Deputy Collins has seven minutes left.
Private Members' Business: - Primary Schools Grant: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Horgan on Tuesday, 6 March, 1979:
That Dáil Éireann:—
—noting the fact that the present capitation grant for pupils in primary schools is grossly inadequate;
—noting that the Government, in spite of their Manifesto commitment to immediately increase the capitation grant, has still not paid any increase in the grant beyond the level determined prior to the 1977 General Election;
—conscious of the rapidly escalating cost of heating and cleaning national schools, and the increasing burden being put on local communities in this regard;
—alarmed at the deterioration in many school premises because of lack of proper maintenance, and
—critical of the failure of the Minister for Education to ensure continued and adequate teacher representation on school management boards;
calls on the Government immediately to increase the capitation grant for pupils in primary schools to an interim minimum of £15.00 per pupil, together with an appropriate rate of local contribution, in order to ensure that heating and cleaning of national schools reaches an acceptable standard, and in order to ensure that the already marked deterioration in the condition of many schools is halted;
calls on the Government to introduce a minimum capitation grant payment for all schools of at least £750, regardless of pupil enrolment; and
calls on the Government to make a positive response to proposals by teachers and others for more appropriate structures for representation and accountability within the school management system."
Debate resumed on the amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"approves of the policy of the Minister for Education in providing increased financial aid for national schools and notes with satisfaction the efforts being made by the Minister to secure agreement from all the parties involved in regard to the revision of the Constitution and Rules of Procedure for Boards of Management of National Schools."
—(Minister for Education).
In the time left to me I will make some comments on the boards of management of national schools and I will express my disappointment at the manner in which this whole matter has been handled by the Minister. It was clearly understood when the boards of management of national schools were established in 1975 by the former Minister, Deputy R. Burke, that they were established for a three-year period and that after that period a review would take place. It is plainly obvious now that the review was not undertaken in time to allow for the restructuring of the boards. Do nothing until you are forced to do it is a typical attitude in the Department of Education, but it is a most unsatisfactory manner in which to run such a Department. The need for the review was obvious and was plainly called for. Nevertheless nothing was done and as a result there has been criticism and severe friction between members of the INTO and the Minister. There was criticism from parents who felt left out of participation in a real sense on boards of management. The Irish Times on 23 November 1978, in an article by their education correspondent, clearly pointed out that the parents elected as representatives on national school management boards were very critical of the manner in which they were being excluded from consultations in relation to the review, which commenced at a very late date.
I am not aware of the final position in relation to the review of the boards of management but we need to evolve a proper democratic board of management. By that I mean fair representation on the school board for all concerned—— for parents whose children attend the school, for teachers whose involvement in the school is of primary concern to its prosperity and for the religious order or patron. At the moment there is a feeling that there are factions on the boards and these factions seem to be tending towards creating friction on the board rather than evolving policy. Criticisms have been mentioned in this respect, and it is unfortunate and unnecessary in the context of an evolving school system at the primary level. It may be because we have no legislation governing primary schools. They are governed on an ad hoc basis, with very little accountability to this House. There is gross confusion as to the rights of parents, children and teachers within the system. It is unfortunate, but it is symptomatic of the whole area of education.
One would be inclined to say that an easy solution to representation would be a 3:3:3 situation and I would favour that type of structure as being fair. The really important thing is that the review should cover not only the structure, the numbers involved in boards of management but also the powers of the boards of management in relation to the future direction of the school, the capital expenditure, the expenditure within the school and a greater say in the appointment of teachers. There has been no agreement in relation to splitting up the board between parents, teachers and patrons and there has been no agreement in relation to finance, which is central to the whole question. After all, if we are not going to give the schools adequate finance for development, schools will continue to close because of rat and mice infestation and because of lack of expenditure on maintenance, which is what happened in 1978. That can be avoided only if the boards of management have a commitment to giving proper maintenance grants for schools and to ensuring that money is available for extension to schools where necessary.
In my constituency, in Fennor, County Waterford, an extension to a school has been sought since 1975, when the Government I supported were in office. Now, four years later, no decision has been forthcoming. They still do not know if they can extend the school or if they will have to find a new site. That is pretty pathetic management which would not be tolerated in business or in private enterprise, and I am sure it would not be tolerated in many State bodies. Four years after a request based on a sound, obvious need was put in no conclusion has been reached.
Having got that plug in, I would suggest that the Deputy might now conclude.
Our system can and will falter unless the structure of the boards of management is seen to be democratic and is acceptable to the parents and the teachers who run the system and to the patrons. Unless we are committed to proper maintenance grants and proper grants in respect of primary schools we will not be in a position to meet the extreme pressure which will come on primary schools in the coming decade. There has been no commitment from Fianna Fáil in this respect.
I am happy to have the opportunity of addressing myself to the amendment which appears before us and of repeating what I have said, since I was honoured with membership of this House, in respect of primary education.
In respect of education generally I have always made the point that, as far as I am concerned, our primary interest and our chief priority must be with our primary and national schools if for no other reason than that the Constitution requires it and because it is the one branch of education that all our students avail of. I am on record as having said, in respect of the curriculum which then existed, that I thought that it could and should be improved. To me it seemed to assume that all children were born equal and that all children had equal opportunity. We all know that, depending on their home or social environment, some children are better placed than others to benefit from primary education according to their parents' ability or disposition to complement what is done in our primary schools. Sometimes we forget that fact. Sometimes we overlook the fact that certain children are born with disabilities, impediments and inhibitions which prevent them from benefiting from education.
