Vol. 254 No. 11
asked the Minister for Education if he is aware that the superior of the De la Salle school in Ardee, County Louth, has said that the Order will withdraw from the town rather than accept his recent proposals on community schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
36.
asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to a report (details supplied) that the Presbyterian General Assembly passed a resolution viewing with grave concern his proposals for the management and ownership of community schools and asking him to delay implementation of them pending full discussion by all the interests involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 35 and 36 together.
I am, of course, aware of the views to which the Deputy refers. As I have previously indicated, it was clear to me from the discussions which preceded the formulation of my proposals that there was no possibility of reconciling all the different points of view and this was why having given the matter long and careful consideration, I formulated my proposals and published them. I have on several occasions given to this House the view of the Protestant community as conveyed to me that they wish to have their children educated in schools conducted by those of their own faith.
In relation to the local meetings being held this week, I do not propose to make any statement in relation to them until I have had an opportunity of considering the report which will be made to me by the officers who are conducting the meetings.
Is the Minister aware that the proposals formulated seem to please nobody? Why has the Minister completely ignored the vocational education committees, which, to my mind, have done valuable work since 1927? They are democratically elected and when they were selecting outsiders they brought on people of different political opinions, members of trade unions and religious Orders and so on. Why have they been completely ignored? Is it the Minister's intention to consult all interested parties even now?
I did not ignore them. On many occasions I met the IVEA in relation to this matter.
Will the Minister not agree that the vocational education committees have done wonderful work as regards vocational education since 1927? They are being completely ignored.
No.
They have been ignored and the Minister cannot deny it. The policy of the Fianna Fáil Government at present is to take all powers from local elected representatives. That happened in Health; it is happening now in Education and they intend to do it in Agriculture if at all possible.
Could the Minister give an assurance to the House that bad as his proposals for "community schools" are, he will withstand those pressures which would make them even worse?
The only reply I can give the Deputy is that those who were under any illusion as to the difficulties involved in trying to provide better education for students in smaller towns in rural Ireland should have no illusions now.
The Minister made a complete mess of it and everybody knows it.
Arising out of the last sentence of the Minister's reply may I ask him on what basis he claims to speak, as he did claim to speak for the Protestant community in this matter in the light of two statements published in the past week? One of them, a resolution by the Presbyterian General Assembly, expressed its conviction that a system of integrated education would best serve the social, economic and educational needs of the community, which runs directly contrary to what the Minister says is the view of the Protestants, and secondly, there is the statement of Dr. Kenneth Milne, the secretary of the Church of Ireland board of education, who said that the vocational schools are involved and that they, the Protestant board of education, considered that they had a stake in these: "Our interest in the matter centres on the multi-denominational and non-denominational vocational schools."
If I might very briefly recapitulate—on many occasions I met representatives of the Protestant community——
Including Presbyterians?
——and on these occasions we discussed various matters in relation to education, the provision of new schools, the extension of the free transport limits and so on and on every occasion it was made clear to me —and I want to re-emphasise this—that the Protestant community wanted schools conducted by people of their own faith and that they did not accept the vocational schools as being suitable schools for their community. If the Deputy would not mind waiting I shall now quote from a circular which was sent out in August, 1969, by the County Monaghan Protestant Association which said: "Now, this Association is concerned only with the religious aspects of this situation and not with the relative educational merits of the various schools. While recognising the very valuable work being done by the vocational schools, the conscientious efforts being made by their principals to avoid any form of discrimination and their excellent co-operation with our own schools, yet we declare most emphatically our belief that from a religious point of view a vocational school which must of necessity be overwhelmingly Roman Catholic in atmosphere is not a suitable school for our children." This was in relation to a request by the Protestant community for an extension of the catchment areas for Protestants: in other words, they wanted the radius of the catchment areas to be increased to about 15 miles. The statement continued: "This simple solution—" that is the solution in relation to the extension of the catchment areas—"would in these troubled times greatly testify to the goodwill of the Government towards the particular needs of a small minority. The fact that our Churches are doing their utmost to provide funds for the transport of Protestant children to Protestant schools should be a very clear indication of how we feel about this deplorable and potentially dangerous situation and should not lightly be ignored." As a result of the representations made to me on that basis I granted the extension of the mileage radius for Protestants. It was on that particular basis I made my decision.
