Deputy O'Rourke is in possession and has 29 minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - School Bus Charges: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy H. Byrne on Tuesday, 15 February 1983:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to ensure that no child is denied the righ to education because of the imposition of school bus charges.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"approves of the arrangements made by the Government for the continued operation of the School Transport Service within the limits imposed by the provision made for this service in the Estimates for the Public Services, 1983."
—(Minister of State at the Department of Education.)
I had just commenced last evening when time expired and I had said that I accepted fully the Minister of State's statement that it had not been the intention of the Government that any child would be denied the right to education because of school transport charges. But I said also that it was a fact that there were children being denied, or about to be denied, that right, particularly in respect of secondary school education because of the imposition of these school bus charges.
I should like to extend, as one woman to another and, indeed, as one friend to another, my congratulations to the Minister on her appointment. Anything I shall say here this evening will not be directed in any personal manner to the present incumbent of that office. Rather it will be directed to the Minister for Education and the policies now being pursued by the present Government and I know they will be accepted in that light. On a personal note, I might say that the Minister and I shared the same secondary school for some period of our lives. In that light I should like to put it to her that we were lucky enough to receive the education we did and that there is a very great onus on us both, she in her present office and I as a very humble backbencher of the Opposition Party to put forward the educational views I represent.
The Minister of State at the Department of Education informed us yesterday evening — and we hear it constantly — that the imposition of the school bus charges was contained in the Book of Estimates the present Government inherited. I should like to put the record straight in this respect and say that it was under consideration in the Book of Estimates the present Government inherited. I should like to put that fact very clearly. We published our Estimates and put them to the electorate. In their wisdom, or perhaps non-wisdom, as may be proved later on, the electorate chose not to accept the Fianna Fáil Party and their programme. Instead, they chose an alternative Government. I contend very strongly that it is now up to the Minister for Education and the Government, that it is their policy not ours. I never heard of a party who came into power and said, "Oh, yes, we are wearing your shirt, that is the shirt we are going to wear". Surely they must don their own clothes now. I might add also that the consideration of these Estimates has led to a considerable input by all concerned in our party, both front and back benchers, particularly from Deputies with a rural base or bias. There is no doubt that the imposition of school transport charges — and I know this will be denied strenuously by the Minister when replying — will be most definitely detrimental and discriminatory for the rural schoolgoer.
We have a long tradition of education in Ireland. I hear people say now, "Why can Johnny and Mary not walk to school like their father or grandfather did in years gone by?" That may be all very well but we must remember that when Johhny's or Mary's father or grandfather was going to school there were not gigantic, Euro-haul lorries scuttling along the roads of Counties Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath or, indeed on all our roads. We are living in a far different age, in an age of speed, transport and dangers of all kinds. It just is not possible to say, "Let Johnny and Mary do as their father or grandfather did 20, 30 or 40 years ago". Travelling to Dublin in the car one day listening to a radio programme I heard one listener ring in with this point of view. Certainly such a proposal is not tenable in the light of modern day traffic conditions.
To revert to the way these school transport charges were announced, I suppose the Minister did the right thing by taking the plunge, as she saw it, giving out the unpalatable facts straight out. But they were announced in a very arbitrary fashion. Whether or not it was the intention of the Department of Education one cannot say but most certainly grave misapprehension built up amongst people. They felt that the entitlement of the medical card holders' children extended to junior and senior cycles. Perhaps it was misconstrued by those who listened to the radio or read the papers, but the impression given was that children of parents holding medical cards would travel free on the buses throughout the system. As we all know that is not so, they are not free at the junior cycle, they are free at the senior cycle.
I think it was The Irish Times' esteemed education columnist last week who contacted Professor A. Dale Tussing in America who, as the House knows, wrote that explosive document in 1978 entitled Irish Educational Expenditures—Past, Present and Future about what we are now facing, the huge burden that education would be on the taxpayer's back, on all our backs in Ireland in the early eighties and throughout the eighties until the demographic situation sorted itself out again; until, if you like, the population bulge evened out. He expressed himself surprised that the charges had been imposed at the junior rather than at the senior cycle. It is just a point I throw out. It seems like a reversed situation. Education in Ireland is compulsory until the age of 15. That means that most children pass on to a secondary or vocational school at the age of about 12 or 13. According to whatever school they are attending they have then a three or four year cycle, three years to group certificate and four years to intermediate certificate. That is the very period during which access to education should be as free as possible because it is compulsory. I fail to see the logic, justice or equity in imposing a charge on children who, in effect, must go to school.
Perhaps if you like I should declare myself here: I was a secondary school teacher and I am a parent. None of those things makes me any way specially equipped to contribute to an education debate but perhaps it does mean that in the educational sphere I can talk about specific cases, with becoming modesty I hope, in that I know what I am talking about. I used to teach in a rural secondary school some three miles from Athlone, with a very large catchment area and a growing student population, now somewhat over 600 which is fairly considerable in a rural secondary school. I have consulted the principal, vice-principal and indeed all concerned in that school on many of the things I shall say. Therefore I know I am correct in my facts and I hope they will be accepted as such.
