Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1997 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report No. 03 - Value for money examinations

MIONTUAIRSIC NA FIANAISE

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS PHOIBLÍ

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Déardaoin, 13 Márta 1997

Thursday, 13 March 1997

The Committee met at 11.00 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT

DEPUTY DENIS FOLEY IN THE CHAIR

Mr. John Purcell (Comptroller and Auditor General) called and examined.

Dr. Don Thornhill (Accounting Officer, Department of Education) called and examined

Public Session

Chairman: As we have a vote at 1 p.m. I propose we conclude at 12.55 p.m. Is that agreed? AGREED.

Deputy O’Malley: I wish to raise a matter arising from our last meeting. A great deal of new information came to light at our last meeting in relation to the Agricultural Votes, particularly paragraph 39, and subsequent paragraphs, of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report. The Committee will recall, I dissented from the proposed conclusion of the Committee after the first two days. The conclusion, in light of the many corrections made to his evidence by the Accounting Officer, is not appropriate. A different conclusion might be drawn, particularly in regard to the part of the evidence that sought to blame the exporters and the Commission for the problems that arose. It is clear that it was not the Commission’s fault. May I submit a draft conclusion for the Committee which could be considered at a future meeting?

Chairman: I suggest that when the draft report comes before the Committee we should amend it as the Deputy wishes.

Deputy O’Malley: The difficulty with that is the conclusion forms part of the evidence because it comes at the end of the evidence and, therefore, it would be inappropriate.

Chairman: A draft report will be coming before the Committee.

Deputy O’Malley: Will that report take precedence over the proposed conclusion that appears at the end of the evidence? It appears at the end of the evidence for 14 January. If the Chairman could confirm that I would be satisfied?

Chairman: Yes, that is my understanding.

Deputy O’Malley: When will we receive the draft report? I imagine it will not be available for some time. It may be the end of the year.

Chairman: We will receive it within two months, perhaps three. There may be many changes by then.

Deputy O’Malley: There might be.

Chairman: Deputy O’Malley’s submission can be discussed and, if agreed, can be included in the report.

Deputy Doherty: With other Members I asked the Secretary of the Department of the Environment to submit a report to the Committee. He has done so and I propose we defer discussion on it until all Members have had an opportunity to examine it in detail. We should then invite the Accounting Officer of Department to attend a meeting. Through the Department of the Environment, £800 million has been allocated to Local Authorities. That represents considerable public expenditure for which the Secretary of the Department has primary responsibility. Regardless of the autonomy of Local Authorities, we should examine that expenditure.

Chairman: Is that agreed? AGREED. Does Deputy Doherty wish to place that item on the agenda?

Deputy Doherty: I would like the Secretary of the Department to attend this Committee as soon as possible for that purpose.

Chairman: The Secretary may not be available as he is retiring next month. I will try to arrange a meeting with him before the general election.

Deputy Byrne: I am agitated at the Department of Education’s correspondence vis-á-vis the net assets recorded when Carysfort College was being wound down. As I pointed out before, this Committee has a responsibility to the taxpayer, It is very disturbing to learn that, according to today’s letter and previous correspondence, the net assets in 1989 of £973,000 have been dispersed by the Sisters of Mercy through various accounts. The Department of Education estimated the interest accruing on that account ranged between £250,000 and £650,000. Therefore, we are talking about a lump sum of about £1.623 million. At present a serious debate is taking place about zero tolerance of crime and protecting taxpayers’ interests. Our policy should be one of zero tolerance when it comes to protecting the interests of taxpayers. Will the Comptroller and Auditor General comment on the moral and legal position faced by this Committee in its efforts to take back that money on behalf of the taxpayer who are entitled to it?

Would he agree that it is an affront to this Committee, and possibly the Department of Education, that we have not been successful to date in getting the sisters to agree, even though I suggested that they could nominate an arbitrator, on how we can settle the accounts of Carysfort College. I do not think that we, as a Committee are doing our job effectively if we do not address this issue. The fund will accumulate by way of interest calculations every year the issue is not resolved. This has been with us since 1990 and I do not think we are doing justice to ourselves as a Committee or the taxpayers if we should just fob it off on the basis that it is too politically sensitive an issue to tackle. Could we be directed as to how we might impress upon the Order the importance of resolving this? Will the Comptroller and Auditor General go forward as an arbitrator on this £1.6 million?

Mr. Purcell: That would be totally inappropriate because it is not within my functions as defined by law. I cannot enter the administrative process in that sense. Clearly in this case, there is a difficulty establishing what money is legally recoupable to the state. There is a valid difference of opinion. I included a reference in my report last year to ensure sight was not lost of this money and that some finality could be brought to the matter. We heard the evidence of the Accounting Officer of the Department of Education that they were hopeful of appointing an arbitrator. There were signs of some light at the end of the tunnel, were the words used. It is a very delicate situation. I am sure that if the legal case was rock solid on the part of the State there would be no hesitation about going to the courts. Obviously it is not as black and white as that.

Deputy Byrne: You will agree that the argument both sides would put forward is that the “bloody” lawyers - excuse the expression - would clean up the £1.6 million and the taxpayer and the nuns would end up with nothing. That is the reason the State is resisting going the legal route.

Chairman What approach would the Deputy suggest?

