We now move on to the Education Votes 29—35. The Minister has 20 minutes to move Vote 29 and the other Votes will be taken at the end. Fine Gael will have 25 minutes and Labour 25 minutes and the Minister will have 20 minutes to reply. All these Votes may be discussed together.
Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Vote 29: Office of the Minister for Education.
Tairgim:
Go ndeonófar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £5,080,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Nollaig, 1980, le haghaidh tuarastail agus costais Oifig an Aire Oideachais (lena n-áirítear Forais Eolaíochta agus Ealaíon), le haghaidh seirbhísí ilghnéitheacha áirithe oideachais agus cultúir agus chun ildeontais-i-gcabhair a íoc.
Is iad seo a leanas na glan-mhéideanna a bhí sna príomh-mheastacháin do Vóta Oifig an Aire Oideachais agus dona Vótaí Bunoideachais, Meánoideachais, Gairmoideachais agus Árdoideachais i mbliana:
Vóta 29, Oifig an Aire Oideachais, £35,143,000;
|
Vóta |
30, |
Bunoideachas, |
|
£190,570,000; |
||
|
Vóta |
31, |
Meánoideachas, |
|
£134,347,000; |
||
|
Vóta |
32, |
Gairmoideachas, |
|
£82,221,000; |
||
|
Vóta |
34, |
Árdoideachas, |
|
£54,568,000. |
I do not believe there is anything on Vote No. 35.
We will be coming to it at the end.
Cuireadh na máideanna breise seo ar fáil le meastacháin fhorlíontacha:
Vóta 34, Árdoideachas, An cháad Meastachán Forlíontach, £205,000; An dara Meastachán Forlíontach, £4,039,000.
The Minister is dealing with Vote No. 35. The National Gallery.
Seo iad na míideanna breise a theastaíonn anois:
Vóta 29, Oifig an Aire Oideachais, an chád Meastachán Forlíontach i suim £5,080,000, a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £40,223,000.
Vóta 30, Bunoideachas, an cháad Meastachán Forlíontach i suim £13,620,000, a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £204,190,000.
Vóta 31, Meánoideachas, an cháad Meastachán Forlíontach i suim £4,623,000, a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £138,970,000.
Vóta 32, Gairmoideachas, an cháad Meastachán Forlíontach i suim £5,778,000, a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £87,999,000.
Vóta 34, Árdoideachas, an tríú Meastachán Forlíontach i suim £3,935,000, a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £62,747,000.
Is é an t-iomlán atá á iarraidh anois ná £33,036,000. Agus leis an máid bhreise seo, chomh maith leis an £4,244,000 a cuireadh leis an Vóta Árdoideachais cheana, tagann an mór-iomlán glan atá á sholáthar do na Vótaí Oideachais imbliana go dtí £536,318,000. Seo é an méid is mó airgid a cuireadh ar fáil do na seirbhísí oideachais ariamh; is ionann é agus méadú de 21.3 faoin gcéad ar an soláthar a deineadh anuraidh. Ní beag mar éacht é sin, agus léiríonn sé go bhfuil sé ina rún daingean ag an Rialtas an toideachas is fearr is féidir, i gcomhriar lenár n-acmhainní, a chur ar fáil.
Seo iad na rudaí is mó is cúis leis an éileamh iomlán de £33,036,000 atá á dhéanamh sna meastacháin fhorlíontacha seo:
Baineann £9,847,600 le costais bhreise tuarastail agus pá a éiríonn as feidhmiú an chéad chuid den Dara Chomhthuiscint Náisiúnta i leith Forbairt Eacnamaíochta agus Shóisialta agus as socruithe eile ar glacadh leo de bharr idir-réitigh is eadrána, agus fós le méaduithe sna cioníocaíochta leasa shóisialaigh a thuiteann ar an bhfostuitheoir faoín scéim síntiús de réir pá. Baineann £9,351,000 leis an dámhachtain pá a fuair na múinteoirí le deireannas.