The Minister of State did say that nobody would be denied the right to education. I have three or four cases of young people whose parents have been in touch with me and told me exactly what their household outgoings are, as well as their monetary intake. Far from this new imposition being half the price of a packet of crisps, which was not a very appropriate comment, it is the straw which will break the back of these parents. These charges were bad enough on 23 December but they assume even graver importance in the context of the budget. The take-home pay of most people will be affected and the increase in VAT rates will be widely felt. It is against this background that the school transport charges must be considered. It also appears that fees for the intermediate and leaving certificates are to be increased from £20 to £30.
We have also heard with great regret of the requirement that a student must have two honours to qualify for a VEC scholarship to a regional technical college. I have asked the CEO of the local vocational educational committee, of which I am a member, to do a survey of the students who entered Athlone RTC to ascertain how many would have been able to do so had the two honour requirement existed. I know that at least half of them would not have qualified because they would not have obtained two honours. I am introducing this matter to the debate even though I know it is not entirely relevant.
I have mentioned these special cases and I will give the Minister the details. Unless these people received supplementary welfare benefits it would not be possible for them to pay the fees. These are specific cases and I am sure that every Deputy could cite similar cases. I know we are living in times of economic pressure when everybody must tighten the belt but I submit that education is not an area where this can be done. I know that one cannot see an immediate return from expenditure on education but in future years we will pay a heavy price if we cut back now. There will certainly be a cutback if the school transport charges are imposed in full.
It has been reported in one of the newspapers that the Minister is considering the setting up of a review body to look at the cuts in education. If this is so, there should be a termination date in April or May, well before the start of the school holidays, so that parents will know where they stand. These charges were announced in the middle of a school year and people have no option but to pay and to put up with the cuts in remedial teaching and in guidance counselling.
The Minister of State told us that school transport was costing the State £33 million a year. Is this money being spent to the best advantage? Perhaps more children could benefit from school transport over wider areas. I feel that some of the money is not used economically. I hope that the meeting held today between the Minister of State and the association of private bus owners will have some productive outcome.
I heard on television the Minister's comments at the end of the Young Fine Gael seminar in Galway last weekend. She said that no school, even with less than 500 pupils, need be without a guidance teacher. With respect to the Minister, that is most misleading. Of course they may have a guidance teacher but it will mean a diminution of subject choice within a school. This cannot be good either for pupils or teachers. People do not understand this and when they hear a statement such as that made by the Minister they immediately ask what all the fuss is about. It can be blandly stated that there will be a guidance teacher but it will be to the detriment of another subject.
There is also a popular misconception about the pupil-teacher ratio, which has now been increased from 17:1 to 19:1. I taught for 10 or 12 years in a secondary school and I had very few classes of fewer than 25 pupils and sometimes as many as 30. It does not mean that every secondary teacher stands in front of 17 or 19 pupils, except perhaps in odd classes. When one considers subjects such as honours mathematics at senior level, honours history or chemistry and subjects such as art or music, which do not have a wide clientele but which must be on the curriculum of any school aiming to give a good education, one realises that the pupil-teacher ratio is greatly expanded.
There is also the misconception that teachers work only a few hours per week. Even during my public life I have never been as physically and mentally tired as I used to be at the end of a day teaching. Work does not end when a teacher goes home. There may be scripts to correct and a teacher must do preparation and read in order to keep abreast and be in a position to inform and encourage students. Any teacher I have known has also tried to foster a relationship with students.
The Minister of State spoke of the catchment boundary facility and I was very interested because it is a very complex subject. He stated:
Catchment boundary facilities are more complex in that they arise from the conditions of the post-primary transport scheme. For the purposes of this scheme the country is divided up into two areas, each area being served by its own adequate post-primary centre.
To many Members catchment boundary facilities will not mean anything but it means a lot to me because the school I was involved in has a large pupil intake who are now being described as catchment boundary facility pupils. They did not know they would be described as such until they discovered they had to pay £10 on top of the £14. They cannot change school in midstream. They cannot run away from Summerhill College and go back to Ballyforan or Roscommon or wherever they should be. They are attending that school because there may be an affinity towards it. It is not quite the same boundary as a primary school and the Minister of State acknowledged that in his contribution. It is a more complex situation. I hope the Minister will comment on the catchment boundary facilities and tell the House that it is her intention to review this.
I should like to tell the House that Summerhill College in Athlone, if all the pupils opt to go to their own boundary, will lose 70 pupils next September. We cannot ask girls aged between 14 and 17 to leave a secondary school in which they have built up a rapport with their teachers and made friends with fellow students. It would be wrong to ask such a pupil to change midstream. I am proud to be a member of a party that has been associated with many steps forward in education. The late Donogh O'Malley introduced free school transport and following that we had the setting up of the RTCs. I had the honour of serving as chairperson of the board of management of a regional technical college for some years and I am aware of how well they serve areas. They fill a great industrial, commercial and social need for adjoining countries. I was proud to have been associated with that venture by Fianna Fáil. We also had the growth of education in the seventies but the two steps that raised most ire among parents, teachers and students were introduced by Coalition Governments. The proposal to reduce the school entry age was introduced by Deputy John Boland and now the cutbacks—in particular the school transport charges — are being introduced by Deputy Hussey.
