andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education how many pupils were on the rolls at Bridgetown school before pupils from Mountpelier school, County Limerick, were sent there.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Limerick Schools.
56.
The average enrolment of pupils in Bridgetown National School for the quarter ended 30th September, 1969, was 61.
Before I answer supplementary questions in regard to this question, there is a correction I should like to make. On Thursday last when giving an omnibus reply to questions 107, 108 and 109 I stated that in the previous ten years it was only at the end of the June quarter 1968 that the average enrolment in Mountpelier School warranted the appointment of a third teacher. I have since ascertained that this position obtained also at the end of the March quarter in 1968.
Is it not a fact that as a result of the addition of 32 pupils from the Mountpelier school the Bridgetown school will now become a very viable three-teacher school? Is the Minister aware that the parents of children in the O'Brien's Bridge area are being discouraged and, according to my information, being intimidated from sending their children to Bridgetown? Does it not appear extraordinary, to say the least, that Deputy Taylor, who represents Clare, as I do, is involved in trying to downgrade Bridgetown school?
It is better than closing the other school as the Deputy is trying to do.
It is a fact that the the number of children going to the Bridgetown school would create a viable three-teacher school.
Would the Minister say why he was in a position to give the figure today for Bridgetown school for the quarter ended September, but would not give the figure for Mountpelier school for the same quarter, last week? Would the Minister not agree that, in fact, the figure for that last quarter, which he deliberately refused to give despite the fact that we asked for it, is such that for the two quarters ended September there were over 80 pupils and for those two quarters also, as well as for the two quarters ended March, 1968, and the two quarters ended June, 1968, the school was entitled to three teachers? Is it not then a fact that it was entitled to three teachers when it was closed?
I was not concerned with the figure for the end of the September quarter because the decision to close the school had been taken a considerable time before that date. I was concerned with the previous ten years because the question I was asked related to the average attendance over the previous ten years. I was concerned only with the dates prior to the date on which the decision to close the school was taken.
Would the Minister not agree that the question related to the last ten years i.e. the ten years back from this day, which naturally included the quarter ended September? Would he not agree that what he said in reply——
Is the Deputy referring to Question No. 56 which deals with the number of pupils on the rolls at a certain school?
It arises out of the fact that the Minister in replying to this question is giving us a figure for a period ended September, 1969, which he refused to give us, although in his possession, in reply to a similar question about a nearby school on the last occasion. I wish to inquire the reason for this discriminatory form of answering.
We cannot go back on that.
I gave the information that was relevant to the whole question of whether the school should be closed or not. The information I gave the Deputy was, as far as I can remember, for the ten years ended 30th June, 1969. As I already explained, I was concerned with the figures for the years ending 30th June which were relevant, that is, the figures available prior to the decision to close the school.
The Minister was not asked for any figures for any year ending 30th June but for the last ten years. Why then did he say to us: "The last one I have here is 30th June, 1969," when he now agrees that he had the information but did not produce it?
This does not arise on Question No. 56. Both the Minister and the Deputy are out of order. Question No. 56 asks how many pupils were on the roll at a certain school before pupils from another school came. That is all we have in this question. There are other questions.
On a point of order. May I ask why Deputy Barrett was allowed to ask a supplementary question alleging intimidation by Deputy Taylor?
If I remember correctly, when I gave these figures I was asked by Deputy O'Donnell if I could give him the figures for the quarter ended 30th September, 1969, and I told him I had not then got them, which was true.
The Minister came in without them, knowing that they would damn him if he had to produce them.
No, I did not. Would Deputies try to be relevant?
Question No. 57.
57.
andDr. FitzGerald: asked the Minister for Education why he decided to close Mountpelier school in the middle of a term when no adequate spare accommodation existed or had been provided at Bridgetown or Castleconnell schools.
58.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education whether as a result of the transfer of pupils to Bridgetown school some of the pupils at that school now have to be accommodated in a former dance hall; and when he expects adequate accommodation to be made available at Bridgetown.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Question Nos. 57 and 58 together.
The additional accommodation available in Bridgetown had previously been used for school purposes and was considered adequate for the short period for which it would be required pending the provision of an additional classroom. The amalgamation was proposed from the 1st October so as to give all the children of the area the benefit of the improved educational facilities from the earliest possible date. The additional classroom at Bridgetown will be available in a matter of weeks.
Could the Minister explain his reference to giving the pupils the benefit of improved educational facilities when improved accommodation was not in fact available on that date and they had to be accommodated in this derelict dance-hall and ex-creamery? Of what improved accommodation did they get the benefit?
This accommodation had previously been used for school purposes. The improved accommodation will be available in a matter of a few weeks, as the Deputy knew perfectly well, before putting down this question, because I gave the information to Deputy Barrett previously in answer to a supplementary question.
Is the Minister aware that the accommodation at Bridgetown to which he has referred is, in fact, a disused creamery which was condemned as a dance-hall?
The Minister is aware that his basic objective was to improve facilities for the children of the whole area and this he has done.
Is he aware of the horrible condition of the building into which children have recently been sent?
Could the Minister say if Deputy FitzGerald on his visit to O'Brien's Bridge consulted with the secretary of the parents' association?
