I feel it is sad that I have to raise an issue of this kind in the House. I am sure we are all agreed that strikes are undesirable and should take place only when they cannot be avoided. It is a tragedy that a strike, and the bitterness of a strike, should be introduced into a small, peaceful town like Borris.
The situation there is that we have 250 children on outright strike and their teachers on a one day a week strike. This strike was brought about by a situation in which the parents are not prepared to tolerate the conditions at present obtaining in Borris national school. These parents are not irresponsible people because the teachers have backed them and have now decided to go on a one day strike per week. This strike action will continue until the contractor takes up residence on the site. That is their decision. They will not be fobbed off by any promises from the Minister or the Department.
There is a long history to this school. It was built way back in 1832 as a two-teacher school for boys and girls. There were two large rooms in the school over a basement area. This was the accommodation there until some time in the 1930's when a third room was added and the two large rooms divided to make it into a five-roomed school. In 1968, with the change in the education and schools system, schools were amalgamated and, along with a lot of schools in other areas, Borris national school was the subject of this reorganisation, when Rahana and Ballymartin schools were closed. That brought 60 extra pupils into the Borris school which was already overcrowded and which had at that point outlived its usefulness. During the amalgamation negotiations the Minister of the day promised that a new school would be commenced immediately in Borris. To alleviate the over crowding at the time a pre-fab was erected on the site which was to remain while the new school was being built. In 1977 the school attendance was further expanded and another teacher was required. However, there was no place in the school to house such additional teacher. Therefore, arrangements were made for a room in the parish hall to be used and a large class has been attending this parish hall classroom over the past three years.
I inspected that room in the parish hall together with my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Nolan. Senator Governey and Deputy Pattison. and we were appalled at its condition. We went there sometime after the children had left the room for lunch and the stench that hit one on entering the room was unbelievable. Along with that there was located in that room all the electrical controls for this parish hall, which, in my view, are highly dangerous. There is not even a fire extinguisher sited beside them. Indeed, it would not be allowed in any factory; but here there is a large class of school children sitting on what might be described as a time bomb. That is the urgency of the situation and what has brought about a strike by the people in the area.
I should say that, 12 years later, in 1980, we still have no new school in Borris. The existing school was condemned in 1969 by a health inspector. It was condemned earlier this year, with a very strong report being issued on its condition and on how undesirable it was to have children attending the school at all. This can be borne out by the incidence of kidney illnesses being suffered by pupils in Borris school, which is unrealistically high. The local medical officer attributes this to the draught and breezes coming through the floorboards of this school. It could happen that children's health would be damaged irreparably.
Some time ago the school structure was inspected by an architect who immediately ordered that the floors be pinned. That work has been carried out with at least nine-tenths of the cost being borne by the Department. I feel the Department would be far better occupied in building a new school rather than providing this type of make-shift accommodation, propping up floor boards which have worn to a quarter of an inch thickness. Along with my colleagues I stood on the floorboards in this school, and I did not feel too happy. One felt one was on the chair-o-planes going up and down. This is the floor the Department had to have pinned instead of getting in and building the new school.
When I and my colleagues visited this school we were amazed by and very concerned at its condition. We could not credit that a school housing 250 children could be in such a condition. I could only liken it to a Dickensian scene. One could almost shoot the film "Oliver" at the school. It was that type of scene. That is no exaggeration. It had to be seen to be believed.
Certainly also the toilet facilities at the school are inadequate and intolerable. The children should not have to put up with them. However, they are secondary to the general condition of the school itself.
Reverting to the situation obtaining at present, the teachers concerned issued strike notice to expire on 29 April last. They withdrew this notice when a deputation was arranged to meet the Minister, which deputation was received on 22 April last. I had a parliamentary question answered in the House in relation to the school on the same day. I attended that deputation with the Minister. Unfortunately, I received word very late and was there for the last few minutes of the meeting only. I was glad I got word from my colleague across the floor—Deputy Nolan let me know—I was glad to be there and be part of the deputation. Certainly all the public representatives did everything in their power to bring about a successful solution to this problem. The Minister was not left in any doubt about the feelings of parents, teachers, the management committee and others concerned.
Under that pressure the Minister gave a commitment that the contract would be placed and signed within two or three weeks. It is not easy for a Minister to give that type of commitment without being sure of himself, and when the Minister gave such a commitment the deputation accepted it in good faith and left in a happy mood. Unfortunately the commitment has not been honoured and we are still at the stage when there is no sign of the contract being placed. As a result, the parents have taken action and 250 children are missing classes at an important stage in their education. The teachers are frustrated.
As far as I can gather, the delay has been caused because the figures submitted by the contractor whose tender was lowest were in excess of those allowed by the Department and, or, the Board of Works for school building, and negotiations were commenced with the contractor who had submitted the lowest tender to reduce his figures. This seems ludicrous. This is a responsible contractor, a large sum of money is involved, and it is obvious that the contractor did his costings carefully. Yet we had the Department saying, "We will give it to you if you reduce the amount". This is a red herring, a delaying tactic, and I call on the Minister to enter into negotiations immediately, arrive at an agreement with the contractor and get the work under way.
The Department must be realistic and update their figures for school building. In the newspapers this week a report stated there has been a 9 per cent increase in the cost of housing building in the first three months of this year. Therefore, a contractor who submitted a tender six months ago must now add such a percentage, and accordingly the delay by the Department in finalising the matter means that the cost of building this school will be higher.