The Minister and I were the recipients of a very fine education. We were lucky but I do not think we can deprive anybody of education. Regardless of economic circumstances I do not think we have the right as legislators, as people representing people, to deprive any young boys or girls of an education. I was struck some weeks ago when reading in the business section of The Sunday Times an article by the business editor about a visit he made to Dublin. He dealt with our economic situation and in referring to a walk he took down O'Connell Street he said he was struck by the number of young people who were lively, forward looking and trustful. He said their faces were alive, bright and sharp. I submit they are that way mainly because they have been educated, they have seen, tasted, learned and read and been able to absorb all that education gives. The people we will knock out of education by introducing transport charges are those who should not be knocked out, the people who will become the drop-outs. Many girls will leave secondary school because of that transport charge. It is possible that the environment at home may not be helpful to them continuing in education. In April or September they will say to their mothers that they will not go back to school. Their mothers will say that it is all right if they do not go back. Those girls will be deprived of what would be an enormous advantage to them in later life.
We cannot quantify this. We cannot say that girls would get a job if they had the leaving certificate but we can say that if they were educated they would have the inner resources to cope later. They would have a command of themselves to cope and would have learned of social graces and behaviour and everything that will gear them to cope with the demands and vicissitudes that will come later in life. I know many pupils who were not promising academically, who would not get As and Bs — what do they mean when we add up everything in life — but because they were educated to leaving certificate standard they left school with an inner resourcefulness that enabled them later in life to cope with the harsh realities they had to face. I did not mean to go on for so long but I got carried away. Education is my subject and I was involved in it all my life. What I have said has not been said in rancour but in the guise of offering advice. I plead with the Minister to review the cuts in education particularly in regard to school transport, guidance counsellors and remedial teachers, and see if it is possible to get money to keep the services as they are.
I should like to thank Deputy O'Rourke for her kind remarks and congratulate her on her election to this House. Obviously, she is going to make a significant contribution here. I remember with affection the years when we were at the same school and I can recall cycling several miles to that school in all weather.
The children will be back on their bicycles again very soon.
I should like to refer to a mention by Deputy O'Rourke of the existence of a review body to, according to her, review the cuts in education. It is necessary to make clear that the review body which I referred to is a committee which will examine exceptional circumstances of an individual school. The review body will examine circumstances where, for example, there might be a loss of teachers with a particular combination of subjects that might occur at the same time.
The debate furnishes us with an opportunity to set out the reasons and clarify the situation in respect of the decision taken by the previous Government and subsequently confirmed, subject to some modification, by this Government. It is not inappropriate also that discussion of the various issues involved should take place during the period when the economic and financial state of the nation is being reviewed in the context of the measures introduced in connection with the budget.
The decision to introduce a charge in respect of school transport was not taken in consideration of particular features of the operation of a system in isolation from, or without regard to, the overall general state of available financial resources. The reduction of £5.4 million in the estimate of cost in 1983 of operating the school transport service was one of the measures taken to enable total expenditure to be kept within the limits of the provision contained in the volume of the Estimates for Public Services published on 18 November 1982. I do not believe that Members of Fianna Fáil can claim that they were not aware of the fact that a charge was being introduced in respect of school transport. Members of that party when in Government made the decision, and it would not be unreasonable to assume that some measure of consultation and information took place with the general body of Deputies and Senators.
That is no defence.
Is the Deputy saying that that does not happen in his party?
It is now a matter for the Minister.
To put the matter of information beyond doubt, we have only to refer to the press statement of my predecessor as Minister for Education on the occasion of the publication of the Estimates on 18 November 1982. Yesterday the Minister of State referred to this statement but it seems necessary to repeat an extract from it and make some further observations in regard to it in view of the extraordinary attempt by Deputy Byrne to convey an impression of complete ignorance of the facts of the situation. I will quote as follows from the statement.
What date?
18 November 1982.
I am quoting now from the statement of 18 November 1982 issued to the press by the Minister for Education, Deputy Brady:
There will be no charge introduced for pupils of national schools eligible for free transport in accordance with the school transport regulations. The cost of the scheme for primary and post-primary schools has, however, been growing to such an extent that measures need to be taken in regard to it. Since no alteration is contemplated on the range of the service, the measures required to control cost must involve the introduction of a charge in the case of second level school pupils. Consideration is being given to the question of the arrangements to be made for the implementation of such charge. It is contemplated that such arrangements would take the form of the issue of a season ticket, that there would be a lower rate for junior pupils and that a concession would be made to take account of the circumstances of members of larger families.
Deputy Gerard Brady is an honest and decent man who would say what he meant and mean what he said. He would not indulge in the tactic of subsequently attempting to run away from a decision which he had announced or, to use Deputy Byrne's observation, "play politics with the children of Ireland". Deputy Brady did not say, as Deputy Byrne sought to imply, that consideration was being given to the question of the introduction of a charge for school transport. What he did say is as follows, and it is necessary to make the point:
Since no alteration is contemplated on the range of the service, the measures required to control cost must involve the introduction of a charge in the case of second level pupils.
He said also, that consideration was being given to the question of the arrangements to be made for the implementation of such charge. There were details to be worked out — as I fully realise from my own subsequent experience — some of them in consultation with CIE, which could not be finalised at that stage. However, consideration of the arrangements had advanced to the stage where Deputy Brady could say that it was contemplated that such arrangements would take the form of the issue of a season ticket, that there would be a lower rate for junior pupils and that a concession would be made to take account of the circumstances of members of larger families.
It is the Coalition's budget.
The Minister has the wrong speech.
