On the Adjournment, Deputy McAuliffe has given notice of his intention to raise the matter of the school strike at Derrygallon national school, County Cork.
Adjournment Debate. - Derrygallon (Cork) School Strike.
First of all, I should like to stress to the Minister and to the House how serious the situation is. In this locality there are roughly 70 children who failed to attend school last week. This strike took place last Monday morning as a result of the Minister's decision not to erect at Derrygallon a new school which the people expected would have been erected three or four years ago. The condition of the existing school is bad, particularly from the point of view of the sanitary arrangements. For a long time the people have been agitating for an improvement in the sanitary accommodation.
A few years ago the school manager decided to purchase a new site and to build a new school. In addition, he spent a considerable amount of money on the provision of a water supply. The total expenditure to date has been around £1,200. The people believed that as soon as the site was bought, and as soon as the Department approved the erection of the new school work would start immediately. Recently the people were informed that the Minister had decided not to erect a new school but to transfer the children to a school at Derrinagree three or four miles away. I am informed that the parents did not know the exact position until they received a letter from another Deputy which was dated 5th June and which had been sent to him by the Minister. He duly gave it to the parents' association within the past week or ten days. The letter stated that the Minister had made up his mind not to erect a new school at Derrygallon but to transfer the children to the proposed new school at Derrinagree. The letter was written to Deputy Crowley who sent it to the secretary of the association. According to the letter, there is not a sufficient area of land available at Derrygallon to meet the requirements of the new school in regard to playgrounds, etc.
I am familiar with the locality because I live within three or four miles of the school and I should like to tell the Minister that he will be actually taking children from three different parishes and from two different dioceses. The schoolgoing children come from Kanturk, Boherbue and from Dromtariffe. This is an amalgamation of three parishes and two dioceses. I attended a parents' meeting recently and the parents' principal objection is that they are not conversant with what the Minister is going to do. It is all right to tell the parents: "We are going to provide transport", but in this as in any other locality there is a considerable number of workingclass people and they are under the impression that when transport is provided for primary education, it will probably be their responsibility to meet part of the transport costs. They received no account of any decision on this very important matter and as a result, wisely or unwisely, decided to use the strong hand and take their children from the school. The position is very serious. I do not know how long they will be away from school but it is up to the Minister to give a guarantee to the parents' association in regard to the future.
At present, temporary repairs are being carried out to the school but this appears strange to the parents because it is not today or yesterday they requested that repairs be carried out. They asked for sanitary accommodation to be provided but this request was swept aside when the manager decided to buy a plot of ground and to provide a water supply which is available to the plot. I am asking the Minister to consider seriously what I am saying. It is most unreasonable that any Minister or Department should say: "We are going to do a certain job, whether you people like it or not". The people should be asked for their opinion. Surely nobody is more conversant with the situation than the parents and therefore no matter what the policy may be in regard to one-teacher or two-teacher schools, there is a sufficient number of pupils here to justify the erection of a new school.
The Minister should take into account the demands being made by the parents of those 70 children. They claim they are entitled to have a school erected in the parish of Derrygallon where it always existed. They also claim that they were never consulted other than by having public representatives present at their meetings from time to time to give them advice. I am sure that almost every public representative in Mid-Cork has attended their meetings.
It may seem strange that I am interested in this but 50 per cent of the children going to the school are from East Cork because it caters for children from East Cork just as it caters for children from Mid-Cork. I decided with my colleague, Deputy Mrs. Desmond, to raise this matter because the association asked me to do so. I ask the Minister to examine carefully the points I have made. I appeal to him, in particular, not to do anything that will drive a wedge between the parents and the school manager and the Department. I believe the greatest unanimity should exist between the three different interests.
More important still is the fact that the sooner something is done and the sooner the Minister decides on making some approach, either to the school manager or to others, and gives some guarantee to the existing parents' association, the better it will be for all concerned. Most important of all is to get the children back to school, having given that guarantee. When I attended the last meeting, the parents were very firmly entrenched in their outlook on this matter. I do not know if there has been any change within the last week, but I appeal to the Minister now to do something. I could go on but I wish to give my colleague, Deputy Mrs. Desmond, an opportunity of intervening in this matter.
I am vitally concerned and vitally interested in this matter. Derrygallon national school is situated in my constituency of Mid-Cork. That is No. 1. Secondly, I am vitally concerned and vitally interested because the educational progress of some 70 children is in jeopardy.
On a point of order, is Deputy Meaney not entitled to speak after Deputy——
Why should Deputy Crowley question the right of the Chair to call a speaker? Deputy Crowley is only a gossoon.
The Deputy is entitled to raise a point of order. The Deputy making the case is entitled to 20 minutes. He has allowed Deputy Mrs. Desmond some of that time. If there is any portion of time left when Deputy Mrs. Desmond ceases to speak, Deputy Meaney may have an opportunity. Those who raise the matter are entitled to 20 minutes and the Minister is entitled to ten minutes in which to reply.
