £65. The local contribution required of schools is 25 per cent of the State grant. However, in the case of disadvantaged schools the local contribution will remain at the 1994 level of £9.50 per pupil.
Primary teaching posts which would have been lost in primary schools due to falling enrolment, identified in 1994/1995, will be retained. Retention of these posts will allow the pupil teacher ratio for primary schools to be reduced from 23.4 to 1 in September 1995 to 22.9 to 1 in September 1995 and to make improvements in the general staffing schedule. The general maximum class size will also be reduced in the 1995/96 school year in accordance with the commitment in the programme for A Government of Renewal.
The importance of concentrating resources on pupils who are disadvantaged has been highlighted by the work of international bodies such as the OECD, the Council of Europe and UNESCO. Targeting of educational resources for the disadvantaged has also been advocated in the OECD report published yesterday. The 1995 Estimates represent significant progress in this regard. The Disadvantage Fund will be increased by 61 per cent in 1995. This increase follows an increase of 40 per cent in 1994. An increased provision will be made for capitation funding and appointment of additional teachers to extend the Disadvantaged Area Scheme in the light of the outcome of the Combat Poverty Agency Study, which has been commissioned by my Department following discussions with the various educational interests.
A sum of £18,000 has been provided for the payment of TV licences to schools designated as disadvantaged. All schools in the disadvantaged category will be eligible for the payment of their TV licences. A further £35,000 has been provided for traveller pre-schools and £65,000 will be allocated to supplement the normal school books scheme in schools designated as disadvantaged. The latter fund will be used to encourage the establishment and maintenance of school book rental and loan schemes. An extra £1.5 million is being provided for the scheme of additional capitation grants covering caretaking and clerical services in primary schools. This increase allows for the full-year cost of improvements made later in 1994. The increased funding will also enable improvements to be made in the position of large schools that currently have shared secretarial and caretaking services only.
The school books scheme provision has been increased by 26 per cent. This money will be used to encourage the establishment and maintenance of school book rental and loan schemes in line with the recommendations of the report by the consultants Cooney/Carey on the cost of school books in Ireland. The provision for library services shows an increase of 95 per cent on 1994. It is proposed to review the operation of this scheme in conjunction with the local authorities to ensure that the funding is applied in an optimum manner.
At second level, the capitation grant payable to voluntary secondary schools will be increased from £158 per pupil to £165, with pro rata increases to the community, comprehensive and vocational education committee schools sectors. The grant paid in respect of pupils in designated disadvantaged schools will increase from £173 per pupil to £180. Over £600,000 has been provided for the expansion of the scheme of grants for secretaries and caretakers at second level to schools with fewer than 200 pupils. The increased funding will also enable improvements to be made in the position of large schools that currently have shared secretarial and caretaking services only.
The school books scheme provision at second level has been increased by £1 million representing a 31 per cent increase on 1994. The increase will be used to help with the introduction of rental schemes in schools designated disadvantaged and to increase the grants to other schools who are introducing rental schemes. The programme of supplying a computerised management information system will be extended to all second level schools in 1995. In accordance with the commitment in the policy document A Government of Renewal, the 1995 Estimates provide additional resources for adult literacy and adult education schemes.
Provision has been made for an average of 5,000 places under the Vocational Training Opportunity Scheme this year as against a participation of an average of 4,000 last year. The VTOS scheme addresses the low level of education among long term unemployed people. It is an essential element of the strategy for helping such people access employment or education and training leading to employment. It complements the other measures to combat unemployment being undertaken by the Government. The provision for the Adult Literacy and Community Education Scheme has been increased by over 7 per cent on last year's provision. The ALCES scheme is the Department's main instrument in helping adults with literacy difficulties. An evaluation of the scheme completed last year confirms the excellent work being done under the scheme.
The relatively new scheme of special initiatives for disadvantaged adults has been expanding rapidly, and the provision of over £1.2 million this year is an increase of almost 21 per cent on 1994. Under this scheme, more intensive literacy and basic education courses are provided for disadvantaged adults with low levels of education and training. The scheme builds on the literacy and basic work being done under the ALCES scheme and helps people to access more formal education and training courses. Also financial assistance is given to disadvantaged adults to enable them to attend existing adult education courses, and second and third level courses under the Department of Social Welfare schemes.
An increase of 17 per cent has been allocated to the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment to allow for continuation of its work of reform of the primary school curriculum, development of the Junior Certificate Programme, reform of the Leaving Certificate Programme — including the Leaving Certificate Applied Programme — and development of the Civic, Social and Political Education Programme.
The National Council for Vocational Awards has received an increase of almost 80 per cent in its allocation to provide for further expansion of numbers and certification of additional programmes including many post Leaving Certificate courses. The National Parents Council at primary and post-primary levels will each receive an increase of £20,000 or 66 per cent in the grant which they receive from the Department of Education.
With regard to third level education, provision for the running costs of regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology has been increased by 9 per cent. The increased allocation for 1995 follows on an increase of 15 per cent in 1994 and further reflects the growing importance of this sector in the higher education area and its need for better levels of funding. The increase provision will cater for a further expansion in student numbers of approximately 2,000 and allow for the continued growth of Tallaght regional technical college and the establishment of courses in Castlebar, which commenced in the autumn of 1994.
Finally, I would like to turn to the issue of access to education. I am firmly committed to free access to education at first, second and third level. The 1995 budget proposed to improve access to third level by the phased abolition of fees. In this way many people on modest incomes, who are outside the income eligibility limits for higher education grants and who are experiencing growing financial hardship in providing a third level education for their children, will be helped to overcome an enormous financial and psychological barrier to access.
Although more than half of all students receive fee grants, there is a real problem of lack of public confidence in the higher education grant schemes. This stems from a perception that certain groups, particularly PAYE taxpayers, fare worse in the means testing than the non-PAYE sector. Every Deputy on this committee can probably cite specific examples of where there seems to be serious inequities in the schemes.
The weakness of the grants scheme may explain why students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been shown to be more likely to take European funded courses than courses where fees are payable, even though they would be eligible to receive fee grants. The commitment in the A Government of Renewal policy document for free third level education means that we are pledged to introduce a fairer system of third level funding for all students.
I have proposed that the removal of tuition fees will be implemented in two stages in conjunction with the change in the tax relief arrangements for covenants as follows: In the 1995-96 academic year students will pay half fees; in the academic year 1996-97 undergraduate fees will be completely abolished; and in conjunction with the removal of tuition fees, the Minister for Finance has announced phased changes in the current tax relief arrangements for covenants. I emphasise that the abolition of tuition fees is just one part of my overall strategy to encourage all students to remain in and participate fully in the education system.
To assist in this commitment a wide range of initiatives and improvements have been implemented at first and second level, and targeted in areas of greatest need. These include the extra home school links teachers, the extra remedial teachers, the additional 100 guidance teachers, the tripling of the primary disadvantage fund, and a major increase in funding for the schoolbooks scheme.
The provision for education in these Estimates will enable me, together with the many dedicated people in the education sector, to maintain and improve the quality of education and to make substantial progress in implementing the education chapter of the programme A Government of Renewal.
Tááthas mór orm a bheith páirteach sa díospóireacht seo ar na Meastacháin don Roinn Oideachais. These Estimates leave a great deal to be desired. They are similar in many aspects to the recently launched White Paper on Education in that there is very little indication given as to how proposals will be properly resourced. It could be said that this haphazard approach to education is typical of this Government. It is throwing out loads of ideas right, left and centre but is giving no indication as to how these proposals are to be financed. This is the case with regard to the mishandling of the proposed early retirement scheme.
I would like to draw the committee's attention to the illogical approach to the financing of education as outlined in the proposed Estimates. The Minister deems it appropriate to increase the allocation to consultancy fees by 123 per cent while funding for school transport, buildings and primary capitation grants barely increased this year. Is this an indication of where the Minister's priorities on education lie? Is she intent on creating extra layers of red tape and bureaucracy rather than providing the much needed extra resources for those most in need in education?
With regard to pre-school education, most of us are becoming tired of the pious platitudes we hear on a regular basis from the Minister. She indicated that from next September she is increasing the number of pilot schemes from eight to 25. I was recently approached by people in Ballymun, where there has been a wonderful pre-school and play group service for many years. Ballymun is a disadvantaged area and people there feel aggrieved that the Department is imposing on them a system which will wipe out the play school set-up they have, as has happened in Finglas.
There is no policy on pre-schools. Before we fumble any further with regard to pilot schemes, we should supplement the resources and pre-schools we have rather than engage in imposition. I feel the pilot schemes will involve a waste of resources if we are going to impose ourselves on something which should be to the benefit of disadvantaged areas as opposed to getting people‘s backs up. The Government claims more and more women should be encouraged to enter the labour market but very little necessary resources are provided to women to do so. In my opinion pre-school play groups are the way forward.
I go along with the criticism of the present position of primary education, which was voiced by teacher and parent organisations. It is entirely unacceptable that the resources allocated to primary education fall so far short in relative terms of those provided for second and, in particular, for third level. It is surely ridiculous and totally unacceptable in this day and age that parents are forced to go round their neighbourhoods begging for funds for computers and other much needed facilities in their primary schools, particularly in areas of chronic unemployment where people have barely enough themselves on which to live. In rural Ireland it is unacceptable that parents have to traipse many miles scouring the countryside for funds for their local schools. Despite the reduction in the pupil/teacher ratio, to which the Minister has again adverted, it is still a regular occurrence to have classes with numbers as high as 37 and upwards. This must be corrected urgently.