Deputy Byrne: I suggest that through the good offices of the Chairman, who is sympathetic to the nuns’ case, he intercede with the Department and the nuns to act as an acceptable arbitrator.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Reading the report and the value for money audit in second level schools, you find that we are going to have a dramatic drop after 1997-98 school year in the number of pupils enrolling. Obviously this issue is going to crop up again. Has the State got a good sound legal case on this issue? Are there any parameters in place for instance where schools run by religious orders close down as to what is due to the State vis-á-vis what is due to the religious order? This case has been going on since 1990 and we can be certain there will be more cases. Perhaps we should investigate to see what parameters exist and, if not, we should ask the Department of Education, and others to set them so that we do not have a repeat of this.

Mr. Purcell: This is addressed in the VFM report we will be discussing this morning. I am sure the Accounting Officer will be able to go into detail about that issue. There are arrangements now for a refund of grants paid in respect of buildings in which secondary schools are housed once they are no longer used for the purposes for which they were originally intended. There is not a formula whereby a particular amount is refunded. It is negotiated on a case by case basis. The reason for that approach will be outlined by the Accounting Officer in the course of this morning’s evidence, if the matter is raised. I had not intended to look at this aspect of the provision of school accommodation but in deference to the wishes of the Committee who had raised this before I said I would devote part of the report to that aspect. The facts have been placed before the Committee and they can be debated with the Accounting Officer.

Chairman: The Deputy can raise this issue with the Department of Education.

Deputy Byrne: I appeal to the Chairman to think of some way of interceding on the Committee’s behalf.

Chairman: I will bear that in mind.

VFM Report on Planning of Second Level School Accommodation

Dr. Don Thornhill, Accounting Officer, Department of Education, called and examined.

Chairman: I welcome Dr. Thornhill and his officials to the meeting.

Dr. Thornhill: Thank you very much Chairman. I am accompanied by Mr. Jack O’Brien, Assistant Secretary and the management team from the planning and building unit, namely Mr. Gerry Murray, Ms. Anne Killian, Mr. Frank Wyse and Mr. Liam Hughes.

Mr. Purcell: The provision of school accommodation is a major area of public expenditure which is of immediate and real interest to all of those involved in the education sector and to the general public. The report before the Committee today is a result of an examination of how the provision of second level school accommodation is planned and managed by the Department of Education.

Although more than £150 million has been spent on second level school building projects in the past five years, there are still many approved projects awaiting funding. The high level of demand for new or refurbished accommodation is likely to persist into the future even though enrolment levels are expected to fall significantly. Indeed falling enrolments will give rise to pressure for school amalgamations so the schools can continue to offer an appropriate broad curriculum to pupils. As a result there is a critical need to ensure that the resources which are available for school building are allocated for the most deserving cases on a timely basis in order to maximise value for money.

Historically the Department has worked on a partnership basis with the local communities and promoters in the provision of second level education. This has in large measure been successful in delivering a good quality educational service. A consequence of this policy is that the major impetus for the provision of school accommodation has come from pressure from local promoters. While the local input is undoubtedly important I believe that it should be complemented by a more strategic approach on the part of the Department which would enable emerging accommodation problems in individual school catchment areas to be identified long before they become acute. A pro-active approach would allow the full range of options, including the possibility of school amalgamations, to be considered and planned for in a timely way.

A number of developments indicate that the Department is now taking a more strategic approach. A commission on school accommodation needs, established last March, has a remit to comprehensively review school accommodation needs and to develop new policies in relation to the provision of accommodation. The proposed establishment of regional education boards is also likely to change the role of the Department’s planning and building unit and this is being examined by external consultants at present.

In drawing up my report I identified a number of areas where changes in existing procedures may strengthen the Department’s planning activities. The Department has responded very positively to the suggestions made and has already announced significant developments along the lines recommended. For instance, work is now under way in developing a points based prioritisation system to clearly identify the relative priority of each project. Among other initiatives the Department has also developed a computer system which will help it to assess its operational efficiency and is also making arrangements to assemble a comprehensive inventory of school buildings as well as examining the feasibility of introducing a system for monitoring school occupancy levels.

The report notes that in a number of cases there have been extensions to recently built schools which, on the face of it, might suggest the original planning was not what it should have been. In this regard the Department points out that in some cases accommodation is provided on a phased basis due to budgetary constraints.

Members will recall discussions at Committee meetings about the State’s financial interests in grant-aided property which is being disposed of. School authorities receiving grant assistance are required to undertake to refund the unexpired value of any grant received if the buildings cease to be used for educational purposes. The total value of the Minister’s interests in grant aided school property is not known and it might help to protect that interest if the proposed inventory of school accommodation included information on the unexpired value of grants for each school.

Chairman: In light of recent controversies regarding the appalling standards of some school buildings was the policy of cutting back on expenditure from 1987 onwards justified?

Dr. Thornhill: With respect, I cannot answer that question. It goes very much into the public policy arena. The policy of cutbacks on expenditure was part of the general policy of fiscal adjustment pursued at that time. There were needs in regard to school accommodation and, in some instances, meeting those needs had to be deferred as a result of the cutbacks. I would prefer not to go beyond that.

Chairman: With regard to planning, has the Department set output targets to facilitate the evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the second level building programme?