Tá £9,250,000 ann i leith cuspóirí chaipitil. Chomh maith leis an méid sin, tá £2,435,000 breise á chur ar fáil do Chiste na nIasacht Áitiúil chun cur ar chumas coistí gairmoideachais dul ar aghaidh le beartais bhreise chaipitil. Mar sin tá iomlán breise caipitil de £11,685,000 á chur ar fáil: ina choinne sin meastar go mbeidh sábháltais chaipitil de £185,000 ar an Vóta i leith ionaid chónaithe agus scoileanna speisialta. Ba mhaith liom focal nó dhó eile a rá faoin soláthar chaipitil seo. Ach an bhreis atá á iarraidh anois a chur leis an £48 milliúin a soláthraíodh cheana, tá iomlán de £59,500,000 airgid chaipitil á chur ar fáil imbliana, méadú 16.6 faoin gcéad ar sholáthar na bliana 1979. Tá freagra annsin ar na daoine a bhí ag maíomh go raibh tógáil scoileanna beagnach ina stad. Imbliana, deineadh conarthaí i leith 70 scol, idir bunscoileanna agus meánscoileanna, agus h-iarradh tairiscintí i leith 106 beartas eile tógála. Is teist é sin ar an saothar atá curtha i gcrích againn imbliana. Tá £4,420,100 breise ag teastáil do na seirbhísí taistil: baineann an fuíollach de £438,300 le cuspóirí ilghnéitheacha.
Seo iad na mionsonraí:
Vóta 29: Oifig an Aire Oideachais
Tá suim bhreise de £96,000 ag teastáil faoí fho-mhírcheann A.1 in aghaidh costas na bliana seo den chomhthuiscint náisiúnta. Iarrtar £138,000 breise faoí fho-mhírcheann D.8, don chuspóir chéanna, i leith cúntóirí chléireachais sna scoileanna náisiúnta agus na meánscoileanna. Ní mór an deontas-i-gcabhair i leith imeachtaí cultúrtha, eolaíochta agus oideachasúla a mhéadú de £11,400, ar mhaithe le Leabharlann Chester Beatty. Iarrtar suim bhreise de £6,200 d'Acadamh Ríoga Ceoil na hÉireann freisin, faoí fho-mhírcheann G.2, chomh maith le £12,000 faoí G.4 d'Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann. Cuimsíonn an £12,000 seo dhá rud — £4,000 don Chomhthuiscint Náisiúnta agus £8,000 chun siollabais nua i dteangacha Eorpacha a thabhairt isteach sna scoileanna iarbhunoideachais ar bhonn trialach.
Tá suim bhreise de £4,240,100 á lorg i leith costais reatha na seirbhísí iompair scoile (fo-mhírcheann D.3). Tá an méid breise seo ag teastáil chun arduithe i gcostais na seirbhísí iompair a ghlanadh, agus chun a chinntiú nach mbeidh aon isliú ar leibhéal na seirbhísí seo imbliana.
Éiríonn na costais bhreise seo as méaduithe móra, thar mar bhí coinne leo, i gcostais iompair i gcoitinne ar a n-áirítear praghasanna peitril, ola diesel, boinn, agus páirteanna eile cárrannaí, luach saothair agus an iliomad rudaí eile atá san áireamh i gcostas na séirbhísí iompair scoile. Deineadh méadú de 19.5 faoin gcéad, chomh maith, ar an ráta a íoctar le conraitheoirí príobháideacha iompair as seirbhísí scoile a chur ar fáil le h-éifeacht ó 1 Lúnasa 1980.
Tá £155,000 eile ag teastáil faoí fhó-mhírcheann A.2. Tá £90,000 de seo ann chun rátaí feabhsaithe liúntas taistil agus aíochta a íoc, agus £70,000 i leith rudaí ilghnéitheacha eile; os a gcoinne sin tá sábháltas beag de £5,000 ar chostais oiliúna fóirne, ar an ábhar gur bhain líon níos lú den fhoirinn leas as na cúrsaí oiliúna ná mar a measadh.
Tá £283,000 bhreise ag teastáil do na tochailtí seandálaíochta atá ar siúl ar shuíomh Oifigí Chathardha Bhaile Átha Cliath ar Ché an Adhmaid (fómhírcheann F.3). Tá £14,300 eile riachtanach faoí fhó-mhírcheann E.1 i leith ceannach leabhar agus eile don Leabharlann Náisiúnta agus £4,000 faoí fhó-mhírcheann F.2 i leith ceannach fearas agus ábhar eile don mhusaem.