With regard to the campaign for early retirement, I am sure the majority of teachers would prefer to continue to serve up to 65 years of age, but there are numerous teachers who no longer feel capable of answering fully their pupils' needs up to the current minimum age for retirement and pension. This situation becomes intolerable. It is fraught for teachers and this is of serious concern. More importantly, it is extremely fraught for the children who, through no fault of the teachers concerned, are denied the standard of teaching to which they are constitutionally entitled. I appeal to the Minister, as I did in the Dáil, to settle this problem as a matter of urgency on a basis which would do justice to all concerned.
A special problem arises in the case of teachers employed as substitutes for many years. Invariably, these teachers are fully qualified. They are the victims of a serious injustice in that they are denied the full benefit of annual salaries and are deprived of superannuation credits for the periods they serve as substitutes. Without the service of substitutes the primary system would be in a breakdown situation. No financial consideration, whether imposed by the Department of Finance or otherwise, can be held to justify the treatment at present given to substitute teachers. A straightforward principle of equality is involved and it must be upheld.
One result of the Minister's mishandling of this issue is that teachers will not co-operate with the introduction of new elements to the curriculum, such as sex education and leaving certificate applied courses, and these will be lost to students, much, I am sure, to the disappointment of the Minister.
It is unfortunate to see the failure of the Minister to deliver on the promises she made on early retirement, when she had nothing better to say at the teachers' conferences a couple of years ago. It is very sad that we cannot benefit from many of the good ideas coming forward. We are in an impasse in June not knowing what we can do in September.
One aspect of the Estimate with regard to second level education takes the biscuit. That is the miserable increase of only 2 per cent in the allocation to school transport, which is totally inadequate, especially in rural areas when many children spend a number of hours every morning just to get to school because of the shortage of school transport.
The Minister's reply to a parliamentary question which I tabled yesterday on this issue clearly shows an intention by the Department and the Minister to pass the buck on this important question in yet another committee and more red tape and bureaucracy. It is obvious to me and to the public at large that this is merely an excuse to explain away inaction and inability to allocate the necessary resources for school transport. Action speaks louder than words. The Minister will be remembered as giving us plenty of words, many platitudes and patronisation about education but has failed to deliver on the essentials, school transport being one of them.
That is not fair.
When Deputy McGinley solves all the school transport problems in County Donegal, I will take my hat off to him as well, but there is no money to do it at the moment. If there is no commitment by this Government to address the school transport problem, it is ignoring a basic right, and this problem will be exacerbated when the new EU regulations say that three children per seat cannot be allocated anymore. It will be one child per seat and everybody will have to come up with the money to pay for it. We should invest this money first before we are mortified again with EU regulations with no money or funding for matters that need to be urgently addressed.
There are two other points in regard to second level education that I would like to address. The low increase in the allocation to school buildings in the Estimate shows a total lack of understanding of the needs of second level education. The increase allocated to career development is welcome, but I would like to get a commitment from the Minister that the money will be made available to all sectors of education. Could the Minister also outline how much will be allocated to primary schools under the career development Vote, the health and sexuality scheme and the new second level curriculum this year?
This is an important week for about 140,000 young people who are currently doing their Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate examinations and it will have a bearing on their future lives. I have to draw the committee‘s attention to the escalating problems in our third level institutions. There are various forecasts with regard to the massive expansion in the number of young people who will be entering third level education in the next decade. It is abundantly clear at this moment that our institutions are overcrowded and lack many necessary facilities, such as adequate library spaces, canteens etc. There has been numerous requests to the Department by third level authorities and students for proper funding of this sector, but these appeals have fallen on deaf ears.
I also ask the Minister to address herself to the Estimate with regard to the allocation of higher education grants, which has been reduced by 11 per cent. I cannot understand where that Estimate comes from. We are expecting increases in student numbers over the next number of years. If the Minister is to push on with her free fees plans, I see an absolute necessity for her to grasp the nettle and increase the student grant as well. If there is to be a reduction of 11 per cent in the Estimate, I cannot understand how the Minister will be able to deal with this more important problem. I am not saying that we do not welcome free fees, but at this time of scarce resources, the money might be better spent in increasing the threshold to allow students to live off their grants substantially. We had a debate on this issue in the House on a number of occasions, but the pleas of those who are most in need have fallen on deaf ears.
Pie in the sky ideas are lovely if there is plenty of money to provide for the basics in the Department of Education. We will not benefit as a nation from the White Paper on Education or any other developments in education unless proper funding is made available. We will all have problems in 1995 and 1996 unless the Minister is able to get more resources from the Department of Education and give the most needed facilities priority.
Táimse anseo inniu thar ceann urlabhraí Oideachais don Pháirtí Daonláthach, an Teachta Helen Keogh, a bualadh tinn go hobann. Tááthas orm bheith anseo in a hionad, agus tréaslaím leis an Aire agus le hoifigigh na Roinne atá i láthair anseo as ucht ar méid oibre atá deánta acu i rith na bliana seo caite i leith an Mheastacháin atá os ár gcomhair inniu.
I would like to compliment the Minister, the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Allen, and his officials from——
Deputy Quill should know him.
I am waiting for him to prove himself. It is too soon yet. I want to compliment the Minister and her officials for the enormous amount of work that has been carrried out in bringing the Green Paper on Education to White Paper status and for advancing the education debate in the last year. The increase of 26 per cent on this year's Estimate over that of last year is impressive. In a small country such as ours, an annual education estimate of £2 billion cannot be taken lightly and be easily dismissed. We have a significant Estimate to debate here and a significant amount of money to invest in education in the upcoming year. The task of policymakers is to ensure that this money is spent in accordance with well worked out educational principles and agreed priorities.
In overall terms, this Minister has got her priorities right inasmuch as she can demonstrate, for example, that there is an increase of 61 per cent in the disadvantaged fund, which I find encouraging. I practised as a teacher for a number of years and I often revelled in the A's and B's, the points and the third level places that Leaving Certificate students obtained. However, since I went into politics and have had direct contact with people, I have a different view of those who leave the education system without getting the high grades, third level places or points and fared badly from our education system. Indeed, there have been times when my conscience was badly affected by that.
I would always seek to draw attention, at the opening of any debate on education, to the pitiful plight of early school leavers. It is a well documented fact that young people who leave school without qualifications seem to be destined to be sucked into the queues of the long term unemployed and, having been sucked in there initially, to remain trapped there. That serious situation cannot be overlooked and has to be addressed and reversed by future planning and provision. It is appalling to see so many of our young people with nothing else in store for them but a lifetime of unemployment, and that cannot be allowed to continue. I have also had direct contact with the personal and social consequences for young people who leave school too early. They fall out of the net and there is not a proper system to bring them back into the net. A large proportion of those young people fall into a cycle of crime, drug taking and substance abuse and their life prospects are very poor. Many of them become lone parents, and so the cycle of deprivation, disadvantage and dependence is a spiralling phenomenon and is passed on to the next generation.
It is very important to make better provision for pre-school education because that is the cornerstone of a proper education system. Better provision has been made last year and in this Estimate, with a pilot scheme already in place and the promise of 25 such pre-schools in the coming year. That is a major step in the right direction. We must catch those who come from highly disadvantaged homes at that stage. I am impressed by that and the Minster is on the right road. However, I ask her to accelerate her steps in that direction because 25 such schools is not a sufficient number to cater for young people who need to get a foot on the ladder of education and a good start which will enable them to progress from first to second level.
I am having second thoughts about the argument on pupil teacher ratios. We have to target our teachers in a much more scientific way. Most teachers with very large classes would say that they really need more remedial teachers and access to the schools psychological service. Learning and other disabilities must be identified and tackled at an early stage so that those problems will not be allowed to run to the point where the child may cause enormous damage to other young people in a classroom. We must target teachers and have more remedial teachers and home/school liaison teachers, and access to the schools psychological and guidance services.
I would put more emphasis on the development of that area rather than just providing more general trained teachers to reduce the pupil teacher ratio. That whole package is beginning to fall into place now but I would like to see it monitored to make sure that new appointments will achieve the objectives which have been set down. It is important that the benefits of their work are carefully monitored to ensure that the best possible use is made of such teachers.
I will argue until the end of my days for more money to be put into the primary sector. If we fund the primary level the second and third levels will look after themselves in a much bigger way. I was very excited at the prospect of the third strand, applied Leaving Certificate, being in place next September. I am very aware of the number of people who fall out of the system and do not complete the Leaving Certificate. They cannot be faulted for so doing because in many cases the range of programmes and courses which we offer have no great meaning for them. I was very encouraged at the prospect of the applied Leaving Certificate course being in place next September, and I am very disappointed to learn that that is not to be the case.
There is a stated objective to retain 90 per cent of students in the system until they are 18 years of age. I do not think that objective can ever be remotely attained until we put an applied Leaving Certificate into place with a vocational content. The Minister should take every step open to her to ensure that that course is put in place. Unless that happens, substantial numbers of young people will continue to leave school without qualifications and we must try to avoid that at all costs.
Having said that, there is great scope for putting new structures in place. Education institutions often act independently from each other when they ought to be co-operating. That will have to be tackled and remedied and new structures will have to be put in place to ensure that that does not continue to happen. The least we can expect of our institutions is that they would co-operate, as happens in other countries, particularly in relation to putting a vocational system in place side by side with the old traditional Leaving Certificate system. That will only work if there is more co-operation between the different institutions.