Would the Minister say whether he is serious in putting to the House that County Monaghan Protestants' Association is the spokesman for the Protestants of the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterians in the community? Is he not perfectly aware that whatever local interests may say Catholic or Protestant in different parts of the country there are bodies which speak for the people as a whole and can he suggest that at any stage the Presbyterian Church of Ireland has ever advocated separate education?
First, I want to say that I made my decision on the basis of the representations made to me——
By whom?
By representatives of the Protestant community.
The board of education?
The representatives of the Protestant community.
Some representatives.
The Minister should be allowed to answer.
The Minister is deceiving the House.
Let him continue to do so.
The Minister must be allowed to answer.
I met the representatives, led by a member of the Bench of Bishops, and including a number of representatives, as far as I know, of other faiths. I came to my own conclusion in relation to their attitude to vocational schools without, at that time—and I want to state this emphatically—knowing that this document was in existence. I am not suggesting that the County Monaghan people can claim to speak for all members of the Church of Ireland or for any other church. But what I am saying is that the conclusions I came to in my discussions with the Protestant community are exactly similar to what I have now read from this document.
Would the Minister not accept that the peculiar information given to us this afternoon in relation to the support which he alleges he has received from certain Protestant sources for his proposals in no way bears the slightest authority relative to the board of education opinion of the Church of Ireland at national level or if one wants to take County Monaghan, the board of the Church of Ireland Senate statement issued in Clones, which was even more vehemently opposed to the Minister's proposals, which do not necessarily reflect the opinion of local County Monaghan Protestant associations?
I find that particular statement rather peculiar when related to the statement I have just read.
I can assure the Minister if he wants to indulge in sectarian semantics I would be prepared to accept the views of the Church of Ireland Senate in Clones as being more authoritative than a circular issued in August, 1969, long before the community schools issue came up, by a County Monaghan Protestant Association. Let us not have sectarianism whether it is Catholic——
Will the Deputy put a question?
In view of the sorry impasse which has now developed would the Minister please accept an appeal from this House following further reconsideration of his proposal arising out of the local meetings and the national expression of opinion we have had in the past month—I appreciate he is under pressure and has many difficulties, most of which are his own creation—that before he brings forward any further proposals there be extensive consultations, that a White Paper be issued and if necessary a new education Act introduced?
For the benefit of the Deputy's informed opinion.
Hear, hear.
I want to refute any charge by Deputy Desmond or anybody else in relation to sectarianism.
Hear, hear.
It will not wash. I shall lean over backwards as long as I am Minister for Education to help the Protestant community. Since I became Minister two years ago I have done a considerable amount to help them out in their educational problems. I want to assure them that anything I can do, within the limits of possibility, to help the Protestant community I will do it.
Might I preface my remarks by saying that unlike Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy L'Estrange I am not an intellectual.
I do not claim to be one.
The Fianna Fáil policy on education has arrived.
I believe in the right——
Will Deputy Moore be allowed to put a question?
I was interrupted rudely by Deputy Desmond. I believe Protestant parents have the right to have their children educated in Protestant schools. Was I wrong, therefore, when I, along with some Fine Gael Deputies, recently asked the Minister for grants for a new Presbyterian college in this city? The Minister gave these grants. Is it sectarianism that we should listen to the plea of the Presbyterians to have their own school? Is there anything wrong with that?
As long as they have multi-denominational education.
The Deputy is opposing that, is he not?
I never thought I would live to see the day when we would have this kind of debate in Dáil Éireann.
We are not all as informed as Deputy Desmond.