Tá soláthar breise de £100,000 déanta faoí fhó-mhírcheann G.3 i leith scéim nua deontas chun cabhrú le himreoirí óga i scoileanna agus i gcumainn chun camáin a cheannach. Bunaíodh an scéim seo i bhfeidhmiú na geallúna a thug an tAire Airgeadais, ina óráid ar an gcáinfhaisnéis, go gcuirfí £100,000 ar fáil i leith ceannach camán do dhaoine óga. Bhí mo Roinn i gcomhairle le Cumann Luthchleas Gael i ndréachtadh na scéime: bainfidh sí freisin le Cumann Camógaíocht na nGael. Is é is cuspóir don scéim seo, camáin a chur ar fáil do dhaoine óga ar bheag-chostas, chun nach gcuirfí ó chleachtadh agus ó imirt iomanaíochta agus chamógaíochta iad, ó chluichí oirdhirce náisiúnta na hÉireann, toisc a mhinice is a bhriseann camáin agus a dhaoire is tá siad ag éirí.
Teastaíonn suim bhreise de £7,160,000 faoí fho-mhírcheann C.1 de Vóta 30 i leith tuarastal bun-mhúinteoirí, chun díol as an dámhachtain nua pá a tugadh de thoradh obair an Choiste Athbhreithnithe agus as cuid a haon den chomhthuiscint náisiúnta. Cosnóidh an dámhachtain pá £4,783,000, agus an chomhthuiscint náisiúnta £2,377,000 imbliana.
Tá £345,000 sa bhreis á iarraidh faoí fho-mhírcheann C.9, £35,000 i leith costas chuid a h-aon den chomhthuiscint náisiúnta agus £310,000 i leith tuarastal feighlithe breise a earcaíodh imbliana.
Tá £6,250,000 eile sa bhreis á chur ar fáil i bhfo-mhírcheann E i leith tógáil, gléasadh agus feistiú scoileanna náisiúnta. Meastar go mbeidh sábháltas de £205,000 ar na Deontais Tógála agus Chaipitil do na Coláistí Oiliúna, fo-mhírcheann A.1(2), de bhrí gur cuireadh moill ar leathnú atá á chur le Coláiste Bhantiarna na Trócaire i gCarraig Dhubh. Cuirfear £70,000 de sin in aghaidh costas chuid a h-aon den chomhthuiscint náisiúnta i leith fóirne na gColáistí Oiliúna.
Tá breis-mheíd £2,800,000 ag teastáil don dámhachtain nua pá i gcás na meanmhúinteoirí, agus £1,425,000 eile chun costas na comhthuisceana náisiúnta a íoc. Mar sin, tá iomlán breise de £4,225,000 i gceist i bhfo-mhírcheann B de Vóta 31 le haghaidh Meanoideachais. I gcás na múinteoirí sna scoileanna coimsitheacha agus pobail is é an t-iomlán atá ag teastáil don dámhachtain pá agus don chomhthuiscint náisiúnta, faoí fho-mhírcheann H.1 de Vóta 31, ná £498,000. Meastar go mbeidh sábháltais de £100,000 ar fáil i bhfo-mhírcheann A.2 den Vóta seo.
Tá iomlán breise de £4,669,000 á iarraidh faoí fho-mhírcheann A de Vóta 32, don Ghairmoideachas. Tá an méid seo ag teastáil chun íoc as an dámhachtain nua pá do ghairm-mhúinteoirí, ar chostas measta de £1,596,000, agus as an gcomhthuiscint náisiúnta ar chostas measta de £1,220,000. Tá méadú maith ceadaithe ar an ráta pá a íoctar le múinteoirí páirtaimsire, agus meastar go gcosnóidh sé sin £436,000 sa bhliain airgeadais seo. Méaduithe eile pá a ghnóthuigh oifigigh na gcoistí gairmoideachais i rith na bliana, trén scéim idir-réitigh agus eadrána, cosnóidh siad £1,228,000 imbliana. Baineann fuíollach an airgid iomláin bhreise atá á iarraidh le rudaí ilghnéitheacha ar nós arduithe i ranníoca leasa shóisíalaigh na bhfostuitheoir faoín gcóras Sintiús de réir Pá, agus méaduithe sna liúntais taistil agus aíochta.
Tá £10,000 breise ag teastáil faoí fho-mhírcheann B chun na méaduithe tuarastail faoín gcomhthuiscint náisiúnta a íoc le foirne na gColáistí Oiliúna. Meastar costas na méaduithe a fuair foirne na gceárd-choláistí réigiúnach, idir an chomhthuiscint náisiúnta agus socruithe eile pá a ghnóthaíodh trén scéim idir-réitigh agus eadrána, ag £948,000. Tá soláthar á dhéanamh ina leith seo faoí fho-mhírcheann H.1. Meastar go mbeidh suim bhreise de £23,000 riachtanach do na scrúdúcháin faoi fho-mhírcheann E, i leith méaduithe sna liúntais taistil agus aíochta don chuid is mó.