In the time available to me I propose to concentrate on that area and, more especially, I propose to concentrate on what is called special education. I read with interest the contributions made by Deputy Horgan and Deputy Collins. I noticed that neither made any reference to this very important aspect. I am not saying that omission is indicative of any lack of interest on their part. When Deputy Horgan is replying perhaps he will agree that, in the area of special education, he is as happy as I am with its present state. It is an area in which the Government have plans. I admit that great improvements are not made overnight. I should not like to dismiss the contributions made by previous Governments to disadvantaged students.
This year the situation is second to none in this area. I say that, having had the opportunity of visiting countries abroad and looking at what is happening there in the education of handicapped or disadvantaged children. Special schools here are regarded as part of the normal national school system. Expenditure on special education is continuing to improve and to increase. It is included in the general provisions in this year's budget.
It is very important that these matters should be recorded in the Official Report so that Members of the House and people in general would be aware of the satisfactory position which obtains. There are now over 100 schools catering for the different forms of handicap with an enrolment of over 8,000 children. In addition, nearly 150 special schools in ordinary national schools cater for some 2,000 children who are functioning educationally at mild mental handicap level.
Because of the more favourable pupil/teacher ratio and the additional resources deployed, the average cost per student in special schools last year was about three times that obtaining in what would be described as ordinary national schools. The figure is £562 as against £196. Within the system of national education the special schools and classes provide a programme suited to the needs of the particular handicapped child. The number of children in each class is very much smaller than in ordinary classes in primary schools. Free transport is provided for practically all students. That is a record of achievement on the part of the Department of Education and all Ministers for Education who have been associated with it. It is a record which should not go unnoticed.
The Minister would not exclude Ministers in the former Government?
If the Deputy reads my comments he will see that I am not suggesting Fianna Fáil have a monopoly in this regard. On the other hand, I am particularly proud of the attitude of this Government since they took office in July 1977.
The Minister would also accept that on all sides of the House there is full support for any money spent on special schools?
I anticipated that the Deputy would make that comment. In his contribution he made no reference to this aspect and I thought I might direct his attention to it.
As I understand it, the motion was limited to ordinary national schools.
These are ordinary national schools. The Deputy should not suggest for one moment that they are not. It would be rather regrettable if we were to look upon these schools as being anything other than normal national schools.
I take it the Minister is dealing with expenditure on national schools which would come within the ambit of the motion.
There is no contention about that. There are one or two developments which I should like to highlight. This country was one of the first in Europe to undertake the education of the moderately handicapped who, up to about 25 years ago, were regarded at home and abroad as not being capable of being educated. The target for the provision of places laid down by the Commission on Mental Handicap has been exceeded. Over 2,000 of these children are now attending school on a day or residential basis. With the increasing skill of teachers and a wider age range, a somewhat greater degree of handicapped is being catered for than was originally visualised. That is an achievement of which we can be proud.
As a result of the experience gained in the development of these schools, a new structured curriculum for the moderately mentally handicapped was introduced in the current school year. To facilitate the implementation of this curriculum the maximum class size has been reduced to 12 and special arrangements have been made for in-service training of teachers. That is not only a worth-while advance, but it puts us in a position where we compare more than favourably with other countries who are often quoted as setting a headline in this regard.
It should also be said that vocational training centres, assisted jointly by my Department and the Department of Health, have been established recently in eight areas in which training is provided for moderately mentally handicapped children and some mildly handicapped children and for school leavers in order to prepare them for employment. This will be mainly in the sheltered workshops, but a number of young people have also found suitable open employment.
Deputies who are not provided with the facilities which are available to Ministers might not have the time to do this—I know they have the interest— but I should like to invite Deputy Horgan and Deputy Collins to advise me about a visitation they would like to make to any of these schools in Blackrock, Cork, or elsewhere, to see for themselves the happiness which radiates from the young students who are being looked after so well.
As regards the mildly mentally handicapped, 5,700 places have been provided in special schools in special classes attached to ordinary national schools. That is a development I regret was not introduced ten, 12 or 15 years ago. It is one I suggested when I first came into this House and reverts to my earlier philosophy—that putting 35 children in the same class does not allow one to say one is giving the 35 children equal opportunity. That is a fallacy and a myth. It is wrong and is not being done in my Department. It should never have been done because it was being offensive to the true spirit of education and dishonest to the children concerned. In education—and this applies to management boards, teaching organisations and applied when I was a teacher as it applies now—my first aim always is what is best for the child? When we talk about democratisation, about aspects of management, perhaps all too often we forget that the real reason for our interest is one only, that which is best for the child. We must never remove that consideration from our deliberations even though it might seem more beneficial to us as politicians—and here I include myself—that we should seem to be pandering to people who already have votes, people who might exercise more muscle in respect of the particular exercise. We who are interested in education must never allow ourselves be drawn from the real purpose, what the French call the raison d'être of the whole educational structure, that is, to provide that which is best for every student, and I venture to say that this applies more particularly to primary students than those in any other branch of education.
As we are all aware, the education of children with multiple handicaps poses a formidable problem. For a child, blind, deaf and possibly mentally handicapped extreme dedication and very advanced techniques are necessary. I am glad to say we are now tackling this problem and have established three schools catering for these children. A visiting teacher service for blind and deaf children is also being developed. The experimental school at Monkstown for children with specific learning difficulties has met with considerable success and a second experimental school is being set up on the north side of the city. That is a factual report of what I know this House recognises as worth-while advance in an aspect of primary education perhaps more important than any other.