Deputy Hussey is the Minister for Education, not Deputy Brady.
The Minister, without interruption.
The Minister should make her own speech.
Deputy Byrne had his chance and he was not interrupted.
I hope I will be given injury time. May I say at this point that I take full responsibility for my Government's and my own actions, not alone in relation to the introduction of the school transport charge, but also in relation to the other measures to which Deputy Byrne referred last evening, but I also insist that Fianna Fáil should acknowledge their decisions in relation to these matters. I intend to ensure that they are obliged to, despite Deputy Byrne's efforts to remain in culpable ignorance of the facts.
Subject to the modification that school transport would continue to be provided free for pupils in the senior cycle whose parents or legal guardians are holders of a medical card, the present Government in consideration of all relevant factors decided to confirm the decision of the previous Government to make a charge in respect of the school transport service.
What were the relevant factors which induced, or obliged, the present Government to confirm the decision of the previous administration? The overriding consideration to which all decisions had to be subordinated was the necessity to recognise that there was a definite limit to the available financial resources for the public services in 1983 and that this limit necessitated a restriction being placed on the amount of the provision which could be made for those services.
As Minister for Education I had to consider whether there were alternative measures which could be taken to achieve the level of savings in relation to estimated expenditure in the education group of votes and decided upon by the previous administration. For ease of reference I would draw the attention of the Deputies to the series of measures set out in column (1) of pages 6 and 7 of the document, Principal Features of Budget.
It will be noted that the two major items of savings were £5.4 million in respect of the school transport service and £4.2 million as a result of adjustments in school staffing. Deputies cannot have it every way. If they wish to criticise, or disown, the action taken by the previous and present administrations in respect of the decision to introduce a charge for school transport, what alternative measures do they propose to put in its place? Are they suggesting further adjustments in the staffing of second level schools, including the loss of employment for existing teachers, a disimprovement of the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools, a restriction of the scope of the school transport services at primary and post-primary level? Or have they some proposals not yet divulged which will surprise us all for their ease of implementation and the readiness with which they would be accepted? If they have such ready solutions to hand, I only wish they had come forward with them at an earlier date, but now perhaps better late than never.
The charge for pupils of the junior cycle is approximately £1 per week. The actual cost of providing the service is many times greater than that. The range of the service is comprehensive. It is available for pupils whose place of residence is three miles or more from the post-primary centre serving the area in which they live and it is availed of by pupils whose parents would have no difficulty in providing transport otherwise for them, as well as by pupils whose parents are not so well off. At £1 per week it is good value for money for those availing themselves of it no matter from what standpoint it may be assessed.
It was introduced as a feature of the measures for the extended provision of post-primary education and was supported wholeheartedly by successive administrations in the seventies. In some respects it is apposite that, when it is now found to be necessary to introduce a charge to enable the service to be maintained on the same comprehensive range as previously, both the former administrations and the present administrations should have been involved in the decision to introduce the charge.
The provision in subhead D3 of Vote 28 in the published volume of the Estimates for Public Services for 1983 is £28,550,000. For the purpose of the categorising of expenditure it is classified as non-pay. It represents a very considerable charge among those items of expenditure in the education group of Votes which represent the outlay for support and maintenance of the school system other than for payment of the salaries of teachers.
For the purpose of comparison it may be noted that the provision for the grant in lieu of tuition fees payable to secondary schools is £6,530,000 and capitation grants to primary schools, £10,400,000. The provision for the school transport service has increased from just over £5 million in the financial year 1973-74 to £13½ million in 1978 and to £28½ million in 1983 after the introduction of the charge is taken into account.
It was perhaps inevitable that the time would come when stock of the situation would have to be taken and the present economic and financial difficulties have only brought about such a need sooner rather than later.
Given the necessity for a reduction of public expenditure on school transport and of the order indicated, the options open to either administration, previous or present, were very limited. In effect, they reduce to two: either seriously restricting the service, or securing a contribution towards the cost of its operation from those who avail of it. This is not the first time the growing costs of school transport have had to come under scrutiny. On 12 May 1980 a series of measures to curtail the school transport service were issued by the Department of Education with the approval of the then Government.
These measures involved changes in the age-distance regulations governing eligibility for school transport and increases in the numbers of eligible children required to justify the establishment or maintenance of a service. In the event, these measures were withdrawn, not because the financial necessity for their introduction had disappeared, but because it was made clear to the Government of the time that savings in school transport made in this way, that is by seriously restricting the service, were not acceptable. All the evidence available to my Department. from representations, Dáil Questions, deputations etc., clearly indicates the high value rural people, in particular, place on this service, not only as a convenience but as an essential means of access to education. The definite policy of the Government is to maintain the services in its present form as far as it is possible to do so, and the introduction of charges is seen as a means by which this policy can be given effect.
The choice made by the Government is irrevocable and I must affirm that there can be no going back on the decision taken regarding the introduction of charges and that by delaying, deferring and otherwise obstructing the implementation of the new measures, they are merely endangering the service they all so avidly wish to retain. I must emphasise as well that the measures taken are of general application and do not allow for the opting out of special interest groups of any description, with the exception of the handicapped, which were excluded in the calculation of the revenue required to meet the shortfall in the operational costs of the scheme.