Dr. Thornhill: That was one of the points raised in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report and I thank him for giving a very objective and perceptive analysis in his opening remarks this morning. The Department is in the course of refining the manner in which it presents budgetary information on the school building programme. One of the elements in that will be to present the budgetary information on a project by project basis which will, among other things, show the number of school places being provided or replaced.

Chairman: Do you agree management information in this area has been lacking? What is the current position in regard to individual projects?

Dr. Thornhill: I accept the point. This deficit in information gives an interesting insight into how information technology projects are best planned. The planning and building unit’s personnel had developed a computer system which was, in a sense, an application of the basic systems in the Department. The system was not very accessible or useful and, as a result, as part of the process of transferring the planning and building unit to Tullamore we are developing a new system based on the Lotus Notes package which will allow us to comprehensively track details relating to all the building projects from the moment an application is submitted to the Department until an agreed final account is paid. There are a number of features in the system such as when enrolment projections are approved they must be confirmed and input into the system before the project goes to construction. Accommodation details, and also provision of it, are recorded. This provides us with the number of pupil places in the new accommodation. There is a link between this system and the proposal to set up an inventory of accommodation. A range of financial and construction type details can also be included in the system - for example, it is possible to ascertain what stage a project has reached at any time.

Chairman: With regard to the closure of second level schools, has the Department made any attempt to assess the value of the Minister’s interest in grant aided schools? If not, how is it proposed to protect the Minister’s interest in these properties and to provide proper accounting?

Dr. Thornhill: This matter was discussed at the last meeting when I described what was happening on the primary school side. We are adopting the approach of agreeing a proportion of the value of the building with the managers. This is in the event that the building would no longer be required for school purposes. On the second level side that type of approach also has attractions because it leads to a fair outcome for everybody. There is a complication in that grant-aiding second level buildings began only in 1967 with the introduction of the then free education scheme. Therefore, the historical record of State involvement in school buildings is different on the second level side. At present, the system is one where there is a negotiation between the managers and the Department as to the amount of grant to be repaid in the event of the building no longer being used as a school.

It is in everybody’s interest to put this matter on a more systematic basis but the terrain on the second level side is a bit more complicated than on the primary side. A system is in place where plans to close schools come to the attention of the Department at an early stage and it then takes action in dealing with managers. Second level school closures are not commonplace.

Deputy Byrne: It may not be but I have vivid memories of an amalgamation of the Marist girls school in Crumlin and the Christian Brothers school on Parnell Road. Sadly the Christian Brothers school is now lost to education in that supposedly luxury blocks of flats have been built on the site. I do not want to be too critical of the Accounting Officer but we, as politicians, are honed by our experiences on the ground. I have to express the view that all politicians are extremely conscious and sensitive to the demands of the primary and second level lobby for funding for sports halls, for maintenance, for emergency repairs, leaving aside the teaching and staffing element. I am considering the communities who turn to the Department in despair when they discover an attempt at school amalgamation is being made such as in the case of the Marists and the Christian Brothers.

I wish to recite the history of that amalgamation. A school was decided as the co-ed school, the parents had been informed, uniforms were bought but the project never saw the light of day. Instead, the site of the Parnell Road school was developed. Does Dr. Thornhill accept there is organisational chaos in regard to education? Parents are not sufficiently educated to understand that second level voluntary religious run schools are essentially private schools as against the vocational sector which is purely 100 per cent State funded.

Is an attempt made by the Department to raise the consciousness of parents of school going children that voluntary schools are private schools over which it does not have the necessary control?

Dr. Thornhill: Part of our working assumption is that we recognise the position in regard to ownership of schools and we deal with that reality.

Deputy Byrne: When the school was being closed the outcry of the residents was to the effect they had built it, not the State or the Christian Brothers. The theory was that the people paid approximately £1 per week to purchase a brick towards the building of the school, but the community had no say in the decision to sell the school on the private market.

Dr. Thornhill: In terms of consciousness-raising, I can understand the type of situation about which the Deputy is talking. There have been a number of developments which should bring home to everybody involved just how complicated the situation is. The debate on the proposals in the Education Bill reflect those issues. In a very a high profile case in Milltown, Dublin, the owners of the school took a decision to dispose of it. This led to a controversial series of exchanges between themselves and the INTO. The complexity of the situation involving incidents in individual schools and the debate on the White Paper and Education Bill highlight the pluralistic factors to be dealt with. I am not using the word ‘pluralistic’ in the sense of diversity of ethos which is how it is used usually, but in terms of the different aspects of the character of the education system.

Deputy Byrne: We are under great pressure to get money from the Department and when we look at this report on obtaining money for maintenance and emergency repairs etc. we see that the system is chaotic. If these schools are financed by the State and are owned by the religious, who has the fundamental responsibility for the maintenance and care of the structure?

Dr. Thornhill: The responsibility is with the owners of the school, but the State has accepted responsibility in terms of enabling the owners of the school to carry out the repairs.

Deputy Byrne: You told me there is no planned programme for the maintenance of schools. For example, when we see photographs of dilapidated schools down the country one wonders why, if the managers of them have responsibility for ongoing maintenance and seeking funding they are not being maintained. Would Dr. Thornhill agree that, as the document highlights, the Department reacts to political pressure and to bad publicity and sadly does not have a planned maintenance programme for such buildings.