An intensive programme to provide better facilities for travelling children has been mounted in association with the National Council for Travelling People. Our objective continues to be the complete integration of travelling children in ordinary schools. Great credit is due to schools management and teachers who have co-operated to bring this about in so many areas. There are 47 special classes up and down the country catering for approximately 500 children who are not yet ready for integration. Full Departmental recognition has also been given to St. Ciaran's national school at Bray and to a special day centre cum school which was opened in the centre of Dublin last year. My Department, in association with the national council, is engaged also in the development of a number of training centres for children above primary age. I am very happy also that these centres will provide a programme of training appropriate to the tradition and needs of these travelling families. I refer to the new awareness, now acceptable to educationalists and the Department alike, that it is not sufficient—and here I revert to my original theme—to say that that which suits one suits everybody. Rather we must retailor our education in a way that will allow every child to benefit from and enjoy it, as is his or her entitlement, in accordance with the opportunities and abilities he or she possesses.
As was announced by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech, a special allowance of funds is being made this year for the creation of 70 new posts as child care assistants in special schools for the handicapped. Because of the nature of the children's handicap and because of the variety of equipment it is necessary to use in this type of school, a considerable volume of non-teaching duties devolves on the staff. The new posts will help to relieve teachers of some of the subsidiary duties and enable them to concentrate more on their professional duties and teaching capabilities.
That is not pie in the sky. That is not the expression of a wish or a hope. It is a report of a factual position, on something which has happened in the last 12 months and which I am sure we all accept as being a step in the right direction. I am not so naïve as to think that it is the duty of any Opposition—certainly I did not regard it as mine—to praise any sitting Government. Here I apply the test I apply to myself: when sitting on the far side of the House I never let pass the opportunity of commenting on what I regarded as progress made in any area. It was always my concern perhaps to highlight omissions and inadequacies rather than achievements. But the record will show that, no matter what Minister was there, whether or not I liked him, if advances were made in his area, I was happy to acknowledge them. I would hope that in respect of the advances to which I refer here both Deputies Horgan and Collins will accept that it is a progress report. We are not saying it is everything. We must continue on these lines, but I think they should accept that in this regard—again bearing in mind its direct relevance to primary education and national schools—the Minister is justified in the claim he makes in his amendment to the motion tabled in the names of all the members of the Labour Party.
Because of the tranquillity of the scene, I shall not——
Compared with last night.
The Minister need not worry, we have no rotten tomatoes here.
I am indebted to Deputy Collins in so far as he has now given me the opportunity of saying in regard to my visit to Trinity College that, whatever else was on the scene, there were no tomatoes and nobody aimed a tomato——
They cannot afford them; the price has gone up 100 per cent.
If I say that——
I am afraid that tomatoes, rotten or otherwise, have nothing to do with this debate.
Well, I suppose if one were to say that tomatoes were thrown, which they were not, it would be understandable. If I were to say that under previous Governments they would have been eaten and not thrown around——
Perhaps we could keep away from the subject of tomatoes.
Not to upset the tranquility of the scene I will not say what I was going to say because at the time Deputy Horgan was not a member of the Labour Party as such. Therefore I will not make comparisons between now and some couple of years ago.
In relation to what?
In relation to the recruitment of remedial teachers. I know that the Deputy would wish me to spare Deputy Horgan's blushes.
The Minister of State's Minister does not have any such reticence.
In that respect I suppose we make a good team. The capitation grant to cover the maintenance and other operational costs for special schools is paid generally on the same lines as that for ordinary schools but it is scaled upwards to cater for the particular needs of these schools on the basis of the pupil/teacher ratio which operates in them. These enhanced rates have been increased by 25 per cent in the current year at an additional cost of £49,500. That, to me, is progress.
Special equipment grants are also paid for educational equipment necessary to cater for the pupils in special schools other than that which is covered by the capitation grant. These include group teaching aids in the schools for the deaf and brailling machines in the schools for the blind. Provision for this purpose in the current year's budget has been increased to £116,000 as compared with £54,000 in 1977 and £60,000 last year; that, to me, is progress.
Capital for special school buildings is included in the general capital allocation for primary schools which has been increased by £1.1 million this year to a total of £16.5 million. Over the past two years new schools have been opened at Islandbridge, Steward's Hospital, Orwell Road and Raheny for mentally handicapped and emotionally disturbed children. Plans for new schools are in hand. Plans are also in hand for extensive improvements to the school in Cork for children whose hearing is impaired, Saint Mary's School in Cabra and St. Joseph's school in Cabra, Marino Clinic, Bray, to the schools for the physically handicapped in Clondalkin, Clontarf and Sandymount and to the schools for the mentally handicapped in Tallaght, Cashel, Letterkenny and John's Lane. They are factual reports of proposals that are there in respect of the provision of education in national schools for the mentally or physically handicapped.
There is another area where both sides of the House share an interest. This is the question of schools which are classified as special national schools. As regards the residential homes, the former industrial schools, most of the children now go out to local schools as recommended in the Kennedy report. Where necessary special provision is made for them by way of remedial teaching. Increased provision of £419,000 has been made for this service in the current year. That is a fair allocation of money. Again I would hope that when replying Deputy Horgan would acknowledge this and express his reasonable satisfaction with it. Of course he would exhort that there should be no complacancy but we must strive to improve this special area.