In reaffirming the measures taken with regard to the introduction of charges, I am not excluding the possibility of review of the school transport service. Indeed, such a review was specifically requested by the Government and as the Minister of State, Deputy Creed, mentioned last evening, the initial steps of this review have already been taken. When the review is completed the Government will not hesitate to bring about the changes that are seen as feasible and desirable. Until then, however, there can be no question but that the current arrangements stand. The alternative, one which would certainly not be wished by me and one which I am sure would not be wished by the proposers of the motion, would be a breakdown or serious curtailment of the service we are all anxious to retain. An aspect of the review of particular concern to me and to the Government is the age of the school transport fleet and the inevitability, in the years ahead, of having to replace this fleet on a phased basis. The capital implications of such replacement are very serious indeed, and a decision to commit capital sums of the order required cannot be taken without a thorough examination of school transport, in the context of surface transport generally. The review requested by the Government is, therefore, of the highest urgency.
I do not propose to deal in detail with the points raised by the Deputies in this debate. Many of them were a reiteration of the facts concerning the history of the school transport system and the regulations governing it. A substantial number dealt with matters, which, though vital to education, had little direct relevance to school transport. And yet a number dealt with issues which do not arise in connection with the new school transport measures.
I have endeavoured to put the question of the cost of school transport in the context of education costs generally and it is in this connection the introduction of modest charges in respect of transport must be seen. Given the overall financial context within which I, as Minister for Education, have to work, I am satisfied that the cutback in the total provision for education was no more severe than it had to be and that the Government had special regard to the needs of education in allocating to it a total sum of some £900 million for 1983, during a period of unparallelled economic and financial difficulty. My task as Minister for Education was to spread any shortfalls in as sensitive a way as possible and I have no hesitation in stating that I did this in accordance with my priorities. The fact that these priorities were in broad agreement with those of the previous administration is neither here nor there. Expressed in compact terms, what they amount to in this situation is that the fundamental importance of primary education must be recognised, that the fabric, quality and accessibility of post primary education must be retained and that there is, at the end of the day, little to be gained by having an elaborate and free school transport service transporting children to inadequate schools to receive an inadequate education. In all the circumstances, I consider that the modest school transport charge is a small price to pay to preserve and protect more fundamental aspects of the education service and I am confident that no child need suffer educationally as a result of these charges.
All through last evening and again this evening I listened with care and attention to the points made by the proposers of this motion. I might be justified in asking where have they been these last few months. Clearly they have been out of touch with the debate concerning the financial state of the country. They may not have read The Way Forward, for which they can be forgiven, but it is hard to imagine that they gave the Book of Estimates for the Public Services, 1983, published by Fianna Fáil when in office, equally cavalier treatment. Or maybe they treat the Book of Estimates as a work of fiction, a mere statement of intent, to be adapted and adjusted to subsequent profligacy by fracturing the various expenditure lists into smidiríní and carrying out running repairs by frequent recourse to the Dáil for Supplementary Estimates. Indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that this is the case. Whatever excuse there is for back-bench Deputies not realising the significance of a Book of Estimates, the same cannot be applied to a member of the previous Cabinet and a former Minister for Education at that, Deputy John Wilson, who intervened in this debate to suggest that we should have demanded more money for the school transport service. Did he intervene in the Fianna Fáil Cabinet when a sum of money of £28.2 million was being allocated to this service as against an estimated requirement of £33.6 million or had he lost interest in educational matters at that stage and left it to his colleague, Deputy Gerard Brady, to defend this inadequate provision?
(Interruptions.)
Let us make no mistake about the facts. The insertion of £28.3 million into subhead D.3, Vote 28, Office of the Minister for Education, for the running costs of the school transport service, was quite unambiguous as was the statement issued by the then Minister for Education on 18 November 1982. There was no question but that this estimate predicated changes in the operation of the school transport service either by restricting the service or by introducing charges.
It is necessary for me also to put some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies who proposed this motion into the picture. Their party, when in office, aimed to reduce the current budget deficit for 1983 to £750 million. A significant proportion of this trimming of the current budget deficit was to be made by pruning expenditure on public services. Such trimming involved cuts in services and/or introduction of charges over practically all State services. The Coalition accepted this approach but moderated its severity by accepting a slower rate of reduction of the current budget deficit.
Not everyone believes that.
Perhaps in time and to the extent that they have not already done so the Deputies who now object to charges for school transport or their colleagues in opposition, will successively object to any cuts in Health, Social Welfare, Agriculture, Environment and so on, and will be equally vocal in their opposition to any measures to increase revenue to pay for the services, to the curtailment of which they object. Or maybe what we are witnessing in this debate is the last hiccup of free-spending Fianna Fáil, the party with no thought for tomorrow, the party which through its profligacy has saddled the population of Ireland, young and old, with an intolerable burden of debt.
There can be no departure from the hard facts of life. We can have only what we can afford. In facing these facts in an overall budgetary strategy, cutbacks were not only necessary, but inevitable and within that context it is unreasonable to expect that education could escape scot-free. I am fully confident that by taking these measures we will protect the existence of the school transport system which I believe parents are very anxious to retain.
On a point of order, I understood that when a Minister makes a speech we are entitled to receive a copy.
That is a matter for the Minister, not for the Chair.
I would be grateful if we could receive a copy of the speech. I would also like to say that I have never heard such a smug, self-satisfied speech.