In the 1988 report £3.5 was mentioned. What happened to that report which contained the same points we are making today? Where is the inventory? It mentioned that an inventory of school accommodation, detailing location, size and condition of all school buildings, should be prepared as a matter of urgency. Almost ten years later we still do not appear to have this inventory. Do we know the condition of all school buildings? Do we know the potential demands on the State by schools such as that on Mourne Road, Drimnagh, for funding for essential maintenance?

Dr. Thornhill: At a previous meeting I discussed our approach on the primary site which is a new capitation grant-based system for maintenance of primary schools. in other words, schools will be given funding to manage their maintenance programmes on a decentralised basis. That programme has been set up and it is not Inconceivable that a similar programme could be run for second level schools, although we have no such plans as yet. On the matter of the inventory of existing accommodation, technology is now very much on our side. I described briefly to the Chairman the essence of the new information system being put in place in the Department. One of the elements of that system is that it will allow instant inputting of data into the system. For example, one of our architects or engineers visiting a school can take with them a laptop computer containing the data on that school. Any additional material on the abric of the school can be input into that computer and, by modem or mobile phone, it can be transferred into the main database in the Department. The prospect for the nature is much more satisfactory.

I was not involved in the Department of Education in 1988, but asked my colleagues what happened to the report published that year. A number of the accommendations in that report have been implemented.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: How many second-level schools are run by religious orders?

Dr. Thornhill: There are 420 voluntary secondary schools of which the majority are run by religious orders. there is also a variety of schools with different foundation documents which are Protestant denominational schools. A small number are described as lay-owned atholic schools.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Are we talking of approximately ill schools run by religious orders?

Dr. Thornhill: That is a reasonable estimate. In some cases where religious orders have withdrawn from schools a variety of trustee relationships have remained.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: On the relationship between the Department and these schools, the report projects that enrolment from 1998 onwards will drop dramatically. This will have consequences for many schools. There may not have been many closures in the voluntary sector up to now but that position may change in the not too distant future. There may also be amalgamations? Given the experience in regard to Carysfort College, would it be appropriate for the Department and the voluntary sector to agree a procedure for the recovery of some of the grant-aid given to these schools over the years? It appears that if we continue as at present we will, as in the case of the £6 million relating to Carysfort College, not recover any of this money.

Dr. Thornhill: When schools are grant-aided they have to sign an undertaking.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: When was that introduced?

Dr. Thornhill: In 1967. Grant-aiding second level schools began in 1967 and money is obtained as they close.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Is Dr. Thornhill saying that when such schools close we will not experience the same difficulties as we did in regard to Carysfort College?

Dr. Thornhill: The position in regard to Carysfort College had many unique characteristics. What I find very positive about the experience on the primary side - at a previous meeting of the Committee I paid tribute to the officials of the Department who devised that scheme - is that a very clear framework is in place as to what the refund arrangements, should they arise, would be. It is important to remember that very often we are talking about clapped out buildings. The sites are owned by the trustees or the religious order. In this instance, the State does not have a lien on the sites. What makes the situation more complicated is that we have only been grant-aiding second level schools for 30 years, a relatively short time in the lifetime of a building. The State’s lien on a building is assessed on a case by case basis. That is not as satisfactory as having a systematic rule of thumb. I would much prefer to have a rule of thumb.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Can we expect to have that rule of thumb soon?

Dr. Thornhill: We will explore that and other options with the association representing those who manage schools.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Will the Comptroller and Auditor General scrutinise this issue again next year to ensure progress is made? Demographic trends indicate there will be population shifts from one area to another resulting in demands for new schools while others are closed. For example, in the suburb of Bishopstown, Cork, the age profile of the population is changing and school numbers are dropping. Yet in places like Carrigaline, Ballincollig and Glanmire there is immense growth. We are finding, and will continue to find ourselves with many vacant viable schools in some areas and an unprecedented demand for new schools in others.

Perhaps the Department of Education could produce a five or ten year plan based on demographic trends. People could then find out what the pattern of growth or decline in their area is likely to be. We would not need a political debate with people in some areas looking for new schools and in other areas looking to retain teachers. This is very important for the future from a strategic management point of view. If that plan was available, it would be possible to see the difficulties likely to arise. We could make a great deal of progress that way.

Dr. Thornhill: I share the Deputy’s desire to proceed in a planned, coherent way. The framework for doing that is in place. A commission on school accommodation needs was established in March last.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Has it reported yet?

Dr. Thornhill: Yes, it has produced a report on the rationalisation of the VEC committees. It is now working on a new item in its terms of reference, the criteria for recognition of new primary schools. Its fundamental task is described in the White Paper as follows:

“The Commission will undertake a major study to provide a comprehensive, statistical and demographic analysis which will underpin policy formulation on rationalisation. The Commission will recommend criteria and procedures for school provision and planning taking account of the diversity of needs and pluarality within the system, including the effectiveness of some small schools”.

The commission has quite a job ahead of it and it is very much in line with what Deputy O’Keeffe was suggesting.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Many schools do not have basic facilities. We are reaching the stage where suddenly there is tremendous demand and pressure to have basic needs met in schools. Is there any order of priority for improving basic accommodation and facilities in schools?