The Minister has five minutes.
Residential provision is at present made for slightly over 200 boys in three special residential schools. There is one at Lusk and one at Finglas. I would invite any Deputy who is free to do so to visit these two schools and see what is being done, not by any political party, not because of the fact that a political party is in office but in the name of the community for these unfortunate children. Far too much is heard and written about allaged inadequacies in this regard and I would hope that people who are so reluctant to give credit where credit is due would go out and examine the situation as they find it and if, having done that, they have some worth-while positive criticism to make then, for my part and as long as I have responsibility in this area, I will be most receptive to any suggestion regarding any improvement which can be made. In doing this I am not looking for any special credit for it but because, as I said initially, it is the least these children are entitled to.
I regret I have not sufficient time to include all that I had intended to include in the Official Report. I had hoped that I might refer especially to our youth encounter projects. Here again I know that Deputies will agree with me that a need exists in respect of some children who must be catered for in situations and environments which are different from those suitable or applicable to more normal children. I am watching with much excitement and great anticipation the results of what will be happening in those schools. I hope that what is happening will explode the proposition which says if one exposes all to the same thing all are getting equal opportunity, and rather must we cater for the real needs of our children.
I am quite sure that all politicians, particularly Members of this House, if given the opportunity of being Minister for Education or indeed Minister of State, would do the best they could to improve the educational systems here. What I am going to say is not an attack on individuals but an attack on a system. First of all, in view of the shortage of herrings at present I am sure some our our fishermen would have been very glad last night and tonight to have been here to collect the number of red herrings which have been trotted out by the two Government speakers in order to talk about anything except what is involved in the motion.
If the handicapped students are red herrings to the Deputy, then God help him and God help them. To say that 10,000 of our students are red herrings is a poor admission.
The Minister of State has been very anxious to tell us that he did not want to say anything in the House which would disturb the calm. Let me say that in a case like this I have no such inhibitions. As far as I am concerned, having a Minister and his Minister of State coming into this House with an béal bocht saying that they are only a year-and-a-half in office and that we cannot expect miracles from them makes them seem insincere, in view of the fact that they had a previous uninterrupted 16 years to do all the things which they wanted us to do when they were in opposition. The Government personnel has changed quite a lot since they were in office before but I believe they have, to use the old expression, a sin to answer for. They and nobody else are responsible for the terrible state of primary education which they left when they left office. I am not going to say that no improvement has been made in the last 18 months. Of course certain things have been improved. I pay tribute to the officials of the Department because they succeeded in carrying on quite a number of things which were discussed and proposed by the previous Government and they did make some improvement. The Minister of State tells us here that he always held that it was wrong to have 35 pupils in the same class and that it was not possible to give pupils adequate attention in such circumstances and that he has always held this view. Yet throughout the country, and particularly in the city, there are many schools where two classes are lumped together making a total of up to 45 pupils. I wonder if we can believe that he is sincere in what he is saying——
I tell the truth. It was higher when the Deputy's Government were in office.
I would not claim that the Minister is one of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who would be inclined to tell lies for political purposes. If he looks at the record he will find it is utter cod to talk about classes of 35 being too big when two classes are put together, making a total of 45 pupils. He can check this tomorrow by walking into any primary school. It is happening in my village and my grandchildren are suffering as a result. It is all right for the bright child because he or she will be able to pick up the pieces no matter what size of class but the slow or the not-so-quick learner has a poor chance of getting anywhere. As we saw recently, appeals were made to adults to teach illiterate teenagers who left primary school un-able to read or write but who are anxious now to learn.
We must face the facts. The primary education system is not good and the fault lies primarily with Fianna Fáil who were so long in office. They made no attempt to improve the situation. There are many people in public life who are aware of what is happening but they are not doing enough to have the matter straightened out.
What did the Deputy do when he was in government?
That is a very good question. Like the Minister I have only 20 minutes to reply but I could take two hours telling him of what I did when I was in government and I am not ashamed.
What did the Deputy do for education?
That was not my brief but, as a member of the Government, I participated in numerous things including the setting up of something that here is the cause of the trouble—I am referring to the setting up of the parent-teacher——
What did the Deputy do?
Deputy Tunney should not interrupt the Deputy in possession.
The Minister said he had not enough time to reply and I agree with him. Perhaps he and I could have a chat about it sometime where we would not be taking up the time of the House.
That would be a good idea. Deputy Tully, without interruption.
The Deputy is out of his depth.
We agreed to set up a committee that we thought would assist in ironing out much of the troubles that are caused at local level between parents, teachers and management. However, the INTO wisely insisted that written into that should be a review after three years. We were out of office when the three years was up and the present Government were not prepared to honour the three-year proviso. They had to be pushed, pulled and abused by the people responsible before they could be persuaded to have the review. Nothing has come out of the review because the Government do not want that committee. It would show up their shortcomings. The committee was not perfect. I am not giving away Cabinet secrets when I say that many things were included that I did not think were the best way of doing things. However, that was the decision and as a member of the Cabinet I take responsibility for it.
We have the situation now where it does not operate and will not operate and everything the Minister for Education said last night about the efforts he was making to operate it is a lot of cod. Until such time as the INTO and the other people concerned can sit around the table and agree on what is needed to have it settled there will be no committee. It is unbelievable that anyone could suggest that the way to do it was to send out a letter to the INTO after a meeting had taken place and at which agreement was not reached telling them the way to settle the matter. That is not the way to settle problems. Perhaps that is the way Fianna Fáil like to settle problems, although I must point out they do not send out letters in the case of some of the current disputes.