I am glad that there is an increased provision in the Estimate for youth and sport. That is a very important part of young people's social and personal development and we should make better recreational provision for them. Part of the reason why so many young people become involved in drugs, drink and devilment is that there is no alternative. There are no proper, constructive outlets for their teenage energies. There is great benefit to be had from developing proper recreational programmes for young people. Many school buildings lie empty and idle for too long and there are fine school halls which could be used for recreational purposes after school hours. If two or three simple provisions were made in terms of proper caretaking and security we would not need to have wasteful duplication.
The key to the success of our education system — and in overall terms it is a very successful system — is the quality of our teachers. There are choices now which were not available when I first opted for teaching, but young people of great calibre are still prepared to make teaching their first choice. That is very encouraging for the future of our education system.
In the past, we have made very poor provision for teacher development and we cannot continue to do that with impunity in the future. We must make a better investment in the development of teachers with in-service training. It is a rapidly changing society and teachers must be enabled to cope with all of the demands which are made on them. It is a tough time for teachers. Education is proposed as the remedy for every ailment which surfaces in society. Yesterday, we were addressed by the Environmental Protection Agency who highlighted the need for more environmental education in schools. The day before that somebody else said that there must be more art education in schools. We are making enormous demands on our schools and teachers. Those demands will not be fully met and we need to acknowledge that our schools cannot cure all the evils in society. However, if those demands are to be met to the greatest extent possible, we have to invest systematically in teacher development. I take heart from the amount of money in this year's Estimate and from the general thrust of the way that money will be spent.
In accordance with our agreed timetable we now move to discussion on Vote 26, Office of the Minister for Education, and Vote 27, First-Level Education.
I did not interrupt Deputy Coughlan when she made her contribution, unlike my colleague Deputy McGinley. However, I felt strongly that I should interrupt her. I could not believe my ears when she spoke. I heard no evidence at all of solidarity with the Minister on her part. There was no acknowledgement of the Minister's work, there was no appreciation for the Minister, there was not one word of praise in her whole contribution. It augurs badly for the work of this committee if we cannot agree on what has been done and what should be done. It is useless to come in here and give a one-sided view. We could all waste the time of the committee in that way.
The Minister is taking on powerful vested interests in education. There are plenty of those in our society. She has taken chances, she has been brave in the face of hostility and she has achieved a lot. The committee should compare what Deputy Coughlan said with what Deputy Quill said. Deputy Quill is an educationalist who comes from a different party; at least she recognised and set out the figures which spoke for themselves. There was not one word of that in what Deputy Coughlan said. This is a discussion on the Estimates. The Deputy should not come in here and give a list of her prejudices, saying where money should be spent without telling us how it should be spent. I am disapointed in the Deputy because she has a lot of common sense and I like and admire her. This contribution is useless. She has made no effort at all to help in the work of the committee.
I wish to ask the Minister the cost of the White Paper, as I did not see this in her submission.
We will take all the comments together.
I am pleased to see the Minister and Minister of State here. I compliment the Minister on her recent White Paper on charting the educational path of the future. I have no doubt that it is taken very seriously by the Minister. I wish to ask two questions and my objective in asking both of them is to be constructive.
As a public representative, I get many representations about the primary school transport system. As we know, many of our schools depend on school transport. Children are eligible for free school transport depending on whether their parents are on medical cards, numbers and so on. If an existing school transport system operating in a rural area is subject to review this causes concern because although the numbers are on the bus, many of the children are paying for the privilege of being there. If certain parent eligibility criteria are not met, the number of children travelling free may be too low and the bus may be removed from the area. I wish to know within what limits the school transport system operates. The free school transport system has been in operation for a long time. Since then we have had these trundling yellow buses, many of them antiquated and not conforming to safety guidelines. I wonder whether it is time to review the school transport service in order to ensure fairness as well as value for money.
As regards my second question, we are inundated with requests for lottery funding from sporting and recreational organisations. There is a perception that a lot of money goes to the national lottery fund. The original intention when the national lottery was introduced was that the money was to be voted mainly to recreation facilities. The national lottery fund tends to be raided for all kinds of reasons, yet when we come to bonafide recreational facilities we are told that no money is available, which causes a lot of frustration for different organisations around the country. Is there any money there at this stage to allocate for any recreational facilities, and if there is, will it be allocated later on this year? What does the Minister or the Minister of State think about the issues I have raised?
I welcome the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials. I hope that our exercise will be fruitful. We are not here for any kind of backslapping exercise. That might be the line that Deputy Kemmy was taking, but we are here to tease out the Estimates and to disagree with her when we wish to. How each individual presents his or her case is a matter for themselves. My colleague, Deputy Coughlan, gave a well thought out, well researched contribution; diversity of contribution is what this is about. I hope that our committee will be able to tackle the issues raised, dealt with and confronted in Estimates. We will be happy with some and unhappy with others.
I wish to touch on a couple of items in Vote 26. I am concerned to note that there is a 123 per cent increase in consultancy services. Could we have a detailed breakdown on that? I wonder why this very substantial increase has taken place and whether the money proposed in that area could be better spent elsewhere. So much documentation was presented to us this afternoon that it is difficult to assimilate it all, so I hope that we will have some time to go through it item by item.
I see that there is a 2 per cent increase in funding for the transport service this year. Contributors on all sides of the House have already referred to the difficulties there. An increase of 2 per cent will not go very far towards solving the problems we all encounter, particularly with regard to special transport facilities. There continues to be a major inflexibility in the provision of this service. In many cases families miss out on the transport service because they live at the wrong end of a road or on the wrong side of the road. These are families of children with special needs. The last thing they need is the hassle and the disappointment of trying to obtain a service that is close to them but yet far enough away to make it impossible for them to benefit from it. I am not sure that the 2 per cent will allow for the introduction of any flexibility there. Those problems will not be solved and if we gather here again next year we will make the same points.
I wish to touch on the increase in youth and sport services. The allocation of grant aid in this area continues to be a source of great disquiet, no matter what Government happens to be in office. It is time the issue of the allocation of funding to youth and sport services through the national lottery was tacked head on. Every year many organisations who go through the hassle of making applications for funding are disappointed. There will only be two or three successful applicants in any particular area; the others will be unsuccessful. There is a hope value built into the disbursement of national lottery funding: the same applications are made and the same people are disappointed.
It is time the Government and the Minister of State tackled this issue and put in place a system or scheme which would be fairer and more responsive to local needs. It may mean returning the scheme to local authorities or another such organisation but that is a matter for the Minister. It causes desperate problems every year. All public representatives have the hassle of receiving numerous representations, knowing that even if we were successful in supporting one case, many others will be disappointed. That needs to be tackled.
Will the Minister say how and where the psychological service will be expanded? It was originally established on a pilot basis by her predecessor, Deputy O'Rourke, and proved successful. It was provided at the behest of those in the teaching profession who felt there was a crying need for such a service. It has proven itself and I am disappointed that after so many years we are not in a position to increase it further. The Minister should examine and tackle this.
I will not speak for too long, Chairman, but I wish to raise a few items. Under Vote 27, there is a 6 per cent increase for grants towards the employment of caretakers in national schools. How many additional schools without such a facility are expected to be brought into the scheme this year? It is a good and necessary scheme. There were serious difficulties in continuing it in the 1980s through the FÁS community employment scheme. Many schools were left without caretaker and clerical facilities.
There is an 8 per cent increase for special services for children in care. This has been a bone of contention for people working in this sector and the increase will not go any way towards meeting the need. There has been considerable public debate about the provision of these services. Resources are not limitless but in so far as they admit, children with special needs should obtain more support and enhanced services.
There has been a 26 per cent rise in the budget for the Department of Education. That is a great increase but where is the money going? It should be broken down into salaries and related payments on the one hand and finance and services on the other. We need information on those percentages.
In first level education the Minister developed the early start pre-school programme in 1994, operating in eight locations. While such a service is welcome she is probably aware it has caused problems in the voluntary sector. Where pre-school facilities were available and this scheme was introduced, the existing services were wiped out. This happened in my area, Tallaght, in Finglas and perhaps in other areas with which I am not familiar. The existing facilities may not have been allowed to work in tandem or in conjunction with this service.
The issue of disadvantaged schools has confronted all of us and there is great disappointment at the way in which a school is deemed to be in a disadvantaged area. We all receive representations on these matters and some would be at a loss to determine how a decision is made on one school as opposed to another. That continues to be the case and some schools outside what are deemed to be disadvantaged areas should qualify.
This relates particularly to schools which are not in a disadvantaged area and find themselves providing primary level education for traveller children in the normal classroom setting. It is right not to have special classes for travellers because traveller children should be accommodated in the normal classroom, with the teaching taking account of and encouraging settled children to respect traveller culture. When travellers move from one area to another, we receive representatons from staff and management of schools where their children have enrolled because they are not being given the resources to educate them. Separate resources are required and the finance provided by the Minister this year will not meet that issue and the problem will continue, unfortunately.
A sum of £9.50 per pupil is required in disadvantaged schools but the local community will still be called upon to make contributions towards that. In many of those areas the people do not have the money, yet they are continually asked by the school or church authorities to make up the shortfall. The time has come to consider whether it is proper or fair to look for such a contribution in disadvantaged schools. I do not believe it is, because some local communities do not have that resource. If we switch the money from other areas, that is a matter for the school and church authorities but that does not always work.