Dr. Thornhill: A prioritisation system is used. The categories are, essential and very urgent projects, replacement of bad accommodation, desirable but less urgent projects and major projects which have not yet been prioritised. That is an assessment based system, not a quantified one. Indeed, one of the issues raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report is the desirability of having a more explicit quantitative system. We can see the value of that. Doing that would not be without its difficulties but, we are working on it.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Is value for money study a facile exercise given that, irrespective of the ratings which the Department draw up in terms of the needs and demands for schools, it is the Minister who makes the final decision to issue capital grants and it is based on pressure that people like ourselves and parents bring to bear on the Minister? Irrespective of what we put in place will these ad hoc arrangements continue because issues will be decided by the Minister?

Dr. Thornhill: I appreciate the stresses which the provision of school accommodation causes for Deputies and Ministers. Indeed, much of the stress falls on the shoulders of my colleagues in the Department. I would not diminish in any sense the importance of the value for money study. The Comptroller and Auditor General is aware that we took this project very seriously and interacted intensively with his team on it. We have responded to it in what I hope is a workmanlike and constructive way. The task is hard to solve because trying to quantify what in a sense are very deeply held, and often emotional, views about the quality of school buildings is very difficult. We are determined to work on it.

Deputy Broughan: I congratulate the Comptroller and Auditor General for embarking on this report. The exercise is very timely and, perhaps, should have taken place many years ago. It certainly gives us a basis for evaluating all future developments in the area.

The accommodation in a number of fairly large schools is pretty bad accommodation. The report suggests that, in some instances prefab accommodation should be used. Is it not a fact that prefab accommodation is never good. It is appalling that our children had to endure horrible accommodation through the seventies and eighties, particularly students in many parts of Dublin. I am referring to the Whitehall and Swords areas where there was very bad prefab school accommodation for 600, 700 or 800 children. That was an appalling state of affairs?

Dr. Thornhill: Prefab accommodation has a very bad reputation. The quality of prefabricated buildings has improved immensely in recent times.

Deputy Broughan: With respect, I remember being in a school where we had a sort of swab gang, a group of children who went around each day from class to class mopping up the water which came in through the roofs. The unfortunate teachers had to try to teach 30 or 40 children in that environment. That was an appalling state of affairs. Perhaps it was due to lack of political power in those areas that people were not able to get new schools built. This type of accommodation is totally unacceptable. The present Minister has done enormous work to try to alleviate this problem. Does such accommodation exist, and, if so, what should be done about it?

Dr. Thornhill: The quality of the new pre-fab accommodation is a vast improvement on what was available in the past. Second, pre-fab accommodation on a value for money basis does have a role because in some cases a school might require accommodation for a period of four or five years or, perhaps, longer, but not in the long term. The provision of good quality pre-fab accommodation has a role to play in such cases.

Deputy Broughan: I dispute that and in that regard I am concerned about the rash of applications from gaelscoileanna or other schools. Children should have basic secure and warm accommodation and should not have to learn in bad conditions. This might have been acceptable in the 1950s or 1960s but it is not unacceptable now.

Dr. Thornhill: I agree that pupils or teachers should not be asked to attend class or work in bad accommodation. The difference in emphasis between us is on the value for money aspect. The bad experiences with pre-fab accommodation gave pre-fabs a bad name. From a value for money and technical point of view, provision of pre-fab accommodation has its place within the system.

Deputy Broughan: We are laying down parameters to which this report may refer. I would prefer if we looked strategically at second level accommodation in a village or town and organise matters in such a way that children would not have to study in classrooms with rain coming through the roof. That should not be the case. A more strategic approach could eliminate that type of accommodation. We should not try to justify children being taught in bad accommodation.

Dr. Thornhill: I agree with the Deputy’s point which is the principle on which the Department operates. The problem is the mismatch between resources and demands.

Deputy Broughan: Is there a great deal of bad accommodation which would be declared unfit by a local authority if it were a house?

Dr. Thornhill: A great deal of the capital stock in the second level sector is very old. Some of it dates back to the early part of this century and some to the previous century. The Department of Finance takes the view that since numbers are projected to fall in second level schools the demand for school building will soon cease. We say that it will not cease for a number of reasons. First, there is a need to deal with a backlog of bad accommodation. Second, there is now a much broader curriculum in second level schools than in the past so specialised accommodation is needed for the variety of technology-orientated and practical subjects. There is also the question of rationalisation.

Deputy Broughan: A new parish has developed in my constituency in recent years and it would be fair to say that the parents of these children would prefer to have a modern school.

Dr. Thornhill: There is a shifting of the population.

Deputy Broughan: Why has the Comptroller and Auditor General to draw attention to the fact that there is no inventory? Why is there not a complete inventory of all second level buildings?

Dr. Thornhill: In this regard technology has come to our aid. The process of compiling an inventory of in excess of 700 schools would cost a great amount of money. For example, if we were to employ professionals to carry out such a survey, we would be talking in terms of £500 per school. That figure multiplied by 700 would involve a big cost.

Deputy Broughan: If Dr. Thornhill were to go down the road the Comptroller and Auditor General suggests, which supports his work as Secretary of the Department of Education in relation to strategic pro-active management and the Education Bill, would it not be valuable to have an inventory? As a teacher visiting schools I used to feel the facilities and atmosphere could vary widely from school to school. Some pupils had a very warm environment and others were accommodated in old buildings with poor facilities. Surely there would be some value in looking at the inventory and then deciding what needs to be done.

Dr. Thornhill: I accept the Deputy’s argument.