Tá trí cinn de na ceárd-choláistí réi-giúnacha á leathnú i láthair na huaire agus meastar go mbeidh costas breise de £115,000 le n-íoc ina leith, thar mar a soláthraíodh, toisc arduithe i gcostais tógála i gcoitinne. Tá soláthar breise déanta do seo i bhfo-mhírcheann H.2. Meastar go bheidh easpa de £13,000 ins na Faltais-i-gCabhair, agus tá an méid sin á iarraidh chun an bhearna sin a dhúnadh.
Faoi fho-mhírcheann A.1 de Vóta 34, don Ardoideachas, tá suim £6,000 riachtanach chun na méaduithe faoín gcomhthuiscint náisiúnta a íoc le foirinn an Údaráis um Ardoideachas. Ní mó na deontais a thugann an tÚdarás do na Coláistí Ollscoile agus d'Institiúidí Ainmnithe Ardoideachais a mhéadú, chun cur ar a gcumas an chomhthuiscint náisiúnta a chur in éifeacht sna hinsti-tiúidí sin, agus tá soláthar breise de £1,018,000 á dhéanamh i bhfo-mhírcheann A.2 chuige sin. Tá suim bhreise de £2,885,000 ag teastáil d'oibreacha chaipitil faoí fho-mhírcheann A.3, chun íoc as na beartais tógála atá ar siúl sna coláistí ollscoile, in Institiúid Náisiúnta Ardoideachais Bhaile Átha Cliath agus sa Choláiste Náisiúnta Ealaíne is Deartha.
Chun na méaduithe faoin gcomhthuiscint náisiúnta a íoc le foirne Ospidéal Fiaclóireachta Bhaile Átha Cliath agus Institiúid Ard-léinn Bhaile Átha Cliath, ní mó soláthar breise de £11,000 i bhfo-mhírcheann B agus de £15,000 i bhfo-mhírcheann E, faoi seach, a dhéanamh.
Tá suim bhreise de £55,000 á lorg sa Vóta 35 don Ghailearaí Náisiúnta. Tá suim £47,000 á lorg faoí fho-mhírcheann A chun na costais bhreise a éiríonn as árduithe pá a ghlanadh. Tá £9,000 ag teastáil i leith caiteachais bhreise i bhfo-mhírcheann B, ar chostaisí taistil agus ar mhionchostaisí, lúide sábháltais de £1,000 ar fho-mhírcheann C.
Cuirim na Meastacháin Fhorlíontacha seo os comhair na Dála dá réir sin agus iarraim go nglacfaí leo.
This may or may not be the last occasion on which we will be able to discuss the Education Estimate in this House under this Government. Even so we are restricted in what we can say. Therefore, in the time allotted to me I intend to take three or four items and discuss them in depth rather than range over the totality of the Department's activities, or inactivity. The first item I should like to discuss is the school transport service. The original sum provided was £16 million and that represented a reduction of £500,000 on the 1975 estimate. That is a clear indication that the Minister and the Government were thinking seriously of drastically reducing the service or instituting a charge for that service. In the course of the year my fears in relation to the school bus service were realised.
On 12 May 1980 a statement was issued on behalf of the Minister indicating major changes in the regulations governing the provision of school transport. Very briefly I will go through the changes which then were indicated positively. In relation to the primary school sector, the number of eligible children necessary for the establishment of a school transport service was increased from ten to 12. Children over nine years of age must have at least three miles, whereas the age limit had been ten before that. Children between four and five years may not be taken into account for the purpose of establishing a service. In relation to post-primary children, the number of eligible children required for the establishment of a school transport service was increased to 15 and the eligibility for free transport was four miles as opposed to the three then ruling. The fares for fare-paying passengers were increased by £1.50 per car. That was, and I suggest is, an indication of the Minister's attitude towards the school transport scheme.
That statement caused a tremendous furore and many protests, both in this House and by way of public statements by the Fine Gael Party. Subsequently, because of the public pressure which was put on the Minister, that statement was pigeonholed, withdrawn, forgotten, whatever word you like to use. There have been suggestions that a petition was brought up among the back-benchers in the Fianna Fáil Party and that the present Minister damn well nearly lost his office because of the moves he had made.
We are now in a mythology section.
Dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi, mar a dúirt sé.