The Minister said primary teaching posts which would have been lost due to falling enrolment identified in 1994-95 will be retained. However, is it not the case that schools will lose teachers? They may shift to other areas but because of the variation in numbers certain schools will have fewer teachers.
I am not sure parents are fully aware what will happen in September, and I expect we will be called to public meetings about teachers being lost to the service. This issue has not been fully teased out and there will be a great deal of disquiet in schools which lose teachers. Some will feel attached to individual teachers, especially in smaller schools, where they will have made a major contribution not just to the school but the locality.
The Minister has provided £35,000 for traveller pre-schools. How many children is this expected to reach. There are between 4,000 and 5,000 traveller children. What type of pre-schools will be provided? Will it be provided in designated areas or schools or in the travelling community? For example, if 40 or 50 families are living on an unauthorised site, will the Minister provide the pre-school facility in the camp, or will she draw a distinction between authorised and unauthorised travellers' accommodation? That is a matter for the Minister for the Environment. However, the provision of £35,000 for educational facilities for pre-school travellers will not go far.
While the Minister has good intentions to provide such finances, she will need the support of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Health to make the best use of any resources she provides at this level. There is no co-ordinated approach, despite statements from the Government that it will deal with travellers' issues, of which education is extremely important.
The situation is not all roses, as Deputy Kemmy would have us believe. There are problems such as lack of resources and where they are targeted. I am sure other people will have their own ideas about where to direct resources. We cannot ignore existing problems, particularly in the areas of pre-schools, travellers' education, school transport and special schools.
I did not have an opportunity to speak during the debate on the White Paper. We must recognise the importance of that document as regards the fundamental issues it tries to deal with and acknowledge that it heralds an exciting new phrase in education. It is not unconnected with the early retirement of teachers which Deputy Couglan mentioned. Like many Members in this House, I taught in a secondary school. I was also involved in Dublin vocational education committee, which gave me an interesting contrast between what it was like to belong to a system and to be in the independent kingdom in which many of our schools are with all the demands and lack of opportunities. If we set up regional authority type structures the environment for teachers will be so transformed that the frustrations because of the lack of opportunities, regardless of talent that caused them to leave teaching or become involved in counselling or union politics will be gone. Such a structure would transform the environment for teachers and make more sense as regards solving problems. The psychological services would be interested to hear if progress is being made in this regard.
In the spirit of fraternal committee membership, which Deputy Kemmy encouraged, I commend Deputy Flood for his consistent support for the travelling community. I share his commitment in this regard.
The pupil teacher ratio is still a major issue and we must do something about it as fast as possible. While the OECD will castigate us for not controlling public spending, it and the EU will also put us at the bottom of the list for ratios in our schools. It is difficult to achieve the two. Perhaps the Minister could look at the falling birth rate and the projected ratios. There is a commitment for the next year or two in this regard.
I am interested in special schools, not only because two of them are in my constituency, St. Michael's and St. Laurence's in the Finglas children's centre. They hit the headlines last week in a less than desirable way by raising issues which must be publicly resolved.
Under the provision for special schools and capital buildings there is a 135 per cent increase, which is approximately £600,000. Last year a commitment was given to provide ten additional places in Finglas and a number of additional places in other schools. Are these being provided for in this capital assessment?
The Finglas schools were built over a decade ago to meet a different need. It was set up effectively as a school with large groups of young people in dormitories at night. The need for special schooling is no longer being met there. As a result, judges will not place certain children there and the teachers say they cannot take certain types of children who need care. This resource is underutilised because of the way it is structured. A new management team has been appointed and it has sent proposals to the Department to restructure the schools in a way which would allow them to use smaller home based units and enable them to provide an important service for children in need in a way which they cannot do at present. Their present structure does not allow them to accept difficult children.
Concern has been expressed that current levels of staffing are seriously inadequate, particularly when difficult children are staying in the dormitories at night. Perhaps the Minister could indicate if there are commitments to fund additional staffing.
The Minister knows from Question Time that I am interested in children with special learning difficulties, particularly dyslexia, which was in the headlines this year. I note the commitments in the White Paper. There are general requirements on regional authorities to provide analysis of special needs. However, there should be a firmer commitment to children with learning difficulties similar to the specified commitment in the British educational system that every child should be allowed to develop its full potential and the relevant services are available in this regard. The contrast between North and South should eventually be eliminated and we should offer our children with special needs the same service.
On another occasion on which we discussed Estimates. I asked the Minister about providing a sports facility for a certain school. She indicated that while there were inadequate leaking school buildings which were rat infested, it would remain low on the list of priorities. Two years ago the INTO produced a list of over 100 schools in poor condition. Are educational buildings now at a basic level so that we can start looking at other issues, such as adequate play space for children, particularly in primary schools which are almost like deserts as regards entertainment facilities?
On youth and sport, we in Dublin, have a great interest in the progress of the plans for the Olympic swimming pool. An increase in funding has been indicated for youth and sport. However, I understand that has been used for commitments made last year. I have been in touch with the Minister about the need for additional funding in this area. There are a number of valuable projects in all constituencies which would provide valuable youth amenities this year if funds were available. We could prioritise four, five or six projects which could be used immediately. I am seriously concerned about the Minister's lack of flexibility in this area. Will the Minister indicate when these commitments, which are being funded from the 1995 budget, were made? What is the progress with regard to the provisions of an Olympic swimming pool in Dublin and of a sports stadium? The Outreach programme has enormous potential in an area such as mine where there is much deprivation. Will the Minister provide an update on this scheme?
With regard to the increase of 123 per cent for consultancy services, is this a once off expenditure in conjunction with the Green Paper, the White Paper and proposed education legislation, or will it be an ongoing feature of departmental expenditure? There is a reduction of 68 per cent in grants to colleges providing courses in Irish. What effects will this have, for example on summer colleges?
With regard to the size of the budget for youth and sport, a committee of which I was a member compiled a report on juvenile justice and juvenile crime. When the committee was deliberating, there were consultations with large numbers of people who studied the proper care of teenagers and dealt with them in a practical sense. The consensus was that there were poor recreational facilities for young people, especially in urban areas and unless and until this matter was addressed fully we would continue to have vandalism, petty crime and anti-social behaviour because young people were not being provided with properly designed constructive outlets for their energies.
This area can no longer be ignored and the Minister of State should join other Ministers in the battle to have lottery funds restored to what they were originally intended for. These funds were initially to be allocated to art and culture, the Irish language and sport. However, the percentage initially envisaged for sport has never been allocated. The Minister of State should start battling for it because circumstances have changed dramatically from the time when most politicians were glad to see part of the lottery fund allocated to the health budget when matters were bad in 1987-88. However, funding for health has greatly improved and it is time that the planned percentages of lottery funding expenditure were restored. There is scope and need for development in this area. While an increase has been provided in the budget, it is not sufficient to make the impact demanded by the situation.
Pointe amháin do mo chomhleacaí, an Teachta Kemmy. Is iomaí uair a mholaim an tAire agus an obair a dhéanann sise, an tAire Stáit agus gach duine atá ag obair sa Roinn. I am sure the Limerick hurlers are very nice fellows when one meets them on a Saturday night, but when one hits hard balls with them on Sunday, it is a different matter. I am pleased I have retained such respect from the Deputy. I am sure he realises that in politics things are different and we must all do our job.
With regard to the retention of the primary teaching posts, does the Minister have a view on rural depopulation? Would it not be better to consider a reduction in the retention figures for some schools so that they may keep the teachers available to them and perhaps reduce the necessity to introduce additional resources, resource teachers and remedial teachers who are employed to do a specific job. It is in nobody's interest that a remedial teacher is moved around as part of the retention numbers within the service. The idea of remedial teachers is excellent and necessary but I would hate it to be lost within the numbers game. Perhaps the Minister could advise if she is considering the issue of retention figures, especially for smaller schools.
Defining disadvantage is another area of contention. There have been increased resources for the disadvantaged. The Combat Poverty Agency has undertaken a survey on behalf of the Department, yet many people are aggrieved about the allocation of posts and resources to disadvantaged areas. Perhaps the Minister will address this problem.
I support the Minister of State with regard to the amount of moneys he needs from the national lottery. We have had private conversations on this matter and the more public pressure placed on the Department of Finance to release the money, the better. We are all anxious that lottery funding continues in sport. We have given hope to people and communities to do something for themselves. Many are disappointed that they did not get any funding last year, and there now appears to be no hope of funding this year. Perhaps the Minister of State could persuade somebody in higher office to release a couple of million pounds this year. A proper five or ten year programme should be introduced. Doubtless the Minister of State has had to rent space in the Department to accommodate all the applications he has received in this area. While not everybody will have a sports hall or GAA pitch, the national lottery was established to give encouragement to local communities to provide proper facilities. It is politically necessary for the Minister of State to obtain funding for youth and sport. Given that he is such a young Minister perhaps he could do so.
Flattery will get the Deputy everywhere.
Except in the case of Deputy Kemmy.
The Deputy changed her opinion, I am glad I have had some effect on her.
I thank the Members of the committee and the officials of the Department of Education. It is difficult to read the information we have provided as there is so much of it. The budget is £2 billion and we have much information to share with Members. In view of the time constraints, more information may be required.
The early retirement issue was referred to by all. It overshadows the future plans of any Minister for the education system. Like many Members I come from the teaching profession and I hold it in the highest regard. Without the co-operation of the profession, the White Paper will be delayed. It requires ambassadors to take the news to the students in the class rooms.