Deputy Broughan: One of the most interestings points made by the Comptroller and Auditor General is in paragraphs 23-25 on unexpired value. It refers to questions raised by Deputy Byrne about a religious order or private body who received State money for a school and then decides to sell the land and the school. There has been a spate of this in Dublin and expensive housing estates have been built on what was community lands. There were some outrageous decisions on the north side of Dublin. In the Beaumont area recently lands under the control of religious orders suddenly became highly planned and densely populated districts with no open space left. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General, in order to discover the unexpired value of State grant-aided assets one must negotiate rather than having a fixed formula. I find this amazing. Why can we not get our money back? If we put money into a private school why can the State not get the money back at the current value rather than permitting the property to be sold off. This happens in the health area also. In my constituency people recently sold an important hospital to Arabs. Why can we not ask for the people’s money back?

Dr. Thornhill: On the question about the inventory, I assure the Deputy we accept the case for the inventory and we are working on developing this.

The Deputy’s second point emerged in the discussion with Deputies O’Keeffe and Byrne. First, most secondary schools that are becoming redundant were built before the introduction of free secondary education. The argument that would be advanced by the owners, religious orders in most instances, is that they built the schools. They would say a refund would not arise in these circumstances and it would be very difficult to argue otherwise. Second, the site is not State owned; it is owned by the order. The rate of grant between 1967 and 1975 was 70 per cent; in 1975, it was increased to 80 per cent; in 1982, it was increased to 85 per cent and in 1985 it was increased to 90 per cent. If we are deciding on the residual value of the building as against the amount of grant aid paid by the Department, the owners will argue that the variation in rates over the period has to be taken into account.

The final point made, and made with great passion, by the owners of schools is that where a school was grant aided 30 years ago - the grant might have been in respect of a relatively minor part of the total structure - in terms of the education provided etc. and the usage of the school, the State got full value. That is not a position we accept. I would prefer if we could apply a formula and a rule of thumb to this. We made considerable progress in this regard on the primary school side and it works out fairly for everybody concerned. Some school buildings might be very valuable but in most cases they are not and arguing over the residual State value in what very often is a clapped out or redundant structure is a waste of everybodys time. I would like to apply the same formula in the second level area also.

Deputy Broughan: Do you think it a good idea, taking the Comptroller and Auditor General’s point, that each year after a grant is paid we assess the actual value of the property?

Dr. Thornhill: The Comptroller and Auditor General made that point from an accounting point of view. I am not sure what value that would be to us from a management point of view. It would be an extra task. We grant-aid schools that have a long term prospect to continue as such. Where we see the need for our immediate focus is on being in a position to conclude negotiations quickly with those relatively small number of schools that are being closed.

Deputy Broughan: If you were to do the inventory on basic accounting principles, you would surely have to try to assess values?

Dr. Thornhill: We will take account of that in the inventory.

Deputy Doherty: How seriously do you view reports of health and safety officers on accommodation known to be defective?

Dr. Thornhill: Very seriously indeed. A substantial part of the budget comes under the heading of emergency work.

Deputy Doherty: How long after you receive a report from health and safety officers that would clearly indicate a serious risk to both health and safety of pupils and staff would the necessary improvements be carried out?

Dr. Thornhill: It would depend very much on the seriousness of the case. In cases of very real concern we would act within a matter of weeks.

Deputy Doherty: Do you receive reports from environmental health officers and fire officers?

Dr. Thornhill: They usually go to the school authorities.

Deputy Doherty: Do the school authorities, in the course of their application for funding for new accommodation, submit them to you?

Dr. Thornhill: Yes.

Deputy Doherty: Would they be acted upon if there was a clear statement of risk?

Dr. Thornhill: A significant part of the budget every year is spent on such cases.

Deputy Doherty: Where reports are issued condemning the existing building, would that not be a fairly indicative statement of fact?

Dr. Thornhill: In that case one has to look at alternatives. The only capacity we have for providing replacement accommodation within a very short timeframe is prefab accommodation.

Deputy Doherty: Is the Accounting Officer saying that even if such reports presented, as they do, he would be guided by the availability of funding or the alternative accommodation that might be needed in the interim?

Dr. Thornhill: There is a discretionary amount within our budget for dealing with such cases. It would have to be accepted within the parameters of financial control assessment, that in a case where pupils and their teachers are in physical danger etc. because of the fabric and structure of a building it has to be addressed immediately.

Deputy Doherty: If a fire officer, following a visit to a hotel or place of public activity or entertainment, issued a report along the lines I suggested, the premises would be closed down instantly, and rightly so. I am aware of some cases where the conditions are seriously dangerous and have been for some time. The delay in such cases is unacceptable. Are schools with prefabs monitored? Are prefabricated buildings inspected regularly, and where necessary, updated?

Dr. Thornhill: Generally, 15-20 years is the useful lifetime of a prefab. Our inspectors visit schools regularly. This report highlights, and we are taking action on this, the need to carry out our assessments in a much more systematic and structured way than on a case by case basis which would have been the case up to now.

Deputy Doherty: Assessments on a case by case basis gives the Department an opportunity to recognise a crisis and do something about it. Would the Accounting Officer agree with that?

Would the Accounting Officer take a trip to Lanesboro in Longford next week where a considerable number of children are accommodated in a school which is falling down, to have a look at it?

Dr. Thornhill: Certainly. My colleague will give an update on the situation in Lanesboro.