I am sorry if the Minister of State thinks I am picking on him particularly. He made references here to mentally and physically handicapped people. We felt just as strongly about this as Fianna Fáil——
The Deputy's Government suspended the recruitment of teachers.
We were prepared to do a lot but we were not given the time. The electorate decided that Fianna Fáil should run the country. They have the authority now and we expect them to do what they said should be done and what we thought should be done. I think that speeches of Opposition Deputies who become Ministers should be required listening for them. They should be put into a room with a tape recorder and should be compelled to listen to what they said when they were across the floor of the House. When Fianna Fáil were in opposition there was no problem with primary or any kind of education. According to them they would not take three or four years but would solve the problem immediately. The words "immediately" and "at once" were used so often that they became clichés. Even the Taoiseach the night before the general election repeated "immediately" ten times. He has not done that since then.
The Minister of State referred to the physically and mentally handicapped and I agree that much more should be done to help schools catering for such people. The State is not doing its share. I brought to the notice of the Minister and the Department responsible a school in Navan that was set up by the local clergyman and a number of local people who were interested in the matter. They converted an old building, they got the school going and it is doing a tremendous job. The teachers are being paid by the State but because of a legal quibble the Government are shielding themselves and are hiding behind a legal point to avoid paying a relatively small sum of money. This sum should be paid to the school so that it may continue. Local people have to go from door to door trying to raise a few pounds to keep physically and mentally handicapped children at school. This is just one example of where the State is not doing what it should do.
I was very interested in the Minister's statement about the increased money he was giving. He said we did not give anything. So far the State has not given any increase except the one increase that was promised by the previous Minister for Education. Deputy Horgan pointed this out. A sum has been promised with effect from 1 June and we are told we should sing "Hallelujah". Did the Minister hear about the frost and snow that occurred immediately after Christmas? Does he know that because schools were unoccupied in the Christmas period they had to spend a tremendous amount repairing damage to radiators, furniture and so on? What do the Department propose to do about it? Will they say to the schools that they are getting an increase of £2per capita from the State and that should meet their requirements? I suggest they have another look at it because it is not only the PAYE people who will be parading to the gates of Leinster House. They should realise they cannot slide out of their responsibilities by claiming that something is being done when we know that very little is being done.
I am sure that the Government, if they had the money, would be prepared to spend much more on education. Any sensible politician must appreciate that more money is required but I fear that the Government—it is quite obvious they have not got the money—are attempting to slide out by saying that they are giving substantial percentage increases. As Deputy Collins pointed out, percentage increases do not represent what we think is required in 1979 to ensure that national schools can be kept in a proper state of repair.
Some years ago the then Fianna Fáil Government tried to do away with small schools and bring children to larger ones. We had the ridiculous situation throughout the country where schools which were in very good order were being closed. I am aware of one built only about ten years previously which because it was a small type school was closed down and the children brought to another school which had cost a fortune to repair. We had this situation and then we had school bus and all the innovations introduced by the late Donogh O'Malley, God rest his soul, and which at present seem to be foundering because the Government are not prepared to ensure that they will be operated properly.
Apparently, we are slipping back to what was originally considered all right and which many feel was the proper way to do it, that in smaller schools near the children's homes was the place where the children should get their primary education. There were many schools, including some to which children were brought from other schools because the then Government felt those schools were too small, which are now in a deplorable condition. We still have many schools depending on old wooden huts added on. I know they were introduced because it was felt they would offer quick relief accommodation for children for a short time. If my memory is correct, the Nissen huts were given five years' life. Now, almost 20 years later, many of them are being used as schoolrooms and we are expected to agree that our children at-tend those schools even though they cannot be adequately heated and cannot be considered in any way suitable.
A few years ago I asked why these huts were being continued. I never regarded them as a correct place in which to teach children. I was told that they cost a lot and that the cost of replacing them with the normal school would be colossal but that eventually they would be phased out. We still find them in use and it is not unusual beside an existing school to have children walking across a plank on concrete blocks in an effort to get in with dry feet. Anybody who tries to defend that kind of primary education facility is not doing a good job for himself or the country.
We have many schools without adequate heating and lighting. Those of us in the upper age bracket can recollect when we had to bring fuel ourselves when going to country schools—a sod of turf or a stick or one shilling, which was harder to get—to the teacher every day to ensure some heat. Unfortunately, the teacher usually used the fire himself more than anybody else. That was in the early part of this century but, to find in 1979 children who complain about being cold in a primary school because no adequate provision for heat is made and the money made available is not sufficient to provide the necessary maintenance or comfort children require, is just too bad.
The Minister has referred to the increase in the money given for school books. This is a bad joke at the expense of the children. I do not know if he is aware of how school books are given out. Up to a few years ago the children would have to bring in their parents' medical cards to show that they qualified before they would be given free school books. Things have changed a little but at present it seems that unless children themselves are able to prove entitlement they cannot get the books. What six or seven year old child wants to prove before his fellow pupils that he is very poor? They have no hope of getting school books. I do not blame the teachers who have not sufficient money, not nearly sufficient; I blame the system. Adequate money should be made available and an adequate transfer system arranged by which children from one class could have their books properly cared for and transferred to other members of the family coming along later. We should not have the old system of changing the books every year in case the next set of children would be able to use them.