There are ongoing difficulties but I want to put on record, as I did in the Dáil, the comments I made in 1993 about early retirement. We made all that information available to the Deputies. I felt the scheme was restrictive and there were difficulties in extending it to teachers, particularly teachers who felt they were suffering from stress and were not performing a professional job to their own standards.
A package was offered to the unions in February. It offered common retirement conditions to post-primary and primary teachers at the age of 55 with 35 years service. It answers the criticism about stressed out teachers and how unfair it is to retain them in the system when they can no longer function effectively. I keep repeating that there is an offer to give teachers in that category early retirement. We all owe it to those teachers we know to ask if they are aware of the full extent of the offer. Has its full extent been made widely known through their union leadership?
There was a question about the figures. At the Easter conferences, I asked to have the figures from the teaching unions in order to have them examined and they were made available. One of the unions submitted the figures as late as the day before the march. At that stage, half the teachers of Ireland were already travelling to Dublin. I laid down figures from the official side over many months of negotiation. I must thank officials in my Department for maintaining open contact all the time with the teachers through their unions. When I said the Government had costings, the teachers' unions asked for them. The Government is prepared to have an independent costings exercise carried out. I have offered that and the offer still stands. I see little point in both sides swapping costings because the assumptions, both cash flow and actuarial, need to be included under both headings. An independent process would be a better way to move forward. I have made that offer and I put it on record again today. To claim that nothing is happening would be to underestimate totally the extraordinarily hard work on the official side to find a common basis to open negotiations. I am satisfied I have met that commitment in part of the offer that was on the table.
In the opening speech, there was reference to an in-career programme and the need for teacher development because it does not suit everyone to have the teaching cohort seeking early retirement. There are difficulties for those who stay in the teaching profession for any length of time and we have all acknowledged them. How do we address the problems being experienced? First, we are aware of them. Changes to the curriculum are needed. I share Deputy Quill's sadness that proposals to bring forward the leaving certificate applied programme have had to be shelved. Schools dealing with the senior certificate will be able to pursue that. The changes necessary to develop the leaving certificate all depend on an investment by the Department of Education in career development. I am pleased I have been able to provide for such a massive investment in career development with money given to us by the EU, who recognise the need to retrain teachers. The money for in-career training is available, not only for the leaving certificate applied programme. Six subjects to make the syllabus more relevant to today's students are put on hold but the in-career money is there. The summer courses for primary teachers, which have been around for a long time, are still there. Training is needed for sexuality and relationships education. I gave an undertaking to the teaching profession and to school management that I would not introduce new courses without training and investment. Because of a dispute we are having with the unions, I have been obliged to issue a circular to schools in the last week to delay all that. A lot of money has been earmarked for in-career training. The unions and the parents' associations have come forward with imaginative programmes which are welcomed in the Department and I hope we can get back on course.
My good friend, Deputy Kemmy, asked about the White Paper. It is a high quality document which cost £230,000. I do not think it can be produced in the way that official briefs come to senior counsel or whatever. It is a document I want people to read. When we talk about education, communication and technology, we should not expect anything less than the best. The Green Paper, which was always seen to be a temporary document, cost £5. The unit cost of the White Paper is £7. I look forward to it being discussed more and more and I have said to people that it is their document. I have asked people to buy it and discuss it. The sum of £230,000 for something that really is the PhD in the future of education is extraordinarily good value. Ask the parents of children what they pay for schoolbooks.
On pre-schools, there is a monitoring committee in place. There has been some mischievous information. We have no evidence that pre-schools that have been set up have had any negative effect on the voluntary ones. There is so much need in these areas of disadvantage. This is not a play school system — it is very much part of the primary education system. It is a specific education intervention which will be monitored. I have given an undertaking to the officials in the Department of Finance that if at the end of the monitoring it does not show a difference, I will not be there to defend it. I am confident however that, because it is a specific education intervention tied into the primary school system with trained teachers in primary school buildings, it will prove successful. The monitoring committee includes all the voluntary groups and will examine it as it develops.
On consultancy, we did not spend all the 1994 money because EU money was put aside for the technology projects. On the White Paper, we consulted enough partners not to need an extraordinary number of consultants. This may be different from the way other Departments prepare White Papers. Our White Paper was very much a partnership one.
I can give Deputies a breakdown on what is happening in 1995. A lot of the consultancy is computer related. Given the budget and the mountain of paper Members can see behind me, the more technology is introduced, the quicker information is available and the more transparent it is. Computer consultancy is involved in the vocational education committee unit cost study, the PLC places, evaluation of financial procedures which must go ahead, departmental work studies, the White Paper, the education Bill and the strategic management initiative. All these take the Department of Education into the modern world of communication and technology. I cannot understand why anybody would feel it would be negative for the Department of Education to spend money to spearhead research and make it available as quickly as possible.
On psychologists, Deputy O'Rourke set up pilot schemes in Tipperary and Dublin west. Both proved to be a great success. I am delighted that they have been permanently established and that the scheme has been extended to Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Tullamore. As additional psychologists become available they are allocated to areas of disadvantage.
I have detailed information about the caretakers and I can come back to anybody who wishes to deal specifically with that matter. With regard to the Combat Poverty Agency we have problems defining disadvantage. Deputy Coughlan represents a constituency which qualifies for everything.
We did not get our second vice-principal in Donegal town.
Brian Mullins got a bit of a hand-out there. The Deputy's county has a good community health service and figures show the health board distributes more medical cards than other counties. It means that if the medical card was used as a way of defining disadvantage those who live in Donegal have a better chance of being so defined than those who live in Deputy Flood's area. The Eastern Health Board is not noted for its largesse in handing out medical cards. Such disparities were evident when we examined the matter.
We invited the Combat Poverty Agency to come back with a report at the end of June with regard to urban and rural poverty. I make no apology for looking for research from those who are expert in the area and asking them to help us to define the issue. That is not to take away from any of the extras for which Donegal qualifies. There are other areas and we need to look at that matter. I will share the results with the committee. I live in an Eastern Health Board area and I have that experience in my public career.
With regard to the pre-schools for travellers there are 57 pre-schools for 700 children. They are established on the initiative of the voluntary groups — the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the local travellers' support groups. They get children ready for primary school and a total of 98 per cent of the cost of the tuition is paid by the Department of Education. We pay 98 per cent of the special transport to bring the children to the pre-schools. The idea of the local contribution is to maintain a sense of commitment and local ownership of the projects. Funding is not a problem there. The amount of £35,000 is the materials and equipment; it does not include teachers' salaries.
Deputy Flaherty asked me about special schools. I have a lot of detailed information which I can make available to the Deputy and she may want to come back on it with regard to the Finglas children's centre and St. Joseph's. The Minister of State, Deputy Currie, has responsibility for children at risk. We will make the information available.
The Minister indicated there is a lot of information available relative to questions raised by individuals. We are all interested in questions raised and the answers to them. Will the Minister and the Ministers of State ensure that we receive copies of all the information?
I have the information on travellers which I think would be of interest to Members of the committee. It might be of interest also to give the terms of the Combat Poverty Agency research on disadvantage. These are more detailed notes and we can make them available to all Members of the committee.
With regard to demographic trends, I have looked at schools in which numbers have dropped and where entry can be as high as 30 or 35. Where communities have settled there are not three infant classes any more, only two. The pupil-teacher ratio has been affected. There was a lot of discussion at Dublin Castle about the smaller classes and what children got out of them and the OECD report published yesterday told us that we need to put more into our curriculum. We have to balance that with how we use the extra teachers and retain the posts.
There should not be classes of the size to which the Deputy refers and if there are we would like to hear about them. People who have been teaching might share the experience that if I, as a teacher teaching a large class of 30 or 35 pupils, could get extra help for those children who need it my extra attention would be of more benefit. This is where we have been using the remedial and resource teachers.
On Question Time recently it was stated that the demographic trends will settle it all for whoever is Minister in 2005. I have great expectations that we will then be back to a demographic trend that reflects the other OECD countries.
On that matter is the Minister considering, as well as remedial teachers, using subjects such as art or physical education that are not allotted sufficient time in the curriculum? It can be as much of a relief for teachers if some or all of their class is taken for a time by another teacher. Is that an option the Minister is considering?
Referring to the expectations expressed in the White Paper, there will be a school plan available to parents and education boards, which will look at necessary resources available, not necessarily always on an individual school basis, but more centrally. The Deputy referred to the school halls. With regard to the school building programme, the INTO told me there were 170 unsatisfactory schools and I am pleased that list no longer exists. Most of those schools have been dealt with: some of them are no longer in use as schools and others are in the process of being dealt with. We gave design permission this year for halls in areas of disadvantage.
In asking how time is best used in the classroom and how resources are best used, with the school plan there will be better attention paid to that by the schools at the beginning of the school year with reference to other schools in their areas and the regional boards.
I will leave the questions asked about school transport and the national lottery to the Minister of State, Deputy Allen. With regard to the Irish courses, they are per capita or demand driven. There is a certain amount given for each student who attends the courses. With the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht we are examining the idea of the summer courses and other Irish courses. As long as the numbers increase the capitation grant also increases.
I have gone quickly through a number of issues in response to Deputies. With a budget of £2 billion it is hard to give all the information to the committee, but it is our intention to give as much information as we can.
I thank the Minister and the civil servants in the Department for their help and expertise. In my first appointment as Minister of State it opened my eyes to see the commitment and expertise of the people in the Department.