He inspected the building at Bridgetown.
Did he consult with the secretary of the parents' association in O'Brien's Bridge?
They never thought Deputy FitzGerald would be interested enough to go down there.
I am being asked to answer questions in the House once again and I reiterate my willingness to do so if it is in order.
It does not arise.
Then I think the supplementary is out of order.
(Interruptions.)
Did the Deputy consult the secretary of the parents' association?
With the parents.
Is the Minister aware that the secretary of the parents' association has a school-going child who has always attended a school in Limerick city?
He is living within a quarter of a mile from the school.
Is the Minister aware how many members of Clare County Council requested the Minister to reconsider his decision and reopen the school and that that decision is in direct conflict with the views expressed by Deputy Barrett? He is well aware that the majority party control Clare County Council and that Deputy Barrett's views as expressed here today are completely at variance with the views of his members on that county council.
(Interruptions.)
The question of the county council does not arise. Question No. 59.
59.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education how many pupils are in each class at Castleconnell school, County Limerick.
The following is the division of pupils among the six teachers serving in Castleconnell National School:
First Teacher—44 Junior pupils; Second Teacher—41 Junior pupils; Third Teacher — 35 Pupils; Fourth Teacher—32 Pupils; Fifth Teacher— 24 Pupils; Sixth Teacher—26 Pupils.
60.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education whether the pupils of Mountpelier school were provided with books during September; and, if not why.
The free book scheme for necessitous children is operated by the school principal and will no doubt be operated in the Bridgetown and Castleconnell schools for those of the children from Mountpelier who qualify under it.
Would the Minister like to answer the question?
I have answered it.
The question asked was whether the pupils were provided with books during September. Nothing in the Minister's reply has any relevance to that question.
The Deputy must be aware that I have no responsibility for the provision of books in a primary school. These books are normally provided by the teacher and sold to the pupils. My responsibility relates to books for necessitous children and, obviously, when I saw this question I assumed that the Deputy would know what my responsibilities were when he was asking that question.
The question asked whether, in fact, they were provided with books and if not, why not.
I have already explained to the Deputy what my responsibilities are in relation to school books.
The Minister does not know.
61.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education whether the pupils of Mountpelier school have been directed to go to particular alternative schools; and, if not, what choice of schools is open to them.
The transport has been arranged on the basis that the children from the Castleconnell side will go to the school there and those from the Bridgetown side to that school. This arrangement in fact would ensure that the bulk of the children concerned would be attending schools in their own parish.
Is the Minister aware whether, in fact, the parents were instructed where to send the children? Were the parents consulted as to where they wanted to send them? On what basis was the decision taken to provide school transport to one or other place? Is the Minister not aware of the parents' constitutional right to send their children to any school?
The parents have a constitutional right to send their children to any school but not a constitutional right to demand transport to any particular school.
So the Minister uses his power to sabotage their constitutional rights?
No. The Deputy must remember that, as I said on a previous occasion, a very considerable number of these children have been travelling to the schools designated almost since the beginning.
Deputy FitzGerald is not aware of this.
I am aware of it; I can even give the figures as to how many.
Of course the Deputy can, but he did not consult with the parents of these children.
62.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education under what Act or order he closed Mountpelier school.
The appropriate rule in the Rules for National Schools reads as follows:
Rule 39 (2): In rural districts a grant is not sanctioned, except in special circumstances for the erection of a new school if the proposed site is within three statute miles by road of a national school.
Apart from this the Rules provide that a grant of aid to a school can be given only where I am satisfied that it is required as a national school.
Would the Minister not agree that the presence of 80 pupils in a school satisfies that requirement and, where there are so many pupils, makes it quite clear that the school is required?
I am satisfied that the decision I took in relation to the facilities to be made available to the children of the whole area was the best possible decision.
May I ask the Minister on what basis did he first arrive at this decision? From whom did he first receive representation that he should, in fact, arrive at that decision?
That does not arise on this question which deals with the Act or order. It does not arise.
I am afraid it is very pertinent.
It is not pertinent. It has no relevance whatsoever. The question asks about the Act or order.
When a school comes up for replacement——
That school.
——the Department look at the whole area to see in what way the children of that area can be best facilitated from the point of view of education. When this is examined and if a change is felt necessary the inspectors are sent down to explain to the parents the value of whatever change is considered best and, in so far as is possible, to get their co-operation.
Can the Minister say how this school came up for replacement—under what circumstances — as distinct from coming up for extension or modernisation?
The school was in very bad condition and on a very bad site.
What is wrong with its condition? Has the Minister been there?
As a matter of public interest, may I inquire from the Minister who precisely asked him to take this initiative? Was it the parents, the school manager, his inspectors, or who started the process?
All I can say is that the views of all these are taken into consideration and the Minister makes the decision.
That is a non-answer.
The Minister makes the decision and I am taking the responsibility for the decision.
In relation to that school, who took the initiative?
Question No. 63.
63.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education whether there is any basis for the statement made to parents in the parish of Newport that if they did not send their children to Castleconnell school from 1st October the children would not be accepted afterwards.
I have no information in relation to any such statement having been made.