It is normal practice for a script read by a Minister to be provided to Members of the House. It is extraordinary that this precedent has been set here this evening, especially in view of the suggestions made by her in the latter part of her script.
That does not relate to the Chair. It is a matter for the Minister.
Why not?
On a point of order, will I be allowed to propose the amendment which The Workers' Party have put down to the Fianna Fáil motion?
A Private Members' motion was moved by Members on that side of the House. Amendment No. 1 was moved by the Minister and until we have dealt with that amendment we cannot move on to amendment No. 2.
Will I be allowed to speak to the amendment we have put down?
If amendment No. 1 is agreed, amendment No. 2 cannot be moved. That is the position.
That precludes me from speaking on the amendment. This is an important matter. So far we have had contributions from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. We have not heard from the Labour Party.
Deputy Mac Giolla spoke last night.
The view that is being put across is that of a dispute between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael as to which of the parties will more effectively implement the cuts.
That is not so. Far from it.
I am calling Deputy Kitt.
I wish to support the motion so ably proposed by Deputy Byrne. First, as other speakers have done, I congratulate the Minister for Education and the Minister of State to whom I make many representations because of the problems of school transport. I hope that the Minister of State in particular will be as sympathetic as was his predecessor in trying to solve some of the problems relating to school transport particularly in rural Ireland.
I was very disappointed the Minister spent so much of her time attacking Fianna Fáil. Surely she must realise that as Minister she must accept responsibility for the drastic cutbacks that were announced in December and in the recent budget. She announced those serious cutbacks before Christmas without any consultation with teaching organisations or parents' associations or even with her own parliamentary party. Yet she and her Minister of State have come to this House and have attacked Fianna Fáil for the cutbacks. The imposition of charges for school transport was the most hurtful blow of all, particularly to the rural community and that is why so many rural Deputies on this side of the House put their names to the motion and contributed to the debate. The Minister has put the clock back in rural Ireland to the time when schooling was a system of class bias. The progress made by Fianna Fáil during the years since the late Donogh O'Malley introduced free education has now been halted and the comprehensive system that we built up is being dismantled by the Minister.
I was sad to hear that there is an overall cutback of £22.5 million. The Minister told us that £5.4 million would have to be found in addition to the allocation she made for school transport. I was disappointed last night to hear the Minister of State say he would not accept that any child could be denied the right to education because of these charges. Let us remember that we are talking about a charge of £14 in junior cycle, £24 in senior cycle if the family have not a medical card and also a charge of £24 throughout the entire second level education for a child who lives outside the catchment boundary. That is an important point in rural Ireland where catchment boundaries are badly in need of review.
I am a national school teacher and I say we must not lose sight of the fact that the concessionary fare for children in national school has been increased from £3.50 to £10. This is something about which the Minister and the Minister of State have said very little.
It would not stand up in law.
As Deputy O'Rourke said, children will not change schools in order to go to a school within their catchment boundary. Those of us involved in education know that if a child starts in a school on an educational course he or she will stay with the school and it is only proper that this should be so.
We drew attention to the difficulties for parents who have to find the additional money. The matter of school transport charges cannot be taken in isolation. The total cuts of £22.5 million are interlinked and the cumulative results do not seem to be appreciated by this Minister. The transport fees are one part of the problem but the Minister has also changed the pupil-teacher ratio in the vocational sector. In that sector it is 19 to one and in other second level schools it is 20 to one. This will have serious repercussions not only for the teachers because undoubtedly some of them will lose their jobs but it will also mean larger classes and this will affect remedial pupils. There will also be a more restricted choice of subjects.
I give the example of a school in my constituency with 400 students. It has 24 teachers and a career guidance teacher who is ex-quota but because of the cuts announced by the Minister the school will lose two teachers. This is because the Minister has said that a school with fewer than 500 pupils cannot have a career guidance teacher ex-quota. In all cases those schools will lose at least one teacher. I ask the Minister to consider how such a school can organise a curriculum and deal with practical subjects such as woodwork, building construction and technical drawing. One teacher could not possibly deal with all those subjects.
I should like to take up the point mentioned by Deputy O'Rourke regarding career guidance teachers. The Minister made a statement recently in Galway that "Of course we are not doing away with career guidance". If the career guidance teacher is inside the quota that teacher will be asked to devote time to counselling and preparation, and of course only minimal time can be so devoted by that teacher, as well as teaching the normal subjects. It is almost like asking a career guidance teacher if he would prefer to be shot with a single-barrel or double-barrel gun. That is the choice being given to a career guidance teacher and to a school.
I am sorry for the slight digression. I will go back to transport fees. The problem starts with the child who is a slow learner or in need of remedial attention. I fear that that child's parents will ask why they should waste their hard-earned money on sending their child to school if the child is to be stuck in a class of increased size or the subjects are more limited than they were. We heard an example last night from the Minister of State as to the cost for what he called a 13-year cycle in primary and post-primary school. He said, "For a single child in a less well off family the charge for school transport over the entire 13-year cycle of primary and post-primary education is £126, less than £10 per school year, about 28p per school week or approximately half the price of a packet of potato crisps per school day". I notice tonight that the Minister has raised that fee from 28p to £1 a week.
Crisps have gone up.
Like everything else.