I have responsibility for youth affairs and we deal with young people who have fallen through the safety net of education. A lot of my Department's work is to pick up the pieces and to attempt to get young people back into mainstream education. The money spent in that section is money well spent. Naturally enough, we could do with much more money. When one considers that it costs approximately £600 per week to keep a young person in prison, one can see how far £600 per week can go in the youth services. In that context, my Department deals with schemes to assist disadvantaged youths. We deal with the grants system for all of the youth organisations and I have met most if not all of those organisations since I became Minister of State at the Department of Education with responsibility for youth affairs. Along with that, we attempt to get young people to use and develop their talents. Gaisce — The President's Award, is a scheme well worth supporting. For example, 450 young people received their Gaisce awards in Cork city last week. With the transitional year in secondary schools, that scheme will be developed and will become more popular. With the greater mobility of young people, we need to develop the Léargas scheme and the scheme operated in co-operation with Co-operation North.
I am glad this year we succeeded in getting funding amounting to £7 million for sport. For the first time ever, the moneys we gave to The Olympic Council of Ireland exceeded £1 million, including money for Olympic Aid, the scheme for promising athletes who will attempt to qualify for the Olympic Games in Atlanta next year. There is a change in the system in that, for these Olympic Games, there must be a qualifying event in a specific area. That adds enormously to the expense incurred by the council and by the individual athlete. I am trying to critically review the "sport for all" concept because there is too much focus, at times, on the top sportsmen and sportswomen whereas sport should be about enjoyment and participation by all. That programme needs a major review.
When I became Minister, there was a problem about children in sport. I immediately announced the setting up of an expert group to look at the code of ethics for dealing with young people in sport and in all recreational activities. That committee has worked hard for the last number of months. We have a cross-section of experts, both men and women and including parents, who are looking at the code of ethics for young people. Young people are not machines — they should be involved in sport to enjoy it. At times they are being pushed and pressurised too much. This code of ethics will help enormously to protect the young people and facilitate the many volunteers we have in sport, who are at times under the microscope because of unfortunate incidents in recent years.
We hope to publish guidelines for spectator safety at sports grounds in the next few weeks. That document is a hangover from the Hamilton report. It is not a knee-jerk reaction to the Lansdowne Road incident because, coincidentally, on the morning of the match I had indicated in the Dáil during the budget debate that it was a priority for this year.
I hope to announce within the next few days the establishment of a committee to look at the participation of women in sport. That will be a sub-committee of COSPÓIR. I will now deal with some of the key issues that were raised here today by some of the earlier speakers. The question of school transport and safety was raised. In case the message might go out from this meeting that there is a question mark over the safety of buses being used in the school transport system, all buses are checked thoroughly on a regular basis and there is a major check on all buses on an annual basis. Bus Éireann is pursuing a policy of replacing all of the yellow buses over a period of time. Deputy Flood raised the question of school transport for young people with special needs going to special schools. The Minister announced some time ago a totally new innovation in relation to escorts and safety harnesses for young people with special needs. It is not, as has been suggested, an inflexible school transport system. I know, from dealing with problems every day of the week, that we tend to be as flexible as possible within the budgets that we have. Twenty per cent of the total amount spent on school transport goes on special services, in other words, for 5 per cent of the total pupil numbers. That is a fair idea of the emphasis we put on and interest we have in young people with special needs and the need to get them to and from schools especially in view of the fact that each child with a special need has to be treated in a special way and there has to be flexibility and sensitivity. Members can see that, with the resources we have, everything possible is being done to meet the needs of the child with special needs.
I know Deputy Coughlan has a job to do but there is not, as has been suggested, another review just to delay things. The school transport system is in operation since 1968 and there has never been a review of that system. I will not delay the meeting too long by going through it in detail. A number of consultants's reports have been produced — Deloitte Touche in 1990 and Bastow Charleton in 1992. There were different findings from both of these reports. We have decided to set up a review group to look at the overall working of the system. The committee will examine the effects of declining enrolments on the operation of the school transport scheme. It will address any anomalies which come to light and consider the possibility/advisability of revising catchment areas if necessary. It will review the arrangements for pupils in special schools, multi-denominational schools and all-Irish schools. The committee could address a number of other issues which are of concern to parents and school authorities. Among such matters would be the long waiting time for small children, both before and after school hours, the question of who is responsible for supervision and the position on insurance cover in such cases. The committee will be representative of the school transport section and the planning section at Principal Officer or Assistant Principal Officer level. There will be representatives of Bus Éireann on the committee, one transport liaison officer and a number of ministerial nominees. The consultants reports to which I have already referred have been sent to Bus Éireann and its response has only been received recently. Its response and the two consultant's reports will also be addressed by that review group.
Is there a time-frame for the review groups's work?
There is not, but we will urge the review group to deal with these issues effectively and within a short time. If one asks for a job to be done within a short time, the job may not be done properly.
There is a considerable amount of money available for dealing with special needs. One initiative introduced last year and continued this year is the escort service. There was a traumatic problem in the Minister's constituency and there is much concern about cases where, in transporting mentally or physically handicapped children, there is only the bus driver on the bus. If the bus gets a puncture and a child wanders away, who is responsible? There are other actions and reactions to deal with. Within the concept of the review, the Minister might look at the cost of an escort service. There is only £150,000 made available this year, I assume for a pilot scheme. This is an area the Minister might consider as part of the review as there are problems there. We must address these problems before there are more tribunals. The Minister might consider that as part of his review process.
We all agree on that point and we have the interests of the child at heart. We will address those issues because they are important and sensitive.
I welcome the decision on the review of school transport. I acknowledge that it is a matter of urgency. Will the Minister deal with the issue of youth and national lottery funding?
When I took office I faced a particular problem.
(Interruptions.)
How are the grants for the Minister's activities allocated? I want to see openness and transparency. If we knew what criteria were laid down by the Minister, I would not try to pressure him, although the cupboard was bare when we arrived on the scene. We should stick with the same rules when doing anything political. I have difficulty understanding what codes and criteria are being used by the Minister in allocating that money.
As regards the youth services area, the grants are allocated in conjunction with the national youth organisation, for example, the National Youth Council of Ireland, Foróige and the National Youth Federation, with whom we meet to discuss their needs. The allocations are made in response to their needs.
I know they are looking for money from the Minister, but has he laid down criteria and, if so, are they based on needs, disadvantaged areas, etc.?
They are based on the range and effectiveness of the activities they undertake. One of the most important things we would like to do in the next few months is to appoint an evaluation officer who will evaluate the effectiveness of the money being spent because approximately £12 million is being spent on these activities. The applications are made by the organisations on detailed application forms which we can supply to Members, if they so wish. The youth organisations which are well organised and effective are looking for more money, but they are satisfied that it is distributed fairly. The Comptroller and Auditor General has scrutinised spending and has approved the allocation of youth grants.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has also looked at the allocation of sports grants and he does not have any major queries in this regard. At present, there are 1,400 applications in the Department.
What is the cost of accepting those applications?
The estimated cost of the proposed developments is approximately £450 million and the total grant aid is approximately £50 million.
The figures should be published because each of us could spend the total amount of money the Minister has in one constituency. When people come to us with applications to send to the Minister, they do not know that the money he has could be spent in one constituency.
There are £450 million worth of projects, but the total grant aid is £50 million. It is important to remember that we give out grants at an average of £5,000 to each minor scheme. That money encourages communities to raise funds and to develop facilities for young people to keep them off the streets. This scheme, which is socially beneficial, is underrated at times.
We do not know about the knockout systems. We do not understand it.
The main criteria in deciding how grants will be allocated are need and how much the local organisation is prepared to raise.
How much finance does the Minister have?
I have £2 million this year to fund the smaller schemes and £4 million to fund the larger ones.
Does the Minister not accept that this is similar to what happened in another area? Due to the success of an agricultural scheme, an excessive number of applications were sent to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Minister, Deputy Yates, then said he could not accept further applications. I am concerned that expectations have been fuelled and many organisations expect to get national lottery funding and believe there is a big treasure trove in the Department of Education. They should be told there is only a certain amount of money available and they can apply at a later date. There is a wide-spread belief that the Minister has a magic treasure chest and that there will soon be largesse throughout the country. Organisations must be told that the money has been spent and they can reapply in 1996.
I draw the committee's attention to the fact that we are 25 minutes late as regards the timetable to which we agreed. I ask Members to confine their remarks to short questions and answers.
I will try to answer the questions already asked and I may take further questions afterwards.
A scheme was announced in 1994 to which £4 million was allocated. Applications were received and the allocations were made in August 1994. Because late decisions were made due to an avalanche of applications which had to be carefully scrutinised, clubs were not able to respond quickly enough to take up the moneys before the end of the year. This meant that of the £4 million allocated, less than £0.7 million was spent. Some £3.3 million was returned to be spent elsewhere in the education budget. Although projects were allocated, we had legal obligations. Some £3.3 million worth of projects were started with legal obligations this year and a budget of £2 million was allocated. This meant I started with a budget of minus £1.3 million. I hope we will be able to overcome this problem by maintaining the current level of funding over the next few years. The situation is not as serious as it appears because we will be able to fulfil our obligations to everyone who has started schemes.