The education of some 70 children is in jeopardy because of the decision of the parents to keep the children at home from school. At the outset, I should like to say that, when speaking here on a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Education, I agreed in principle with my colleagues in the Labour Party, to the Minister's policy of centralisation of national schools. We believe that, in certain circumstances, centralisation will result in the educational advancement of the children. In some cases it is virtually impossible to secure teachers who will remain in particular schools for any length of time. Once a better opportunity offers, the teacher automatically leaves. Teachers are frequently changing and, because of that, the progress of the children is retarded.
However, even though we believe in amalgamation in certain circumstances the question arises as to whether centralisation is practicable in the case of Derrygallon at this stage. I am not at all sure that it is practicable and I support my colleague, Deputy McAuliffe, in his argument. Lest the Minister should say in reply that I am doing a somersault since I spoke on the last occasion on education, I should like to quote what I said on 15th February last at column 1549 of volume 220 of the Official Report:
Deputy Jones stated that a special inquiry should be held into each case before a school is closed. I do not know whether that would be possible. I think the Minister, up to a point is being fairly consistent. He is receiving deputations from the various areas where schools are being closed and he is apparently considering every case but I think, by and large, the only argument which will carry any weight with the Minister is whether or not a certain number of pupils will be available on the rolls within the next five years and whether there will be enough pupils for the appointment of a third teacher.
Now, there may be other considerations to be taken into account quite apart from the number of pupils on the rolls. Those of us conversant with education in the rural areas, while in agreement in principle with the Minister's policy, feel that certain local considerations may, in some circumstances, make it necessary to retain two-teacher schools. The organisations concerned should be consulted and the question of transport should be taken into consideration.
I join with Deputy McAuliffe in appealing to the Minister to review the position now with regard to the closing of this school. It would appear now that no great urgency arises with regard to a decision in this particular instance. As far as I know, sanction for a site has not yet been obtained. The matter is progressing and it would appear that the central school will not now be built for some considerable time. There is, of course, a priority list and, from what we can gather, in regard to representations about individual schools, it would appear now that progress in the building of schools will be very slow. There would appear to be no great urgency in this matter. Time is on the Minister's side in this instance and he has an opportunity of entering into further negotiations with those concerned. This is very desirable because of the serious situation that exists. Nobody wants a strike. Nobody would suggest to parents that they should keep their children away from school. But that has happened in Derrygallon and I am sure neither the Minister nor any Deputy would do anything to aggravate the present situation.
The principal objection to the closing of rural schools is the transporting of very young children considerable distances. Parents, as we who have attended these various meetings know, object to small children being away from home for such long periods, leaving early in the morning and having to wait, perhaps, for an older sister or brother to finish school in the evening. If they become ill, they cannot, as they do now, return home.
I am speaking now as one who is in general agreement with the Minister's policy and I would suggest, in order that this policy may operate smoothly, that it might be advantageous to reconsider the position from the point of view of small children in particular. It might be desirable to set up small nursery schools in particular localities in which schools are closed. If something of that nature were done, there might be a much smoother operation of the policy the Minister is endeavouring to implement.
Another point is—I do not really like making this because it may possibly be unfounded—that people in areas where these agitations are on foot believe that economic considerations rather than social ones are——
This is a special proposal. The Deputy may not deal with the matter in general.
I shall not proceed on those lines. The Minister, as far as I know, has not yielded on any case yet and perhaps he is right in that, but——
I must call on the Minister. He has only his ten minutes.
May I waive two or three minutes of it for Deputy Meaney?
I do not intend to delay the House very long. I am in a very peculiar position as regards this school at Derrygallon, which it is proposed to close and to replace with a new school at Derrinagree, and which is within a couple of miles of my house.
Is this in order?
I have waived two or three minutes.
(Interruptions.)
This is an effort to stab me in the back. There was a protest meeting held in regard to this school and there were three Deputies present. Deputy Creed, Deputy Burton and myself. There was no trace of Deputy McAuliffe at all.
On a point of order, I was invited but I could not attend and sent an apology.
That is not a point of order.
I said the Deputy was not there.
There was an apology.
On a point of order, is this not a precedent? Did you ever see in your period as Ceann Comhairle any Minister waiving his right to reply to a Deputy?
If a Deputy is entitled to waive his right, a Minister is entitled to do so.
Do you rule that?
The time available is being absorbed in these interruptions.
As regards Derrygallon, nobody put up the case stronger than myself and Deputy Crowley one night.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy McAuliffe said he was going to play this up tonight for tomorrow's papers, so that they could all read about it.
That is an untruth.
(Interruptions.)