I do not think that there is anything in the Estimates about mythology, but what harm?
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should address that remark to the Minister. However, the changes were, I can only say, suspended. I do not think that they were withdrawn. Current rumours are that it is intended to introduce an across-the-board charge for the school bus scheme. The Fine Gael Party will resist any introduction of charges for the use of the school bus scheme for students who have enjoyed the free scheme up to now. The last Coalition Government sought a report from consultants and that report became available towards the end of 1973 and became known as the Hyland Report. On a number of occasions spokesmen for the Fianna Fáil Party have taunted the Fine Gael Party, and I suppose the Labour Party as well, for seeking a report on school transport services. It is the duty of any Minister to ensure that the services he provides are efficient and run properly. Therefore, a consultants' report was a necessary examination of a scheme in the Department. Any suggestions to the contrary are ill-founded.
The suggestions in the report are a different matter and they would await a political decision. In 1976, 154,500 pupils availed of the service at a cost of over £9 million. In 1980 I am sure the numbers have increased but the cost has more than doubled and it is now £20,420,100, and Hyland suggested that by 1986 the cost of running the school bus scheme would be nearly £30 million. That may have been at 1976 costs. Therefore, there is no doubt that the school bus scheme has been expensive to operate.
However, it is and must be seen as a great social agent in the education process. Many children living in isolated areas in rural Ireland and perhaps in many towns and villages throughout the country would not be able to avail of an education at primary or post-primary level were it not for that school bus service. The changes proposed by the Minister last May struck at the very root of people who are deserving of the free bus scheme, that is those people who live in isolated areas. It is at those people that the Minister's proposed changes were directed. That, to my mind, is an extremely anti-social method of tackling any reform in the school bus scheme. The scheme also is a necessary adjunct to compulsory schooling for people living in isolated areas, yet it was and may again be the intention to strike at these people by making it extremely difficult for them to attend and avail of the school bus service.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister on sound educational grounds and on grounds of social equality to ensure that the school bus service is not reduced in quality and that people living in isolated areas, especially people living furthest from schools, are not affected adversely by any changes proposed in the school transport scheme. If the Minister is going to introduce a fare-paying system it is going to be extremely expensive to administer it. I ask him not to change the school bus service as it operates at present and to ensure that those living in isolated rural areas are allowed to avail of the service free of charge.
This year many representations have been made to me about children living in what are known as the boundary catchment areas who have been attending a school in one centre and who all of a sudden, because of a very strict interpretation of regulations — and the Minister assured me in this House that no direction had gone out from his Department and that no changes had been made in the administration of the system — were whipped off the school bus service to that school and made go to a new school simply because they were on the boundary of a catchment area. I contend that children who are attending school in one centre, irrespective of what interpretation is put on the catchment boundary area, should not be forced to leave a school they have attended for a number of years. If there is to be a strict interpretation let it apply to children who are only beginning to go to primary school or beginning secondary school, and if there is a continuation from the primary to the secondary cycle in the same school the children there should not be changed. This year quite a number of children throughout the country were forced to change schools. On an educational basis that is very bad and I am sure the Minister does not agree with it. I appeal to him in relation to the boundary catchment areas not to interfere with children going to a school for a number of years but to leave them to continue attending that school so as not to affect their education, otherwise I contend that he would be making a bad decision educationally.
A second matter which I would like to discuss relates to the salaries of the teachers and I want to refer in a reasonable way to the recent recommendations of the review body in this area. I believe that up to now the teachers in our schools have been badly paid vis-à-vis their professional status and the responsibility they have. The time scale referred to in paragraph 2.8 of the Review Body on Teachers' Pay Interim Report was too long and it would take up to 36 years' service in a school before a teacher would reach the maximum of his scale.
That seems extremely unfair and I am glad the Minister treated this problem rather favourably. There is an aspect of the matter to which I would like to refer and it is in paragraph 2.6 of the report. It is an interim report and can be changed at the final stages. I am quoting from that interim report which says:
The salary we recommend will, we believe, correct those inadequacies but we would emphasise that the salary so recommended is justifiable only if it is overtly recognised that supervision, substitution, parent contact and pastoral care are integral parts of the teaching function and essential to the proper running of a school.
As Fine Gael spokesman on education I agree with that attitude and agree with the approach adopted in the interim report. When the final report comes to hand I would hope the Minister would be able to treat this problem, which he ignored when he finally dealt with the interim pay proposals.