Deputy Quill mentioned public buildings, especially school halls which are left unused during the summer months, at weekends and after 4 p.m. each day. I have already discussed this matter with my officials and I want to open up these facilities to the public, communities and sports organisations once the proper safeguards are put in place. We are working on this issue and I hope we find a solution. From 1988 to this year there has been an erosion in the amount of national lottery moneys going to youth and sports. The figures are: 1988-43.39; 1989-37 per cent; 1990-31 per cent; 1991-24 per cent; 1992-20-5 per cent; 1993-26 per cent; 1994-31 per cent. I hope we can reverse the trend. If the committee wishes to see the separate figures for youth and sport they are available.
What about new applicants and new projects?
I sent out letters in response to Deputy Finucane's question. I have written to all applicants whose applications I have received since I took office to say I am sorry there is no money available. One must be truthful to organistions.
Should the Minister be asked to come in on this?
Could I finish the point I was making?
The Minister has no magic wand to fill the cupboard. It is bare for everybody.
The Minister cannot fill the cupboard either. The Minister is in the same position as I. The Department compiled a report, "The Economic Impact of Sport in Ireland", which makes an argument for greater investment in sport and recreation. It cites the number of jobs created in sport which is about 8,000 per year. It outlines the beneficial health effects of sport and discusses the social impact of sport and recreation. Our task is to make an economic argument for sport so that we can develop the required facilities.
Other members asked about the olympic-sized swimming pool and the national sports stadium. The projected 50-metre pool was cancelled in late 1993 by the Government of the day and the national indoor sports centre was abandoned in 1991 by the then Government for reasons I can give if required. I am in possession of a proposal from the Dublin international sports council for a 50-metre pool which would cost between £30 million and £40 million. My Department has obtained a consultants' report on the proposal. We also have our own proposals for a 50-metre pool which would cost about £20 million to build. Running costs would be an ongoing drain on the Exchequer.
Sites have been offered in Tallaght and Lucan, one by Dublin County Council and the other by a private company. However, in making a decision about a 50-metre pool one must ask if £20 million should be spent for the benefit of just one sport and one small sector within that sport or if the £20 million would be better spent in developing facilities nationwide over a broad spectrum of sports. That is the question I and the Government must answer at the appropriate time. Although detailed studies have been carried out, we have not decided, but we will make the decision shortly.
There has been a great deal of media comment on our failure to provide a 50-metre pool. However, much of that comment has been simplistic and has not taken into account the major ongoing financial implications for our Department and, possibly, for other Departments. In addition, it is now time for a major renewal of many of the older pools that were built throughout the country ten and 20 years ago. That task must be undertaken by another Department but all the money is coming from the same source, the taxpayer. That must be borne in mind also.
With regard to a major sports stadium, there are two proposals on hand. One is from O'Callaghan Properties and it was recently submitted to the Department. They are not seeking funding but they made us aware of their proposal. The other is the Phoenix Park proposal which includes a proposal for a casino and has other implications. Again there has been no application to the Department for funding. Both are submissions to us for information purposes. I am aware that the IRFU has purchased land near Newlands Cross and is considering a football stadium there, possibly in conjunction with the FAI.
That is how these matters stand at present.
We will proceed to Vote 28 for second level and further education and Vote 29 for third level and further education. I ask Members to be brief.
With regard to second level education and the capitation grant, the Minister indicated that the grant level to voluntary secondary schools will be increased from £158 to £165 with pro rata increases. The pupil grants for designated disadvantaged schools will be increased from £173 to £180. While those figures appear impressive, they are not so impressive when one takes inflation into account. In fact, they are probably static. Since inflation will be approximately 2.93 per cent, the situation will not change. There is no significant improvement in that regard despite the gloss that is put on it.
There is the same problem here as is in the primary sector. Pupils in many areas who are supposedly receiving a free education are coming home from school every week looking for money for various facilities in the school. Some of us are fortunate enough to be able to meet those demands. However, it is a cause of stress for families that they are forced either to pay the demand for finance or refuse to pay because they have not got it. That continues to be a problem and it reflects a lack of funding for second level education.
We set out a timetable but I did not think we would stick rigidly to it.
We obviously are not. We are 35 minutes behind schedule.
That is because you are so understanding. However, we can meet again. That is why we have a committee. Other Ministers have agreed to return to the committee and I am sure this Minister will be no different. Let us not rush. There were many issues I wished to raise with the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, but in deference to you I have cancelled my questions. That should not happen. Let us take our time. If we must hold another meeting we will do so.
I have two brief questions. The increase in primary capitation grants and the extension of the disadvantaged schemes are of enormous assistance this year. They have transformed the budgets of certain schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas. Capitation at second level always seemed to be closer to needs than at primary level. However, as always, more could be used.
One of the most successful schemes in the context of long term unemployment has been the VTOS scheme. I welcome the indication that the numbers will increase from 4,000 to 5,000. Has the Minister any indication of the demand for this scheme? It is successful and exciting and it has a major impact on people. It is an expensive scheme relatively speaking but its return is enormous. Does the Minister have any figures on what the take up would be if the extra resources were available?
I was surprised that the proposal for free third level education became controversial. It was extraordinary that the main Opposition party of the day made a virtue of opposing it. There are some substantial arguments about targeting of resources but they also existed when Donogh O'Malley made the important decision about second level education. I have no doubt that in years to come this will involve a radical shift in expectations about participation at third level. There is a move towards additional participation at third level, much of it in non-traditional third level areas including regional technical colleges and post leaving certificate colleges. Abolishing fees breaks down barriers into third level. It may take a decade but it will significantly affect participation rates from all areas as the second level change did in its time. It will bring us into line with other European countries. It is a good way to spend part of one's life and it is the way forward.
I support Opposition concern that the issue of maintenance grants is still waiting to be resolved. I have, like the Minister and other Members of this committee, seen many individual cases of people living in poor circumstances trying to survive on grants, particularly in working class families. A student from Finglas is going to Maynooth. The choice is to travel up and down to Maynooth and at least have the benefits of home or go to Maynooth and live in the poverty of those on grants away from home. We need to come back to this area. Resources are an issue. The numbers in third level education will not be in the Minister's favour until well after 2005. It will not be easy and it will be expensive in the short term. May I have some indication from the Minister whether priority is being given to maintenance grants? Does she expect to be able to move in this area or does the movement on fees effectively preclude substantial movement on it for the next couple of years?
I welcome the Minister. I am glad of the opportunity to discuss the Education Estimates. Of all of the issues that concern us, education is perhaps the most controversial at present because so much is happening and it is in the news. It has been given a central role both in the last programme for Government and the current programme for renewal.
My first question relates to disadvantage on which there is a particular commitment in the programme for renewal. A number of youngsters have difficulty coping. How many remedial teachers have been appointed in recent years? The teachers' unions say that every school should have at least one remedial teacher, a guidance teacher and home/school liaison teachers. Can the Minister give us an overview of what she has done in those three areas to remedy the situation? In my time in education there was a clear need for considerable investment in this area.
Can the Minister indicate what capitation grant she has planned for secondary schools this year, how this compares with previous years and what she is planning for the future? When deciding on capitation grants for disadvantaged schools, what criteria does the Minister use to establish disadvantage? Do they apply to disadvantaged schools or areas of disadvantage? What level of support is being given?
One of the critical issues is early retirement and no doubt we will hear much more about it in the months to come. It would be useful if the committee had an idea of the number of teachers in receipt of pensions and the level of increase or decrease over the last number of years. What are the likely projections over the coming years?
Disadvantage is an issue which is very close to my own heart. I believe there should be specific schools with their own curriculum, designed specifically to deal with disadvantage. Can the Minister indicate the plans for an inner city community school in the Waterford Street area which has been on the cards for the last quarter of a century? What sort of projects does she have under construction for secondary schools in general?
I compliment the Minister on the work in abolishing third level fees which is most welcome. I am concerned about how this will operate in relation to post leaving certificate students and whether or not the Minister sees maintenance grants applying to that sector. Does she have any plans in this area? The abolition of the fees is likely to result in a big increase in the number of third level students. How will existing facilites cope with that?
The VTOS has been most successful and brings adults back into education. Can the Minister indicate how that scheme has developed in the last couple of years and whether her Department views it as an area which will be expanded considerably?
Deputy Flood made a point about my contribution and the information available. As a result of the first half of the session, we will circulate a note about Finglas, combat poverty, the pupil/teacher ratios, early retirement and what is on offer, and youth in sport. We will make that information available to everyone and the Deputy can seek more information if he wishes. Given the questions being fielded now, the package will get a little bigger.
Opposition spokespersons commented on capitation grants at third level. There have been accusations about over crowding and lack of funding. We need to verify the sort of criticism which any institution seeking additional funding is ready to whip up. There is a suggestion — I would nearly believe it myself if I did not know otherwise — that there has been no action on funding and that the pleas from the institutions are falling on deaf ears. That is not so. The OECD has agreed that it is not so. They have testified that our third level sector is funded well up to the international average. That is not to say that we have absolutely fantastic facilities but, taking the overall budget and where we invest it, the third level sector is not one to which the OECD has pointed our attention.
Indeed, it pointed our attention to the earlier stages of education. I recognise there are difficulties and I am not defending the indefensible. For clarity, we must establish the facts. In 1994 £120 million was secured for investment in capital up to 1999. Each third level institution will benefit. The allocations were made to the institutions after consultations with them. Government and EU investment has made a huge contribution in this regard. The figures are in excess of £80 million. Members might ask where it has gone. It is part of a programme and we cannot build everything overnight. The institutions will always seek additional funding for expansion of facilities. However, looking at international comparisons, the OECD does not draw our attention specifically to that sector.