Mr. Wyse: We are aware that the prefabricated accommodation at Lanesboro is in bad condition. We have brought that project to the stage where it is ready to go to tender. It was not put to tender earlier because of other extremely pressing priorities - I stress pressing priorities - included in the 1997 capital programme. However, my colleagues on the post primary side will review the overall programme and its progress in the next two weeks.

Deputy Doherty: Next Tuesday?

Mr. Wyse: We have a regular monthly review of the programme and our intention is to look at the overall financial situation and take a decision. There are three projects, one of which is Lanesboro, under consideration. Naturally, the final approval of the Minister in relation to an amendment to the capital programme would have to be obtained.

Deputy Doherty: It is a pity the Minister was not given that information when replying to a written question tabled by me last week. That information would have been very helpful to me. In fairness to the Minister, the reply given to my question was totally at variance with what I have been told. In the interests of his own health and safety, the Accounting Officer should wear a helmet on entering the school.

What provision is made in the development of new schools for sport facilities that are usually required, and justifiably so, as part of our educational process today?

Dr. Thornhill: Physical education halls are a standard feature of all new school projects.

Deputy Doherty: Was that done when the new community college at St. Nathy’s in Ballaghadereen was being built?

Dr. Thornhill: I think that was an extension rather than a major new project.

Deputy Doherty: There was an amalgamation of three schools. While there was a facility associated with one school, none is associated with the new school provided. There is a new school facility involving the old and the new extension but the sporting facility has disappeared.

Dr. Thornhill: I have no precise project details on that school.

Deputy Doherty: The Accounting Officer has been replying to my letters on this school for some time and if he is saying he does not know what he was writing about I am amazed.

Dr. Thornhill: The problem with such projects is in matching needs against resources. The first priority is the provision of school accommodation but as a matter of policy, PE and sports halls are provided with major new projects. The position in regard to St. Nathys is being considered.

Deputy Doherty: As a result of the amalgamation of the three second level schools 800 students now attend St. Nathys and while they had a facility in the past there is none now. Surely such planning is a disaster.

Dr. Thornhill: We cannot escape the problem of demands and resources. If we had a free hand there would be no need to address the situation to which the Deputy referred. The reality is that resources are not available to the State to meet every worthwhile demand and this applies across a whole range of areas.

Deputy Doherty: In regard to planning for the future, the 1988 report by the interdepartmental committee of officials considered the next 15-20 years and taking into account changes such as depopulation in the west and increased population in some urban areas, does the Accounting Officer have clear and definitive plans for the next 20 years on what demands are likely? How often are such reviews updated?

Dr. Thornhill: Demographic projections are carried out at national level and as such are a very imprecise science. For example, one of the things that will affect the future provision of schooling is that there has been a rapid change from a situation where there was net emigration from this State to one where there is net immigration. Some of that immigration consists of people returning with families and that is a factor which we will have to build in. It is not a factor which, say five years ago a demographer, working technically, would have been able to confidently build into a set of demographic projections. It would be wrong to give the impression that there is a rigorous quasi mechanical science which can be relied upon.

A major task to focus on catchment areas at sub-national level will be addressed by the commission on school accommodation needs. Therefore, there will be a provision for that framework.

Deputy Upton: On the issue of future planning and establishing priorities and the points system concept - the Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned this earlier - the Accounting Officer might indicate to what extent discussions have taken place with the teacher unions, the parent representatives, boards of management and other interested parties involved?

Dr. Thornhill: The first stage is that the Department has prepared a first cut at a discussion document. The second stage is that a comprehensive inquiry is being conducted on the position of other member States using a data based information system, Eurdice, which allows first, for a series of inquiries to a central office in Brussels and, second, inquiries to individual member States. The nature of the challenge to this system has been set out and member States are asked to feed us information on their experience. Some of the information we receive is not very encouraging because many countries seem to have a decentralised and reactive system of providing for school accommodation, which is not unlike the picture painted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. An attempt was made to devise a quantitative points system across the Border some years ago but it was not pursued. The problem with a points system is that it is very difficult to get away from subjective judgments and they, if incorporated into a numbering system, could lead to the people who use them asking what use is the information. That is the scope of the challenge the Department faces and we are working on it.

Deputy Upton: Is the Accounting Officer optimistic that a solution can be found or that a system can be implemented? Such a system would be highly desirable and would put a stop to Deputies having to lobby non-stop. What it boils down to is that those who shout loudest and longest will get the resources but it does not necessarily follow that those are the most needy or, indeed, that the provision of that element would serve the country best.

Dr. Thornhill: If we can devise a system with which people would feel confident we will. Let me take a parallel here. If one looks at the points system for entry to third level education it is precise and clear. The criteria are well laid out and everybody knows where they stand but yet year after year we find serious criticisms being made of that points system. It is more complicated when one tries to devise a points system, features of which would include: how many students would be catered for, i.e. what priority would a project catering for 800 pupils have over a project catering for 400? What is the position regarding the availability of transport services to other schools and how many points should be added to that? How many additional points should be given to a school in a disadvantaged area? How long has the school been in the queue? Those issues probably arise in the representations made to and applied to Members. If we could put numbers on them, which is the basis of a points system, we would. I do not want to sound discouraging but these issues are being seriously addressed. To be fair to members of the Committee it will not be an easy task.