(Cavan): Would the Minister agree it seems likely he will probably have to rethink his plan? If it should become necessary to alter the plan, as I believe it will, will he assure the House that he will give full consideration to the views of the Protestant community as expressed since this affair recently became public in relation to vocational schools?
If it should become necessary—and I have not accepted that it will be necessary—I have already informed the House that resulting from the various discussions with the parents throughout the country I will have a look at the position. This does not necessarily mean I will change my mind. If I find in any aspect of the proposals I have made that I should reconsider them I am not inflexible in that sense and I shall reconsider them. I should like to stress I have not stated here that I am not changing my plans.
(Cavan): The Minister is smiling all the same.
With regard to references to sectarianism and consultations with parents at local level, is the Minister aware that at the meeting held in Athy on Tuesday night this week to discuss community schools none of the Protestant parents of the 17 Protestant children attending Athy post-primary schools showed they were in any way apprehensive about the religious education of their children? There are 17 Protestant children out of a total of 702.
You have got down to counting them?
We were given this information. We were interested enough to listen to it and, perhaps, the Deputy might be interested enough to listen to it now. Would the Minister not further agree that it must be concluded that the parents are perfectly happy with the present arrangements and that the Protestant parents of the children directly concerned in Athy have no fears about the suggested proposals for the future which were being discussed in Athy this week?
It will be interesting if they confirm it now the Deputy has stated it.
As I stated on many occasions my basic concern is to see to it—and I propose to see to it— that the children in small towns of rural Ireland will get as equal an opportunity as those in the larger towns and cities. This is something which in justice must be done and not only in justice but with regard to the fact that we are likely to enter the Common Market. I want to see to it that the young people in rural Ireland will be able to take their positions in the Common Market in a manner which is their right.
(Cavan): May I ask one final supplementary?
The Chair has already allowed several supplementaries.
(Cavan): This is a very important matter.
It is a very important matter.
Even if Deputies consider it important it is not strictly a subject for Question Time.
We will not be allowed to raise it on the Adjournment.
We shall be turned down on the Adjournment.
(Cavan): Will the Minister give the House an assurance that in any scheme which he has for changing the educational system, he will see to it that the traditional vocational school and the traditional system of vocational and technical education are not lost or merged in the traditional secondary or academic type of education?
In fact, the traditional vocational education system might in the areas concerned be in much more danger of being lost outside the type of proposals I have put forward.
(Cavan): Not by what is being done in Cavan.
Nonsense.
One particular answer the Minister gave seemed rather disturbing to me. The Minister referred to receiving an apparently representative delegation of the Protestant community and he said that the delegation, as I understood it, included a representative of the Bench of Bishops, presumably the Church of Ireland, and others as he said "as far as I know of other faiths".
Yes, I do not want to be positive.
Perhaps the Minister would allow me to formulate my question? We were glad to hear the Minister's assurance about sectarianism just now, but I wonder whether the Minister would agree that sensitivity on this score should suggest to a responsible Minister that he should be able to identify the composition of a delegation of this kind or is he telling us that he cannot tell one Protestant from another?
The Deputy was never interested in a person's faith.
Will the Minister agree that the greatest and most obvious weakness in his proposals is that he produced a blue print to be used in all parts of Ireland and in all sets of circumstances and that this is quite hopeless and quite unworkable?
Question No. 37.
Would it not be in the true Republican tradition of Wolfe Tone that there should be neither sectarian Catholic nor sectarian Protestant schools but non-sectarian secular schools?
I think it is true to say that if we were to go by newspaper reports there is room for non-denominational schools but quite obviously if we are to go by the reports from the various meetings there is no demand for non-denominational schools as such.
Question No. 37.
The Minister did tell the House that there was an equal number of children currently going into non-denominational vocational schools as are going into secondary schools.
No, I said the increase over the normal intake——
Yes. Was equal.
This year for the first time.
Will the Minister agree——
Question No. 37.
I have a final supplementary question to put to the Minister with a view to clarifying the position.