The Department of Education seem to be anxious to ensure that things are done properly but they do not seem to know what this involves. I would not mind if we had amateurs on the Government benches. Perhaps they are not very long in their Ministeries but their Government had long periods in office and the experience should be there. The officials who work under them know or should know what the Fianna Fáil Government expect of them. The results coming out are not what they should be from men of experience. I found the officials in my Department and in others with which I had contact over the years to be excellent, hard-working people and I believe the officials in the Department of Education are no different but they can only do as good a job as those who lead them. I am not picking out the Minister, Deputy Wilson, and the Minister of State, Deputy Tunney, but I am picking out two members of a Government who before the last election were prepared to tell us that if they were returned to power everything in the garden would be lovely. Nothing that the primary school children required would be withheld from them.
The Minister for Education himself had to admit that in the section of the Fianna Fáil manifesto dealing with education, on page 41, paragraph 6, it is stated:
Fianna Fáil will immediately increase the capitation grant for primary school pupils.
Eighteen months later we find, with the same Government in office, that it did not increase by anything except what their predecessors in office had agreed——
There were two increases: 66? per cent on what was there——
Deputy Tully has about seven minutes and he should be allowed to continue without interruption.
I would require about another hour if Deputy Tunney is to continue interrupting.
£4——
(Interruptions.)
£2 in 24 months.
One increase.
Deputy Tully is in possession.
Now they are talking about the first increase they are giving as a Government themselves and they are giving it next June. What does it do? It brings the amount schools will be receiving roughly into line with what was given when the scheme was first set up in 1975. There is no talk about what the ESB got headlines for yesterday, no talk of the 20 per cent increase in the cost of oil, no talk of who is to pay for the damage caused by the recent frost and snow. Neither have the Government anything to say about the all-round increases in prices that have occurred since they were returned to power. Regarding this £10 grant——
For two and a half years the Coalition did not give anything in this area.
We created the system.
For 16 years Fianna Fáil failed to do anything in this respect. Deputy Collins is helping me make my case by reminding me of that.
Deputy Collins is not entitled to make a case for Deputy Tully.
In 1975 we agreed to this grant.
But you did not give anything.
Fianna Fáil say now that they will pay this grant from June next but presumably that is only if in the meantime they do not agree to give the money to somebody else who may ask for it. If they had not forfeited the £11 million by way of wealth tax, the advantage of which change accrued to the wealthiest section——
We are not going into the question of wealth tax on this motion.
——they could easily have given a decent capitation grant of, say, £15. Having regard to the record of Fianna Fáil it may well be the case that there will not be an increase on the £10 grant until near the time of the next general election which, if Fianna Fáil manage to stay in office for as long as their majority of 20 will allow—and I do not doubt that they will—will not be for another few years.
The grant represents a 66? per cent increase on what the Coalition gave one and half years ago.
That is not correct.
The Minister and Deputy Collins have had their opportunity.
I am sorry if I have ruffled some feathers. There are some who seem to think that the matters I have raised should not be raised in the House but, having regard to the type of opposition we had from Fianna Fáil while we were in office, are they not naïve to think they would not be attacked for the type of foolish statements we have had from their two spokesmen this evening?
I had not intended speaking on this motion. I had not expected to be given the opportunity of contributing, having regard to the time factor.
There is time because the Government Deputies are afraid to come into the House this evening.
The Deputy should not interrupt.
However, I am glad of this opportunity to speak, because listening to the Minister one might be forgiven for getting the impression that everything in the garden is rosy in the area of primary education whereas the contrary is the position.
The situation in many of our schools in this city is a disgrace, but the blame does not rest with the teachers. The Minister knows that it is the system that is at fault. He invited both Deputy Horgan and Deputy Collins to see some institutions. No doubt these were very good institutions, but I should like to take this opportunity of inviting the Minister to a school in my constituency because such a visit might result in a change of attitude on his part.
In schools of the type I have in mind there are large numbers of children who have reading ages of three years less than children in other schools. Eighty per cent of the children in one school I am aware of live in apartments where there is overcrowding and 56 per cent of the parents concerned are unemployed. If the Minister is sincere in tailoring education to the needs of the child—and I believe he is—he must have regard to schools within the inner city area with a view to reducing the pupil/teacher ratio to 20 or even less. The children attending these schools are the very ones who do not have a voice in society, whereas children in most other schools are able to take advantage of the system and to continue to second level and, perhaps, third level education. That is why the Department must do everything possible to ensure that the disadvantaged children are put in the position of being able to derive the benefits of the education system.
It is time we took the primary education system out of the last century and adapted it to today's needs. The cost involved would be small because the facilities are available. We have the classrooms. We have plenty of space in schools in the inner city area. But we require more remedial teachers and we require the help that will ensure that these children do not start off at a tremendous disadvantage. There is a high illiteracy rate among these children but inspectors have the audacity to question the teachers as to why standards are not higher among the children. These inspectors do not consider the socio-economic circumstances involved in these cases. That is why I am hoping that the Minister will accept my invitation to him to visit the school I have in mind and to talk with the teachers there.
There is a question in this regard on the Order Paper in my name and after what I have told the Minister this evening I trust that the answer to that question will indicate his willingness to consider this problem without further delay. Because the schools I am talking of have not sufficient numbers of pupils on their rolls to qualify for grants they are at a further disadvantage but the buildings must be heated. In one case the church authorities paid £800 for heating this year although the pupils represented only 20 per cent of that parish.