I am somewhat disturbed to note in the same paragraph:
From the evidence presented to us we are concerned that the quality of school service is not being fully maintained at present.
This can only be seen I think as an indictment of the Minister, perhaps of his Department and perhaps of the managerial bodies involved in running schools and perhaps even an indictment of the teachers themselves. That statement in the report is a serious statement.
I do not want to dwell too much on this aspect now because I accept to an extent that the matter is sub judice in that we are awaiting a final report of the review body but let it be understood clearly that the Fine Gael Party support the approach taken by the review body in relation to the involvement of teachers in the running, in the pastoral care concept and in the management of schools as well as in matters of substitution, parent contact and supervision. I hope that when the final report is published these matters will be tackled by all parties involved in this very important and complex area.
I do not wish to go into the question of qualification allowances and other allowances and the A and B posts of responsibility nor do I want to deal with payment in respect of examinations because these are matters of current negotiation and also await recommendations in the final report. I am merely setting a tone as far as the Fine Gael Party are concerned and I hope the Minister will be responsible enough in tackling the question of teachers' pay, conditions of work, responsibilities at work in a positive and open manner and that he will take this opportunity to resolve the question of the professional status of teachers at this time. It needs to be tackled and if that is done now we could, perhaps, look forward to a considerable period of progress and perhaps enlightened progress in the development of education services. Part of that would also be the establishment of An Comhairle Mhúinteoireachta. Again I ask the Minister to examine this possibility at a very early date.
There is the question of in-service training of teachers and granting of leave of absence for that purpose. I firmly believe there is need for greater emphasis on in-service training and I ask the Minister to examine the matter in the course of the next year. In a policy on education which I had the pleasure of publishing on behalf of Fine Gael the problem of teacher assessment procedures was tackled in a very positive way. Again this has not been tackled by the present Minister to any great extent to my knowledge. There is an undeniable need to introduce a system of continuous assessment, certainly in the primary sector where there is need, not for re-introduction of an examination at the end of primary school but need to introduce an assessment procedure which would allow a child to be assessed in say the fourth or fifth year of the primary cycle to ensure that the pupil is getting the benefit of the education services provided. That is important.
At second level, certainly in the junior cycle, the question of assessment procedure should also be an important element in the education scheme. In the senior cycle there is room for the establishment of such a procedure. Also, there is need for a radical re-assessment of our school curricula. The new curriculum in our primary schools for the past ten years needs to be re-assessed and perhaps updated. We certainly failed in not giving sufficient teachers' aids to ensure full implementation of that curriculum as originally envisaged. There is now need to look at that system to see how effective it has been.
There is also a radical need to re-assess the curricula in post-primary schools to ensure that they are relevant as regards subject content and subject availability. Great stress has been laid recently on the need for practical type subjects to be made available so that children can have available subjects with a direct relation to the working place. In many schools, perhaps especially in girls' schools, the curricula available are not relevant to the employment potential of girls. Many scientific subjects and technical subjects are not available in girls' schools and because of that they are subsequently limited in their career opportunities. That is unfortunate. Therefore, I ask for the establishment of an independent curriculum and examination code which would involve experts in education and educationalists and give them an important say in the structure of curricula, subject content, subject availability, and in the question of equality of access to various careers, and which would also tackle this awful question of the points system at leaving certificate stage. There is a very good case to be made for having an examination after the leaving certificate. If that were done the leaving certificate could be a proper examination to test the general aptitude and abilities of a child. The examination after the leaving certificate could be used for entry into university.
I should like to speak about the regionalisation of education and devolution of the administration of education from the Department to local educational committees. There should be an attempt to regionalise the administration of education in order to break what has been called the monolithic grip of the Department on the system and which is detrimental to the development of a progressive educational service.
There is a tremendous disparity in the salaries of those who lecture in universities and in non-university sector. This is a matter of serious concern. Where it can be proved that the work of lecturers and heads of Departments is comparable with that carried out by their counterparts in universities, there is a responsibility on the Minister to tackle the matter before there is serious unrest in the non-university sector.