Government potato crisps have a very unusual flavour, certainly not cheese and onion. They have a strong Fine Gael flavour.
Vinegar all the way.
Very conveniently the Minister has taken a 13-year cycle where the child will travel free in the primary sector, will have to pay for three years in the junior cycle and, the Minister of State claimed, will be free in the senior cycle. Averages can be dealt with very conveniently and you can arrive at 28p per school week as a total transport fee for that child. I would like to give the Minister some different figures. We are told that every parent will have to pay for children in the junior cycle and the transport fee for three years would be £126. The intermediate certificate examination fee has gone up to £30 for 1984. It was only £15 in 1982 and it is £20 this year. Similarly for senior cycle students studying for the leaving certificate the fee for two years' transport will be £144 with examination fee again £30. Of course, there are other miscellaneous expenses referred to by Deputy Byrne last night. Parents must make voluntary contributions to the schools and have to meet other expenses to educate their children. The fees we are talking about are much more complex than the very convenient figures that have been given by the Minister of State.
The other point I was making was that we will, of course, have increased class sizes and a smaller choice of subjects. Also we must consider what will happen if further students fall off in attendance at school. We may then have even lower staff levels, larger classes and fewer subject options. I am disappointed that the Minister did not take into consideration the problem of distance from school and the remoteness and isolation of parts of rural Ireland when she announced those cutbacks. Also a situation peculiar to co-educational schools has not been looked at. In my constituency the majority of schools are in that category. Many schools have traditional boys' subjects in boys' schools and girls' subjects in girls' schools. The Minister might not like to know that that situation still obtains. A co-educational school must have a full range of subjects and obviously the strain on the staffing and resources of such schools will be greater than in the case of all boys' or all girls' schools. The important point here is that all these schools have the same quota.
In announcing these cutbacks, starting with those related to transport then the question of the pupil-teacher ratio and the decision about career guidance, the Minister is doing irreparable damage to the teaching profession and to the educational system. I did not come in here tonight just to talk about teachers as I happen to be a teacher, but the Minister is demoralising teachers in the profession. The net effect is that she is saving money certainly but at a terrible price. That price is a total upheavel of the entire school system. We have the youngest population in Europe.
I was glad to hear the Minister of State mention last night that he was going to meet a private bus owners' association who have expressed an interest in participating more in the school transport scheme. The Minister of State said last night that they are very involved already in the transport scheme but they claim — and should be given an opportunity to prove — that they can transport children to our various schools at less cost than it takes CIE and the Department of Education to transport them. I was interested also in an article I read concerning CIE buses in which CIE stated that they have almost 900 buses in the school transport scheme most of which are due for replacement between 1984 and 1986. They estimated the cost of replacing these buses at today's prices as in the region of £30 million. Obviously, the whole question of school transport must be looked at. I am glad that in our document The Way Forward we said that we would look at an economic way of providing school transport for our children.
Let me return to the most disppointing aspect of this debate which is that the Minister of State last night and the Minister for Education here tonight have not seen the obvious problem for families who will not be able to pay these transport fees. The Minister asked us on this side for some advice and how we could help in this. Deputy O'Rourke, who is a teacher, said that she knew of families who could not pay the school transport charges. I also know of families in that position. It struck me that the Minister could do with some local knowledge as to how families can cope with these problems. For example, school principals would surely be able to tell the Department which families would not be able to pay the fees. The local community welfare officers would know the people who are in dire financial straits because those officers are paying welfare allowances to many who are in difficulty and also they investigate the applications for medical cards which seem to be the criterion for deciding whether students in senior cycles will have free transport. It is sad when the compulsory age for attending school has been raised to 15 and at the same time the Minister comes along and puts a charge on children in the junior cycle.
Is it legal?
That is the question. Children are bound by law to go to school but the Minister for Education tells the parents of those children that they will have to pay for that service. I believe the parents of those children who are in such difficulty have a constitutional case. I could not see, when the idea of a medical card was brought in, why it could not be extended to include the children of all parents from first year to leaving certificate year in our second level schools. That was brushed aside last night by the Minister of State and he would not consider at all the extension of medical cards.
There are other factors which relate more to the recent budget than to the education cutbacks. The Minister is aware that the social welfare benefits in budget are not adequate. They are in the region of 10 per cent for short-term benefits and 12 per cent for long-term benefits. This means that a man who is unemployed gets a miserly 10 per cent which is not even enough to keep pace with the cost of living. If that particular man can find the money to send his children to second level school he will have to pay for that. An increase in the children's allowance was always a feature of the budget until this year. This is the first time, as far as I know, there was not an increase in children's allowances. A decent increase in this allowance would help a family in financial difficulties.
The Minister is imposing the school bus charges on less well off families whose real incomes are falling and will continue to fall if this Government stay in power. The Minister, just like the Government's strategy in the budget, is again discriminating against poor people. A recent publication by the ASTI on the campaign against the education cuts states what the Coalition Government promised before the budget and in relation to school transport states that the scheme in general should be free. I am amazed, if the scheme in general should be free, how the Minister for Education can come in here and will not accept that a child will be denied the right to education because of the imposition of these school bus charges. I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Minister and of the Minister of State in relation to this motion. They should have accepted it. The people in the Fine Gael and Labour Parties should have ensured that children would not be denied the right to education. Unfortunately, we have had a very disappointing response from the Government benches.