The Chair cannot allow a discussion at Question Time.
I merely wanted to ask the Minister whether he accepts that we recognise the genuineness of his intentions in setting out on this course——
Hear, hear.
——but that what we deplore is that he took it upon himself——
This is inviting discussion. It is not a question. Question No. 37. The Chair is ruling. Question No. 37.
I am half way through my supplementary question and I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.
The Deputy is inviting a discussion.
The Minister made a genuine mistake in assuming that he knew what the Protestant point of view was and in consulting one hierarchy and not consulting another and will he assure us that he will not make the same mistake again?
The Deputy will have to resume his seat.
On a point of order, I put a specific question to the Minister and I was unable to hear the Minister's reply, if he made a reply, as a result of the yelling from those benches.
That is not a point of order. Question No. 37.
Is the Minister aware that the bishop of——
Will the Deputy allow questions to proceed?
Will the Deputy resume his seat?
Go back to Ardfert.
I think, Sir, in all fairness I have answered more supplementary questions on this question than were ever answered in this House.
All right. A fair point.
37.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education with what, if any, groups of parents he has discussed his proposals with respect to the administration of community schools; and if he will state the outcome of such discussions.
I have not discussed my proposals with any group of parents. There is no group which is in a position to speak for all parents. The local meetings which are being held are designed primarily to give local parents an opportunity of having my proposals explained to them and offering their comments and views on them.
Would the Minister not accept that it is equally true to say that there is no group that can speak for all schools? There are about six different management bodies and he does not on that account——
The question deals with groups of parents.
The only body which specifically represents parents in the school context, the parent-school movement, is representative of a growing number of schools and parents in this country. Would he be prepared to discuss the matter with them as they are the only representative body of that kind?
No, I am not accepting that they are representative. There are a number of groups who have come together and who have called themselves the Parent Teacher Association but so far as I know they have no right to speak for anybody. I would like to see a situation where we would have parent groups who would have authority from the parents in the various areas to speak for them and then I would be glad to meet them. As I pointed out I have in the best possible manner brought the discussion in relation to this matter to the parents by having public meetings in various areas and inviting the parents to be present.
Is the Minister aware that Deputy FitzGerald's information is far from reliable in the sense that the Deputy contends apparently that a small group of parents in the Dublin area represent the views of parents throughout the country?
I did not suggest anything of the kind. If the Deputy had listened to my words which were chosen with care he would know that I did not suggest that. I said they are the only group that exist at present representative of any group of parents.
The proposals referred to in this question have run into an overwhelming amount of opposition from all sectors for both good and bad reasons in many cases. Would the Minister not agree that these proposals were put forward without adequate consultation of the kind referred to in the question and would he not agree——
The Deputy will appreciate that he is enlarging on the scope of the question.
I suppose I am. I apologise if I am but as we have no other opportunity to raise these matters except at Question Time——
The Deputy will appreciate also the difficulties of the Chair which cannot allow discussions at Question Time.
Would the Minister not agree that in the initial statement, the working document issued by his Department on this subject, he said that the representation of any particular interest would vary depending on the circumstances of each case? Would the Minister not agree that he has totally reversed that stand and that in reply to a question by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald on the 3rd June he said that he could not agree that different patterns should be worked out in relation to different areas? Would the Minister agree that if he reverted to the stance which he adopted in the document published last November it would solve a great many of the problems?
That is wide of the question that was asked.
I do not think so. I had no illusions about the problems and difficulties I would face in trying to put what I believe to be a very worthwhile proposal into operation. Unlike most other people I had to face up to the realities of the situation. Most other people could indulge in all sorts of fantasies in relation to what might happen in a perfect world. This is not a perfect world. I have had to face up to all the difficulties and I had no illusions as to the problems I would face.
Since the Minister admits that he has not discussed the proposals with any parent group could he tell us who influenced the change in the proposals?
I had discussions with the various parties in relation to the various schools and——
But no parents.