I protest; we did not interrupt the speakers from the Labour Party. In the time available, would the Deputies please listen to what has to be said on the other side of the House? First of all, I want to set out the preliminaries of this case which are that the Department propose not to build a new school at Derrygallon but rather to build a five-teacher school at Derrinagree, about four miles away from Derrygallon, and to transport the children from Derrygallon to that school. It is also relevant to note that the Derrinagree school which is a three-teacher school, is in a very bad condition and needs to be replaced and replaced urgently; more urgently than Derrygallon, Derrinagree needs to be replaced. I am, therefore, faced with the position that in replacing Derrinagree, if I build a three-teacher school there, Derrygallon can have only a two-teacher school for another 80 or 100 years, and all the children of that area are condemned for that length of time to education in a two-teacher school. I hope Deputy McAuliffe bears that in mind in his approach to this matter.
While agreeing that Deputy Mrs. Desmond was a little out of order, she made a point I wish to answer. She suggested that it was thought that this policy was being pursued for economic reasons. I do not want to go into that but just to put this point to the Deputy: does she think the Irish National Teachers Organisation agreed to this policy, after full discussion, for economic reasons?
I agreed with it myself.
I know that. I am just pointing out it is quite unfair for people who should know better—I am not referring to Deputy Mrs. Desmond —to suggest that economic reasons are the main reason for this policy. The INTO would hardly have agreed to it for economic reasons. Clearly it was for educational reasons in the interests of our children.
In regard to this case, I was amazed listening to Deputy McAuliffe in his description of the matter and in his putting forward of the case, including the fact that a number of these people were workingclass people who could not afford to contribute to the cost of transport. Deputy McAuliffe must have paid no attention not only to his own Party's policy but to the discussion on this question of two-teacher schools which took place in this House. He mentioned that the first indication the people in Derrygallon had that the school was not going ahead was on 5th June.
They did not know before that.
They did, indeed. Deputy Meaney put down a question to me about it on 10th March, and I indicated in my reply that the whole question was under consideration.
I said they had no definite information until 5th June when they received Deputy Crowley's letter.
I want to make it clear that this matter was raised by Deputy Meaney in March and that it was evident from my reply that amalgamation was being contemplated. While I understand Deputy Mrs. Desmond's position in this regard, I feel it is only fair that I should point out that she and other members of her Party, in speaking on this matter in the Dáil in the debate to which she referred, made it quite clear that they agreed with that policy. The reservation was: would the transport be free? I assured them in the strongest terms I could that it would be free. With that undertaking, they expressed themselves as being in complete agreement with this policy.
She said, and rightly, there would be circumstances one might have to take into consideration in relation to closing a two-teacher school. I have continually made this point myself. I have said there have been a number of cases where we have decided to go ahead and build two-teacher schools because of the particular circumstances. However, Deputy Mrs. Desmond did not attempt to tell us here tonight of any one special circumstance that should apply to prevent us going ahead with what we are proposing to do in regard to this school.
As regards the point that the parents are very strongly against this —I will admit Deputy McAuliffe can make a case on this in view of the withdrawal of the children—I have information, reliable information, I believe, to show that very many of the parents there want the amalgamation but are afraid of being called blacklegs, that there has been a very active campaign carried on to stir up opposition to this. I might comment in passing on the fact that the honorary secretary of the parents' committee is unmarried and has no interest as a parent in this matter. Indeed the note of protest which was sent to me over her signature and which included a list of signatures referred to them as parents and householders.
We ought to examine carefully what we are doing here. There is a responsibility on public representatives, particularly those who are members of a Party who have advocated a certain policy, either to stand up in public and say they do not agree with their Party's policy or to say to their constituents that what is being done is in the best interests of their children. Unless they can put forward good reasons why this should not be done, these public representatives should have the backbone and the sense of responsibility to stand up in public and say this. In public life, one has to do unpopular things from time to time, but even from a political point of view, it does not always do one a lot of harm to be honest and say what one believes to be true. Public representatives who subscribe to their Party's policy on this question ought to have the courage to say that this is in the best interests of the children.
We are only asking the Minister to meet the parents.
We ought not to have this kind of thing of talking about people having to pay for transport when there is no question of paying for it. I have made it clear on many occasions in regard to a number of these cases that if parents want consultation with me, I am prepared to have it or to send a representative of my Department to discuss the problem with them. I have never been asked to do that in this case, nor have I refused to do it. I am still prepared to do it, but I say it is grossly irresponsible of anybody who has any influence in this matter to have these children kept away from school, and I would ask the Deputies concerned of all Parties to use their influence in getting the children back to school. We are not helping the children by keeping them out of school. I can only say we are doing this on foot of the policy I have explained to the House at great length. No reasons have been advanced to me to show why it should not apply in this case. However, I am quite willing to send a representative of my Department to discuss the matter with the parents.
I am glad of that. That is fair enough.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23rd June, 1966.