As regards capitation at second level, £165 per pupil has been provided. It could be suggested that that is merely the rate of inflation, but when there is an increase of over 10 per cent over two years, it is a little higher than the rate of inflation. The management bodies of voluntary secondary schools, in particular, welcomed the increase this year and last year because no increase had been made for a couple of years.
There are pro rata allocations to vocational education committee, community and comprehensive schools. In addition to giving them the per capitaallocation, we targeted resources. Second level schools designated as disadvantaged get an extra £15, which takes it to £180 per pupil. There is no such things as free anything because the State must pay. For every pupil in transition year, we are giving on top of the £165 or, indeed the £180, an extra £50.
Because of the special review committee whose recommendations have been taken on board by the Department, we have, for the first time, made a special grant for children in special classes at second level —£323 or £332, depending on the nature of the handicap of the pupil. This is a dramatic provision because it gives them recognition at second level. People have raised funds on a voluntary basis for these schools, in particular the parents of children with special needs. At times they had to concentrate on cake sales and fund raising events rather than harnessing their energy and goodwill towards their children and the community.
Capitation is used for the running expenses of the school, which includes, for example, insurance the cost of which regularly increases. Although we may talk about fax paper and telephone bills, a greater portion of the money is spent on caretakers and secretaries. We have been able to improve on that as part of the national wage agreement. While improvements are still sought, dramatic ones have been made which make the capitation more realistic because it does not only relate to running costs per head for insurance, heating and light, but to other facilities also. We have targeted those who are disadvantaged. As to how we define disadvantage I will circulate that information to Members.
Deputy Flaherty asked about the VTOS. Some 4,400 places have been filled, although 5,000 places are on offer. We asked the vocational education committee to look at this scheme because it is successful, but expensive. The Department has been trying to retain perspective VTOS clients in the system so they do not leave without education and seek to come back again. We also asked the vocational education committees to assess the needs of their particular areas as regards the VTOS scheme.
I refer again to the education boards and their remit to respond to the needs of their community. I am a little apprehensive that the VTOS scheme is not widely available throughout the country as it is in particular areas. It began in Tallaght and it was recognised as a positive response. The potential of the VTOS scheme is being exploited properly in areas like Tallaght.
Finglas is also very strong.
Yes, because it has been available there for longer. We must ask the vocational education committees, particularly those with good practice and with a good take up, about the successes and to point the way forward.
As regards targeting resources in disadvantaged areas, per capita allocation increased as did the free book scheme. The alleviation of fees for pupils sitting certificate examination is important. The Department asked schools to indicate the pupils who they believe will require help. There was a dramatic increase in the Vote which would cover the free book scheme and examination fees. We have given lump sums to disadvantaged areas on the proviso that they set up a rental scheme for books so that it is seed capital rather than a once-off payment.
Some 100 guidance posts at second level have been targeted. The 30 home-school liaison teachers, the 76 remedial teachers and 60 resource and visiting teachers are for travellers. This is a challenging area and these posts were announced earlier this year. We then looked at curriculum changes because keeping children in school is not just a question of pounds, shillings and pence; we must make it relevant to them.
I put on record the initiatives of the third level institutions in the area of disadvantage. DCU has a programme called BITE with the Ballymun comprehensive school and Southill in Limerick has a special relationship with UL. Seven post primary schools have a special relationship with Trinity College and post primary schools in Tallaght have a relationship with Tallaght regional technical college where there is an education officer who does specific work with people in the second level schools so they have the option of continuing in education.
Support for the junior education centres for travellers is important, but we have not broken down the barriers for a section of the community to aspire to second level education. There are specific commitments in the White Paper in this regard. We have initiatives as early as pre-school and nursary school so the travelling community, particularly girls, have access to second level education.
In 1990 1,841 teachers were in receipt of pensions. By the year 2000 that figure will be 3,490 with no improvement in any pension scheme. As regards the profile of secondary, community and comprehensive teachers in receipt of pensions, the 1995 figure is 2,512, for example. I have the figures for each year and they are growing. It was said at the talks that there are 1,700 teachers aged 41 years who will be entitled to seek pensions. The projections are available to us.
Would it be possible for the Minister to distribute them?
They were distributed in answer to a question in the Dáil.
Deputy Costello who is chairman of the Dublin City vocational education committee asked a specific question about the Waterford Street school site. I have no information to share with the other Deputies. Consideration of future options is now the subject of correspondence between the Department and the Dublin City vocational education committee. My future plans will involve the Dublin vocational education committee. For the information of Members, an application for a community college was received and a meeting took place on Tuesday last.
With regard to maintenance at third level, I share Deputy Flaherty's surprise about the response to free tuition fees. It is worth noting that in those EU countries considered in the OECD's latest report, access to third level education is generally the norm. Confidence in the grant system is lacking although over 50 per cent of students qualified for grants.
There was also the issue of covenants, which is the other side of the argument. In my constituency, people of more than adequate means have thanked me for the abolition of the fees. I checked every case to discover if the children were covenanted and they were. Therefore, it makes no difference to these people. However, the abolition of the covenant meant that we were able to share the benefit and make a difference to many other people. The groups I was particularly concerned about were those above the income limit, which included national school teachers and civil servants. The de Búitlear report stated that putting one child through third level education was feasible, but with two or three children it was impossible. We knew that the number of applications by people from that group were dropping. The question which faced us was how to restore their confidence. The way covenant moneys were being taken up across the board, I would not have held out much hope it would have survived for much longer. We took this course of action to turn the benefit around.
However, the maintenance grants are still available. Third level education is discussed in the programme for A Government of Renewal. There have already been reforms of the higher education grants scheme which will help to target available resources at the students in most need. I do not accept that the income threshold is satisfactory. I would like to restore a confidence in the system whereby people could believe that those who qualify would receive maintenance ahead of those who do not. The new powers provided to the Revenue Commissioners should restore confidence.
With regard to PLC students, this is an important sector which, before the introduction of the White Paper, was only recognised in second level schools. Not everyone would benefit from a university degree. We would serve our young people poorly if we did not have different options for people with different talents. In Ireland, students receive a good, general second level education and it is only then that they begin to specialise. Specialisation is very successful with PLC students but we have committed ourselves to the formation of a further education authority.
It is hard to understand why there is a tradition at a school in my own constituency for students to take up places in Carlow regional technical college, when a very adequate course, with the same qualification, is available in the vocational education committee school in Dún Laoghaire. There are traditions about travelling. The Dominican Order and the Christian Brothers left Dun Laoghaire and we were left without a second level school. The Technical College was closed. Suddenly there were two wonderful PLC colleges while within the town of Dun Laoghaire second level education disappeared. The time was ripe for a third level education authority to ensure equal access across the country for students in all sectors. That authority's remit will be to monitor and to help us plan and provide funding for third level education. I have no difficulty, in principle, with increased funding in relation to the future payment of maintenance grants and how they are obtained by students. My difficulty is one of finance and priority. To recognise post leaving certificate students as a group in their own right, is the correct direction to take to the future development of those courses and other courses — particularly in relation to the number of places available at third level, at regional and technical college level and at PLC level.
With regard to Deputy Coughlan's comment on the reduction in the provision of the higher education grant. I am told it is a cash flow problem. Expenditure in 1994 was £67.5 million compared to a provision of £60.5 million in 1995. This does not represent any curtailment of the provision, the comparison is distorted by a payment of an extra £12 million. It is a bookkeeping issue. The extra £12 million for 1994 is a step toward addressing the cash flow difficulties of local authorities that have recouped expenditure in arrears. That arose when we begin to consider centralising the grants——
Did you clear it?
We are beginning to clear it. Some vocational education committees borrow money and wait for a year. Other vocational education committees deal with it on a different cash flow basis. That is the reason for the reduction. I thank the Deputies for the interest they expressed. I will see that the information I have promised to forward to Members is delivered.
I did not catch all the figures. I believe the Minister said there was a take-up of 4,500, out of approximately 5,000 places. In relation to areas that are not taking full advantage of the numbers allocated to them, is there any reason why the additional numbers could not be divided between areas that are more than willing to take up places? The City of Dublin vocational education committee, for example, would not have a problem in having several hundred extra VTOS students. It could be achieved with very little effort as it is a very successful and popular innovation. There have sometimes been problems in relation to numbers of students in schools and classes have had to be curtailed. Would the Minister agree that if surplus places are available they could perhaps be distributed in the Dublin area?
There will not be any difficulty in filling the 5,000 places. However, I take the point made by the Deputy on behalf of the City of Dublin vocational education committee. It is very successful. Some people, particularly the Dublin Deputies, are very familiar with it. I have a responsibility to ensure that the remit is more widely cast, however, I do not have any principled opposition to distributing places — which have been budgeted for — in that way, if it were found that the take-up was not going to happen but there is an onus on me to spread the good news. That is why I made the point that we would contact the vocational education committees. It would not be correct to keep the good news within the Dublin area. We have had a good experience and a flexibility of response within the Dublin area. I have not a principled objection to the Deputy's suggestion. However, I do not think extra places will be offered to the City of Dublin vocational education committee because they will probably be taken up.
That concludes our consideration of the Department of Educations's Estimates. I thank the Minister and the Minister of State. I thank members for their valuable and constructuve contributions. I thank the officials who came here to provide answers to our questions. At our next meeting, which will take place at 11 a.m. tomorrow in room G2, we will consider the Estimates for the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 11 a.m., on 9 June 1995.