Primary education has always been treated as the cinderella of the system. We have exploited the religious orders in this area by not facing up to our responsibilities. Admittedly there has been a pilot scheme on the north side of the city but I am talking about the city in general. Although the results of the various surveys conducted have been sent to the Department of Education we have not had any response so far. They do not want to know about these areas because they know there will not be too much clamouring from them. They are aware that parents will not be marching on the Department of Education or Leinster House. It is a pity that they would not join together and go on such a march because they might get some response.
Generally speaking, the people I am concerned about are under-privileged, downtrodden and find it hard to lift themselves up. We owe it to their children to ensure that they are educated and equipped to face life with the same opportunities as other children. If we do not give all children the same opportunities we are failing miserably in our duties. If we looked after the children I am concerned about we would save money because I have no doubt that vandalism and frustration would diminish quickly. Those children would then see themselves as part of society. At present they see themselves as being rejected, as practically non-citizens. When they get out they want to kick society, and kick it hard. Special schools and other places of detention are not necessarily the answer. In my view we must spend more money on this area even if it means getting the ratio down to 15. We must ensure that these children can relate their hands to their minds so that when they go out into the world they can adapt themselves to any situation. We must also ensure that if they must emigrate they are well equipped to work and do not finish up as the hewers of wood and drawers of water for other people. Under our primary school system that is not happening.
I hope to get a genuine response from the Department in this area. I hope the Department will inject vast sums of money to cater for the needs of such children. We are all aware that the university students took to the streets to highlight their grievances but I am not terribly concerned about them because they are well able to look after themselves. However, it is possible that because they took to the streets to highlight their grievances they will get response. The people I am concerned about do not take to the streets because they do not have the will to do so. The attitude appears to be that as they will not take to the streets they should be left alone. We should not be influenced by political reasons but if we examine the facts we will see that that is not the case. It is time that the primary education system was given a new look. We have raised the school leaving age but we have not done much to raise the standards within the primary education system to meet that. The Minister should respond generously to my plea and I hope he will accept my invitation. I can show the other side of the coin, that which is not good.
The Minister of State had the courtesy to say that he presumed that the lack of any reference to special education in speeches made on this side of the House, particularly that made by myself, was not due to any lack of interest by us in this area. He is correct in assuming that. The Minister of State went on to give in considerable detail information about the developments in special education during the period of previous administration. The point was completely missed because, as anyone with two political eyes in his head will understand, the reason why we put down this motion in the name of the Labour Party was to draw attention to two glaring deficiencies in the activities of the Minister for Education and his Minister of State since they came to office just as the reason the Minister for Education put down his amendment was to broaden the scope of the debate so that he could talk about things he did not wish to talk about in our motion. In his contribution to the debate the Minister was, if not exactly silent, certainly short of his usual degree of eloquence in dealing with one or two matters which are at the core of our motion.
Even though procedurally we are discussing the motion and the amendment there is no apology to be made on this side for speaking essentially to our motion. We put that motion down for two reasons. We wanted to draw attention to a specific commitment that was made by the Government before they came to office, a commitment we feel was not honoured, and not even the Minister for Education has had the nerve to claim boldly that it was honoured by the implementation of the first increase up to £8 in the capitation fee.
It certainly was, and the second increase.
Is the Minister now claiming publicly for the first time that the payment of the first increase which was decreed prior to the General Election was in effect the implementation of that phrase in the Fianna Fáil manifesto?
Who pays the piper?
The taxpayer.
It is easy to call the tune.
The Minister will not answer the straight question as to whether or not he is establishing a political precedent by claiming that the implementation of a commitment made by a previous administration amounts, in a marvellous piece of mathematical political equality, to the implementation of a contrary assertion made by the Department of Education——
The £2 was promised before the General Election because I forced it out of the Government then and I paid £2 on top of that again.
In a debate of this kind a Deputy can pose questions but should not ask for answers across the floor of the House. It is not in order to do so. Deputy Horgan should be allowed to conclude without interruption.
I have no control over the Minister and if he feels that the questions I ask need answers that is his business.
The Deputy does not want to hear the answers.
It is a fact, as the motion points out, that not a penny has yet been paid to the primary schools of any increase in the capitation grant decreed solely by Fianna Fáil. That is what the motion draws attention to. The second reason we put down the motion was the urgent situation which has been created since the coming into office of the Government by the decision of the INTO to effectively boycott the working of the present boards of management. We devoted a specific part of our motion to that matter. The Minister of State said—this is typical of rather meaningless statements which have been made by the Government side during this debate—that he was always happy to acknowledge advances in education when he was on this side of the House. To take a leaf out of the book opened so frequently by the Minister for Education, one should look at the record of the House since the Minister of State became a Member and during his comparatively brief period in Opposition, but one will not find any motion in his name acknowledging the advances made by the previous Government in the sphere of education. Anybody who expected it to be there would be politically naïve.
I was talking about a debate and not a motion. The Deputy should not be so silly.
I am not being silly but I am accusing the Minister of State of being a faux naif in this matter of his bona fides in acknowledging educational advances.
Take a leaf out of Deputy O'Brien's book and say something.
He said: "My first aim is always what is best for the child". That is a statement to which nobody can take exception, but does it mean anything beyond being a general unexceptionable statement? Does it mean, for example, that the aim of myself and of the Labour Party in putting down this motion was something other than what is best for the child? That might be a fair enough political charge but it does not add a great deal to the Minister of State's credibility.
I did not dismiss 10,000 handicapped children as red herrings.