I must castigate the Minister for not playing a proper role in preserving the Wood Quay site. I realise this is not directly an educational matter but he provides the funds. For a man so involved with American visits showing the treasures of Ireland and one who is so apparently committed to culture, it is to his discredit that he did not become more publicly involved in the preservation of the Wood Quay site. We have lost an ideal opportunity to preserve one of the most historic sites in western Europe which could have been used also as an environmental model in the centre of Dublin. Offices for workers in Dublin Corporation were needed but they could have been provided in an area where they would not cause serious traffic congestion. They would have had a beneficial effect from the point of view of the environment if they had been built outside the choked-up and congested centre of Dublin. In many respects the Minister has not done badly but in relation to Wood Quay I am sorry to say he has failed. As far as I am concerned he has failed to carry out his duties although he has professed himself to be devoted to cultural activities.
I wish to state that I propose to give the last five minutes of the time allotted to me to Deputy John Ryan. I should like to issue a stern warning to the public not to be deceived by the blandishments of the Minister for Education into believing that all is well. He has come to the House this afternoon with a sack of goodies over his shoulder lacking only the red cloak and the long white beard. However, the Santa Claus image he is attempting to portray is not borne out by the facts. When he listens, as he must, to the chorus of complaints from the schools and educational institutions, which reaches my ears and I am sure the ears of Deputy Collins, we must wonder if the sense of security which he exudes is in accordance with reality. I would argue he is less like Santa Claus than Alice in Wonderland.
In his speech the Minister mentioned the increase in the Estimates during the year, including the Supplementary Estimate. He stated:
...brings the total net amount provided for the Education group of Votes to £536,318,000. This is the greatest amount ever spent on the education services and represents an increase of 21.3 per cent over the amount provided in 1979. This is no mean achievement and is an indication of the commitment of the Government to provide the best possible education commensurate with our means.
Of course it is the greatest amount ever spent. Heaven help us if it were not. We have an inflation rate of between 18 per cent and 20 per cent and it is obvious even apart from inflation that there would have to be an increase in money terms. The Minister may argue that an increase of 21.3 per cent involves an increase in real terms even allowing for inflation. That is true but we must remember that a substantial proportion of the Vote is accounted for by teachers' salaries. The Minister has been successful to some degree in getting extra money for teachers and I am not going to blame or criticise him when he gets extra money for teachers. However, I will blame him and criticise him if he uses the extra money which teachers have got for themselves through their industrial bargaining and muscle to conceal the real problems that remain in many of the other subheads of the Vote which have been cut, pegged or only marginally increased. I will deal with these in more detail as I deal with the Votes.
First, I should like to put on the record of the House that not one red ha'penny of the £536 million has been used to produce a White Paper. One would have hoped that a few shillings of that sum, a few hours of the Minister's time, would have been spared to give us a White Paper on education if not by the time it was originally promised — the end of last year — at least by the 17 December deadline as promised in the national understanding. The failure of the Minister and the Government to deliver the White Paper is treating the national understanding and the partners to that understanding with contempt. We are given to understand that the White Paper will be out on Friday. About that I say it marks nothing more than a continuation of a long and ignoble tradition practised by governments of all hues in this House that documents that are embarrassing, and which governments and Ministers wish to see buried are issued very conveniently on the eve of public holidays.
The Deputy is talking about the British House of Commons.
The Minister may not recall that the OECD Report on Investment in Education was issued on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve, 1965. I know of other documents and reports that were issued in the last days of July. I will modify my criticism only if the Minister in his reply gives a guarantee that Government time will be given after the recess for a debate on the White Paper and its implications so that all Deputies, not least Fianna Fáil back-benchers, will have an opportunity of debating the matter here in the right fashion. It is not an exaggeration to say that the negotiators on the national understanding found it easier to extract percentage points in salary from the Ministers for Finance and for the Public Service than to extract anything from the Minister for Education, and his delay in delivering on existing promises is sad evidence of that.
I understand that, in relation to the matters connected with the recent pay agreement between himself and the various managerial and teacher organisation, some difficulty arose in calculating, in a very short space of time, exactly how many teachers were on each point of the scale. It was thought that they would be paid in January by way of arrears, rather than immediatly following the conclusion of that agreement. I understand that several, if not all, vocational education committees who have the necessary information to pay the increases immediately are doing so and, as a result will be in overdraft by the end of the year. I should like the Minister's assurance that any action of this kind by vocational educational committees will be underwritten by him.
Could I ask the Deputy to repeat what he said about the vocational educational committees?
I understand that some vocational education committees are in a position to calculate, earlier than is the case for other teachers, the extra amount payable to these teachers under the recent salary agreement and are paying it currently, rather than waiting until January, when it will be paid in arrears. That is the situation, as I understand it. If the Minister is not aware of this, I shall not press the point.
I understand that it is being paid now.