——it was obvious to me that it would be impossible to come to any decision which would satisfy everybody or come near satisfying everybody so I decided to put forward my own proposals. I am now giving an opportunity to the parents to discuss them at a series of meetings and when this series of meetings is over I shall carefully consider the views expressed. I do not propose to anticipate what my decision will be.
38.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education with what, if any, groups of teachers he has discussed his proposals with respect to the administration of community schools; and if he will state the outcome of such discussions.
No such discussions took place. The VTA held a special congress and their views have been conveyed to me. I have seen newspaper reports of the views of the ASTI. Both organisations attended meetings with officers of my Department to seek clarification of the proposals.
Can the Minister say why no discussions took place? He has just told us that he consulted with various groups before producing these proposals. He has not told us who they are beyond the fact that they included no parents, the only group really vitally concerned. Is he now telling us he did not discuss them with the teachers? Who did he discuss them with?
That will come in reply to the next question. The VTA and ASTI had meetings with officers of my Department to seek clarification of the proposals.
Did the Minister seek their views on these proposals?
They had some discussion with my officials.
Did they communicate views?
No, they did not.
Did the Minister ask for such views?
Of course the VTA gave views.
I am asking the Minister did he get the views of the teachers before putting forward the proposals.
This is widening the discussion.
I am asking the Minister if he got the views of the teachers.
The Deputy is now telling the Chair.
I want to know if there were discussions on these proposals.
What I am telling the Deputy is that the VTA and the ASTI asked for clarification of the proposals and they met officers of my Department.
Subsequent to the publication of the proposals when there was an outraged reaction——
The Chair will not allow the Deputy to go back on a discussion of the proposals.
I am asking the Minister——
If the Deputy will allow the Chair, the question asks what groups of teachers the Minister had discussions with and if he will state the outcome of such discussions. That is the specific question and that has been answered.
I answered that.
Is the Minister prepared to accept that it was after the proposals were published and subsequent to their being formally put by him, these consultations took place?
This is like a court house and not like the Dáil.
Question No. 39.
39.
asked the Minister for Education to what religious groups his proposals of October last for community schools were sent; on what dates they were sent in each case; whether he or officials of his Department subsequently had discussions with any of the groups on the document; if so, with what groups and on what dates; whether he has received written expression of views from any of the groups on the document; and, if so, from what groups and on what dates.
Copies of the document were sent to a member of the Catholic Hierarchy on 12th October, 1970. I understand that the Hierarchy subsequently sent a copy to the chairman of the Council of Managers of Catholic Secondary Schools. I had meetings with representatives of the Hierarchy and the council of managers on 10th December, 1970, with representatives of the Hierarchy on 2nd January, 1971, and 8th May, 1971, with the major religious superiors on 14th December, 1970. Officers of my Department had discussions with representatives of the Hierarchy on 19th March, 1971. The matter was referred to at a meeting which I had with representatives of the House of Bishops of the Church of Ireland on 7th April, 1971.
I also had discussions with the IVEA on 14th January and 19th February, 1971, and my officers had a meeting with that body on 3rd May, 1971. Clarification meetings were held with the Vocational Teachers Association on 23rd April, 1971, and with the Association of Secondary Teachers on 28th April, 1971.
We should get this straight on the record once and for all. Can the Minister say why it was that he had this series of discussions with the Hierarchy and the council of managers and religious superiors of the Roman Catholic Church—a total of five meetings in the period up to 8th May—but did not at any stage have any meeting with nor, I understand, send any copy of the proposal to, the Church of Ireland except for his reference to it in discussions with the Church of Ireland on 7th April when they did not have the document in front of them? Am I right in that?
As I have already explained to the Deputy on many occasions, I was dealing with Catholic secondary schools——
Vocational schools?
——and this was the reason——
The Deputy has asked a question and he should allow the Minister to answer.