Is the Minister of State saying that the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, who are boycotting the boards of management at the present moment, do not have the best interest of the children of this country at heart? If he is saying that they will be very surprised and alarmed to hear him and if he is not saying that, he should make that clear.
The Minister of State spoke at considerable length about the question of special education. There is a large measure of all-party agreement about the special needs of the whole special education centre. We will never begrudge money spent on special education, even though we may all, on Government and Opposition benches alike, wish for more money to be spent than can be provided at any particular time.
There is one aspect of special education to which I would like to draw the attention of the House, and in doing so, to refer to a quotation from the present Minister of State when he was a backbench Deputy in a previous Fianna Fáil administration. In Volume 245, column 1600, on 21 April 1970 he said:
I am not in complete agreement that its—
—corporal punishment—
—total elimination would be beneficial to education. I would be prepared to argue that the student welcomes a certain amount of corporal punishment.
I would not like to ask the Minister for Education, without inviting a reply, if the children, who are in the special schools of which our community is rightly proud, welcome corporal punishment in these schools. He and his Minister of State have an opportunity to do something about that without costing the taxpayers a penny.
Are these Deputy Tully's red herrings?
If it should be done in any place, it should be done there first.
The Deputy did not talk about these people in his motion— 10,000 pupils——
If the Minister of State had read my speech——
Do not try to cover up for——
Deputy Horgan without interruption please.
The Minister of State spoke about free school books.
I did not.
The Minister of State spoke about the provision of school books for necessitous children, or if he did not his Minister did.
The Deputy is right now.
Will the Deputy be subject to this type of interruption? He has only seven minutes left.
There will be no more interruptions.
Surely I am entitled to deny that I said something——
It is perferctly evident that the financing of this scheme is still woefully inadequate. Even though we may all, including Deputy Tully, like to plunder what was given back to people in the wealth tax for our own purposes, it is still true to say that the Minister of Education could have given an extra £1 in the year he came into office on the capitation grants. He could have given free school books to every primary schoolchild and still have had £500,000 change out of what he gave back to people in the wealth tax.
The Minister of State was unwise enough to refer to the pupil-teacher ratio and to say "you did nothing about it when you were in office". Those were his exact words if I took them down correctly. I am not among those people, and I am sure nobody on these benches would be, who would be happy and prepared to see everything the last Government or any Government did written up in the hall of fame, but it is true and undeniable that when the previous Government were in office not only was the pupil-teacher ratio reduced, but it was reduced at a time when we were putting into training the teachers who are now improving the pupil-teacher ratio under Fianna Fáil. We were putting in more teachers than ever before in the history of the State, and we were doing it at a time when the length of the teacher training course was being increased from two years to a full university degree in three years. To say "you did nothing about it" as the Minister of State did, simply flies in the face of the facts.
I was about to criticise the Minister for something which he has now clarified, because when he was speaking he did not clarify whether he regarded the first payment under this Administration as the implementation of the Fianna Fáil pledge. He has now established this precedent and this is useful for the record.
Four pounds per capita in one year and eight months.
The first payment of the first Fianna Fáil increase will be made 24 months after they came into office.
The Minister seems unusually sensitive to criticism from myself and the Labour Party and has gone to considerable lengths to scour the records of this and the other House for statements by myself on these and other matters. He will know that I have been on public record in relation to matters of education since at least 1964, some considerable time before he became a Member of the Oireachtas. I have been a Member of the Oireachtas longer than he has. He may have been a Minister longer than I have, but the electorate have ways of sorting that kind of problem out, too.
Is the Deputy an optimist or a pessimist?
He is a potential Ayotollah.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Horgan has only three minutes. He must not be interrupted.
When the Government have a weak case they always send in Deputy Killilea. When listening to the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis I was astonished by many things, but what astonished me most was the Minister for Education claiming that the Labour Party had more reason than anybody else to be ashamed of the alleged neglect of education under the Coalition because they more than any other party, should be aware of the function that education plays in social mobility. The inference that Fianna Fáil is the party of education and social mobility is nothing less than laughable. Fianna Fáil are concerned about social mobility, yes, but the only social mobility that has taken place under Fianna Fáil is the social mobility across the strip of water that separates this island from the neighbouring island. On the most conservative figures given by the Taoiseach in this House a few days ago we are already exporting more people——
We are getting away from the motion. The Deputy has one-and-a-half minutes to conclude.
I am prepared to use my minute-an-a-half to best effect. On two key issues which our motion brings before this House, the question of money and the question of management structure reforms, nothing meaningful has been said by the other side of the House. Teachers and other representatives on the review body of the boards of management for national schools are looking for more money than the £10. The Minister had no money to promise them. We have had nothing on this major plank of the Labour Party motion.
On management, the Minister in his speech of half-an-hour devoted one or two sentences to saying he would do what he could about it. On the basis of what he has done up to now about changing the management structures and further developing them in primary schools, we will be waiting a long time before he does anything. The standing idly by syndrome prevails. The two things are united. We believe in the eventual phasing out of the local contribution in return for further democratisation of our primary education system. That is part of Labour Party policy. That is behind our motion and it is the uncomfortable facts behind our motion, not the bland assurances, which underlie the amendment, on which we will be voting tonight.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 44.
Tá.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Sile.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kiileen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P. J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Burke, Joan.
- Clinton, Mark.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Belton, Luke.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Lipper, Mick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Mannion, John M.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies B. Desmond and Creed.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.