To all teachers?
Yes.
If it is being paid to all teachers, the point does not arise.
That is my understanding.
I was given to understand that in relation to secondary teachers, for example——
Somebody is misinforming the Deputy.
——it might not be paid until January. In relation to the Votes, there are one or two points that I should like to draw to the attention of the House. When one has made allowances for salaries and looks at some of the increases and compares them — and this is important — with the figure for 1979, one will see that even the increases being brought forward by this Minister in some of these subheads are not sufficient to bring these subheads even up to the 1979 levels or to the 1979 levels adjusted for inflation.
Take GI, for example, which is a grant-in-aid fund for cultural, scientific and educational activities. This shows an extra sum of £11,400 which will increase the original estimate of £135,000 to £146,400. However, last year the grant under this subhead was £147,000, so that even the Minister's largesse this year has failed to bring that subhead up to the 1979 figure. Let us look also at subhead G3, grant-in-aid fund for youth and sports organisations. The Minister is providing for hurleys, £100,000 to be added on to the original 1980 estimate of £1,392,000. However the 1980 original estimate itself was £12,000 below what was provided for this area in 1979. If one takes the original 1979 figure and indexes it for inflation, one will arrive at a figure of £1,670,000 which is the best part of £200,000 more than the Minister is giving with all the supplementary estimates.
In relation to primary education capital costs, one point is worth commenting on. The increase here is substantial, there is no doubt about that. Yet, we have been told by the Minister himself and by the INTO that the number of sanctions for primary schools new buildings and extensions showed a very sharp decrease in the first nine months of 1980 over the same period of the previous year and, indeed almost any previous year in recent years. The only possible conclusion one can draw from this is that the Minister savagely cut the capital allocation for primary school building and extensions this year in order the better to be able to release a flourish of money from now until the general election, in the hope that the £s spilling out of his pocket will blind people to the fact that they have had nothing for months and years beforehand.
Everybody knows about this general election except myself.
Well, the Minister's innocence becomes him.
My innocence helps in a wicked world.
I certainly can see no other reason for that. In relation to capital, the Minister notes that the extra provision — and he is talking not just about primary schools but about all schools — together with the £48 million already provided, gives a total capital budget of £59½ million, an increase of 16.6 per cent compared with 1979.
Great, is it not?
It is the answer to those people — and I am still quoting — who have stated that the building of schools has been practically stopped.
We all know that the cost of building has gone up by far more than the cost of inflation generally, because of the very large wage component in it. That is one spy-glass for looking at the 16.6 figure. The Minister is also aware that, in its recent report the National Economic and Social Council calculated — and as far as I know the Minister did not dissent from its finding — that the cutback in the capital programme for education amounted to the best part of 20 per cent.
That is a totally unscientific conclusion, as I will tell the Deputy in my reply.
I am very interested to hear the Minister say that. The Government have appointed representatives to the National Economic and Social Council who are more than capable of dissenting — as, indeed, were the Irish Congress of Trade Unions — from various parts of that report and this is the first instance that we have heard of this figure being queried.
I am querying the scientific basis.
Deputy Horgan, without interruptions, please.
I apologise.
The Minister is saying that the turnaround involved in his extra capital funds being provided is of the order of 36.6 per cent and I find that inconceivable. There is a figure wrong somewhere and I would prefer to believe the NESC rather than the Minister.
The NESC have drawn the wrong conclusion.
In relation to secondary education, the main points to be noted are those which are not included there, and about which representations have been made to me and, I am sure, to the Minister concerned. I do not think that anyone in that area would be fooled by what the Minister is providing.
In relation to vocational education, is the Minister satisfied, even now, with the amount being paid, £816,000 for training of teachers and £115,000 for extensions or the £2 million-odd for the specialist training teaching colleges is still enough to meet the serious shortage of teachers of these subjects? The Minister is well aware that, despite the extra money being put into the training of specialist teachers, they are still as scarce as gold dust around the country. He will also be aware that the introduction of the three-year course, of which we all are in favour in this House, is leading to a situation in which, in 1982 no teacher of metalwork or woodwork will come out from a training college so that there will be an extra year's backlog added on to the situation which has schools absolutely screaming out for these teachers. Here is an area, if anything, where we should have had even more money than we have at the moment.
In relation to higher education, on the evidence of the Minister's own speech this is something like the third supplementary estimate for higher education which we have had this year and we have had many detailed votes for the various third-level institutions.
Debate adjourned.