——with Catholic secondary schools only in all the areas concerned. I am talking about denominational schools. So as to ensure that the Deputy would not try to create an imbalance in his supplementaries, in my reply I added something he did not ask me, that was, that I met the IVEA —either my officials or myself—on three occasions in relation to the vocational schools. In fact, what I was doing was this. I was meeting the Catholic Hierarchy because a very large number of Catholic schools were involved and I met the IVEA because the vocational schools were involved.
Would the Minister not accept that the proper equation here is between the IVEA and the council of managers and the religious superiors? These are the managers of the two sets of schools. Behind them there stand the Hierarchies of their Churches. The Minister met only one Hierarchy of one Church and not of the other. It is the failure to equate the two that we are concerned with.
The religious schools happened to be Catholic schools, so the Hierarchy behind the managers was the Catholic Hierarchy and so I met the Catholic Hierarchy.
That is a pretty weak answer.
Before this the Minister specifically indicated that the first communication was to a member of the Catholic Hierarchy in October, 1970. Could he please tell us who the member of the Catholic Hierarchy was?
There is no problem at all. It was Cardinal Conway. Everybody knows that.
Every schoolchild knows that.
Deputy FitzGerald mentioned it here in the House.
Would the Minister accept that previously when I put questions to him as to the outcome of the discussions between himself and Cardinal Conway, he virtually denied that there had even been an exchange of views on this matter?
The interesting thing is that it takes a very considerable length of time to go back over all the questions and supplementary questions which have been involved in this matter. The reason I sent the document to Cardinal Conway was simply and solely that at that time the Department and I were considering the situation in Ardee, part of which is in my constituency and all of which is in Cardinal Conway's diocese.
I had to explain that because the Minister did not.
Would the Minister not accept that the basis of a great deal of the reaction to the proposals from me and other Members of the House, and particularly from members of the Church of Ireland, is that these were proposals of a national character —not just relating to Ardee and his own constituency—and that they were sent unilaterally in October, 1970, to Cardinal Conway, whereas it was not until June, 1971, after a vehement protest by the Board of Education of the Church of Ireland that those national proposals were also sent to them.
There was no problem in the least——
No problem?
——in informing the Deputy that I had talks with Cardinal Conway.
The Minister did not tell us.
The Deputy is now caught out and he is trying to side-track.
I am not caught out. This is the first time the Minister told us.
I want to emphasise again that as Minister for Education I will lean over backwards to help any section of the Protestant community in relation to education.
That is not the issue.
But the Minister will not talk to their Hierarchy.
40.
asked the Minister for Education to what religious groups his proposal of 13th May last for community schools was communicated; on what date it was sent in each case; whether he or officials of his Department have since had discussions with any of the groups on the proposal; if so, with what groups and on what dates; whether he has received written expressions of views from any of the groups on the proposal; and, if so, from what groups and on what dates.
My proposals of 13th May were published through the Government Information Bureau. They were not sent to any groups, religious or other. Copies were, of course, freely available after publication to anyone who sought them. There have since been no discussions with any groups, religious or other, apart from the local meetings which are being held this week in a number of areas.
Is the Minister aware of the statement made by Dr. Kenneth Mills, Secretary of the Church of Ireland Board of Education in which he said that all he knows about the latest position of the community schools is what he read in the Dáil Debates.
Quotations are out of order at Question Time.
I am entitled to say what he said. He went on to say that they had nothing really official to show whether the community schools proposal had been spelled out in more detail. Would the Minister not agree that he ought to communicate with them officially and with bodies like this who feel they are not in a position to comment on this matter until they get copies?
The only thing I can say about that is that they are not in any different position from anybody else. I have issued my proposals to the country and not to any individual. The document is available for anyone who wants it.
Is the Minister not aware of the convention that he and his Department have established in other contexts that, unless a document is communicated to a group, there will not be discussions with them. This has been the experience of the Irish Federation of University Teachers.
I will consider that aspect of it.
If the Minister were Minister for Labour he would have a national strike on his hands.
Question No. 41.