Deputy Upton: To what extent has the Department considered the equivalent of the housing system whereby people are given houses on the basis of a points system and where provision for overall priority applies in certain circumstances? I am not comparing like with like but there must be certain levels of analogy.

Dr. Thornhill: The Department will certainly use the experience of the local authorities’ points system that has developed over the years as part of the development of this project.

Deputy Byrne: Breaking the Cycle points system seems to be the fairest.

Dr. Thornhill: Yes, that is another useful input. All the work to date has been done internally but Breaking the Cycle initiative is a good example because it involved the valuable input from the education research centre.

One of the things we will be looking at is the value of bringing in external expertise also.

Dr. Upton: Would you consider appointing an ombudsman to make a final decision? Such officials are employed by Dublin Corporation. Mr. Michael Kelly acts as a court of last appeal and his judgment is accepted by people and, similarly, with the chief medical officer. Have such concepts been considered?

Dr. Thornhill: The Deputy has outlined interesting ideas.

Deputy Broughan: Perhaps we need welfare and medical officers for Deputies.

Dr. Thornhill: I have the greatest sympathy for the situation Deputies find themselves in. We also find ourselves exposed to that in a different way. If we can create a system for you to deal with representations and for us to advise people, we will do so.

Dr. Upton: It is very important the scheme be accepted by the various interests because if it were progress could be made on the question of resources. How much more space will be needed to provide a comprehensive level of education facilities for higher technology subjects?

Dr. Thornhill: The higher technology subjects are more expensive. We have cost norms for the provision of space per pupil. The higher technology subjects are at the upper end of those norms whereas the straight ‘chalk and talk’ subjects are at the lower end of the norms. The band is between £400 per square metre and £592 per square metre.

Dr. Upton: I am very pleased to hear the Secretary mention state-of-the-art technology for civil servants in his Department. I gather they will have laptops and mobile phones geared up for data transmission etc. How far has the Department advanced? I am not familiar with all the civil servants in the Department of Education but I have not seen them showing off their wares just yet. I look forward to seeing them in schools demonstrating their computers and exchanging data.

Dr. Thornhill: The data system is being set up at present. It is being used and more data is being put into it. The number of personal computers in the Department roughly corresponds with the number of staff employed. Someone told me recently they had the image of the Department of Education being like an old fashioned firm which had not changed through the years. I was asked if we had any PCs in our Department. We could not function without our computer system. Laptops are more expensive than PCs and we will have to see if it is cost effective to provide laptops to staff who travel to schools but it is an option.

Dr. Upton: I would welcome that development, if it is cost effective. It is very important the Department uses state-of-the-art technology.

Dr. Thornhill: There is no use having a laptop which is only used twice a week.

Deputy Byrne: Does the Secretary agree with Deputy Upton and myself that in the absence of the clearly defined order of priority and clearing system for school projects that you respond to the loudest bark, the biggest demonstration or the most adverse publicity on television?

Dr. Thornhill: I disagree. There is a priority system in place. The vast majority of funding reflects projects which meet the priority system. If we can build a system that has the confidence of all concerned - the Minister has impressed this point upon us - it will lead to a much better outcome for everybody.

Deputy Byrne: I have had occasion to deal with a very distraught family whose child was admitted to a Catholic primary school and it transpired the family was subsequently asked to produce a baptismal certificate. The family were Baptists and did not have their child baptised. The school placement was then refused. Is it legally binding that parents could be refused a school placement on the grounds that their child was not baptised?

Dr. Thornhill: This is a precise legal question. It is difficult to answer the question without the case history. If the Deputy thought it useful we could work on the case history with him. One of the issues that arose is that the denominational owners of schools, as part of their constitutional right to promote the ethos of the school, have the right to have an admissions policy.

Deputy Byrne: Does the school have the right to demand baptismal certificates?

Dr. Thornhill: I would prefer not to get into the specific details of the case because we are in legal terrain. I am not a lawyer and not in possession of the full facts of the case.

Deputy Byrne: I am sure you are familiar with Sister Eileen Randels, secretary of the Catholic Primary Managers Association, Veritas House. I wrote to her and I await her response. In regard to the Baptist child being enrolled in the nearest Catholic school - she is now at second level - how would your Department handle the changing nature of society? As we all know society is more secularised and will continue to be so because of the rising demands by parents for secular education. We talked about planning for the physical structures and planning, as we did in the past, for religious run schools but society is fundamentally changing. How does the Department address that type of development in society?

Dr. Thornhill: It is one of the biggest challenges facing the education system. There is no doubt that the system is becoming more pluralistic. There is an increasing range of demands for different types of schooling as our society is less homogenous than it was. This is one of the issues within the remit of the Commission on School Accommodation. They are addressing this issue at present in terms of the criteria for recognition of new primary schools. There is a provision in the Education Bill which will put an obligation on education boards to have regard to the adequacy of provision as opposed to the demand for different types of education within their areas.

Chairman: The Committee welcomes the value for money report and is pleased that the Department has acted in such a positive manner to its findings. The Committee understands the difficulties facing the Department with so many projects still awaiting funding but expects that the changes being made will result in better use of its resources and improved accommodation standards. The Committee would appreciate if the Accounting Officer would respond to it before the end of the year about the progress on the proposed changes.

The witness withdrew.

THE COMMITTEE ADJOURNED AT 12.50 P.M.