Deputy H. Byrne rose.
On a point of order, is it in order for two speakers from the same party to follow each other?
Yes, it is.
I am delighted to have the opportunity of summarising the debate. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the debate on the motion:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to ensure that no child is denied the right to education because of the imposition of school bus charges.
Those from this side of the House who made contributions stuck rigidly to the sentiments of the motion as did The Workers' Party representative, Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla. The points made were clear, concise, practical and very much in line with the thinking behind the motion whereas the speakers from the other side of the House wandered aimlessly from the motion. As far as I can see they tried to use up their time rather than defend the situation which they have caused, where numerous children will be denied the right to education because of their parents' inability to pay the transport charges.
I clearly outlined in my opening remarks, and I would now like to repeat, that the services which have always been free of charge will now have to be paid for at the following rates: pupils up to intermediate certificate level, £42 per year; senior cycle pupils, £72 per year; children of medical card holders exempt at senior cycle level only. Up to 100,000 pupils will have to pay those extra charges. A family may have to face an annual bill of £150 in school transport charges alone. Special fares for pupils not eligible for free transport are being increased to the following rates: primary pupils from £10.50 to £30 per year; post-primary pupils from £10.50 to £72 per year. Ordinary city school tranport charges for post-primary schools are also being increased from 10p to 20p for a single journey. It is self-evident that these charges will be particularly damaging in rural areas and large families will be severely affected.
Like the other speakers last night and tonight I have received from many people telephone calls, letters, calls to my home and office telling me that they cannot afford to send their children to secondary schools. The number involved will be 14,000 pupils and I have not heard this figure refuted. How will the Minister accommodate those 14,000 children who, because of their parents' means, cannot afford to go to school? We have had 15 years of free education. Are we now to take a step back to the situation where only the well off can afford to send their children to school? There are now almost 200,000 people unemployed. How many of those families will be able to send their children to school? This question has not been answered.
What is to happen to all those children who find themselves with little to do? There are many in the country who still believe in the old adage that the devil finds work for idle hands. It is very likely that some of those children will end up in court at a very young age. Does the Minister realise what she is doing by denying them the right to go to school? Why should the Minister's children have the right to education while children of some unemployed parents in rural areas cannot? This is blatant discrimination. It is a mystery to me how the Minister can countenance such a move, how she could, with one stroke of a pen, put the livelihood of so many young people in jeopardy.
We all know that the leaving certificate is a very necessary element in any job qualifications. The Minister should not tell me that this is not the case. I have met many people who cannot afford to go to school and I have also heard this from many Deputies around the House. My county colleague from the Minister's side of the House said the very same thing today. He told the House that the cuts were shortsighted. The children I am talking about will now be out on the roads with nothing to do at 12 years of age. Children are obliged to remain at school until they reach the age of 15 but because of these transport charges many will now have to leave school at 12. Last evening I asked, and I repeat the question now, what these children are expected to do. We now have the situation in which to be poor is to be against the law because the children through no fault of their own will be breaking the law by having to leave school early. We all know of the growth in the incidence of crime. It is obvious that that growth parallels the growing levels of unemployment but can we not expect even greater levels of crime in the future as a result of children having to leave school at such a young age, children whose parents are likely to be unemployed? What can we expect of these children later in their teens? The imposition of school bus charges must be the worst blow to education since the foundation of the State. The Coalition are solely responsible for this situation.
A Deputy
Who originated it?
The Coalition are in power now and blaming Fianna Fáil is no defence whatever. When will the people opposite realise that they are not in Opposition?
On 7 January this year Deputy Gerard Brady said, and his statement has not been refuted that I know of, that the proposals in respect of the Fianna Fáil cutbacks were presented openly and were put before the electorate without equivocation. He went on to say that the abrupt manner in which the Coalition announced their cutbacks was at variance with the common practice of consultation with the groups most immediately involved, the teachers and the parents. Let us compare the activity of the former Government in this respect with the behaviour of the present Government. While we presented openly our proposals before the election, the Coalition parties said, as Deputy Kitt has reminded us, that the school transport system in general should be free, that the pupil-teacher ratio would be improved, that career guidance should be extended. None of these promises has been fulfilled. Instead, the people were misled in the worst way possible.
Fianna Fáil introduced free education in 1967 and that included free school transport. Since then every child has had the opportunity of being educated whereas up to 1967 only those who were well off could afford to educate their children. The remainder left school at 14. Employment and society were geared then to meet that situation but now there is an entirely new situation in which employment is geared for children not younger than 16. Consequently, we must readjust in order to cater for those who will be leaving school at 12.
The new charges do not apply only to those living in rural areas. City bus fares have increased by 100 per cent. Should the Minister not have consulted with the various interests in education with a view to working out the economics of the situation and avoid having to interfere with the curriculum or imposing hardship on families who are already hard pressed? I accept fully that economies must be made but surely other avenues should have been explored before deciding to drop the guillotine on those young and innocent necks. I appeal to the Government to continue the free school transport system so as not to interfere with the right of children to education.
The Government White Paper on education which was published in December 1980 referred to the free school transport scheme as having been conceived as an adjunct to the policy of free second-level education so as to ensure equality of access to educational opportunity irrespective of the child's place of residence. But panic, ignorance and thoughtlessness have now changed all that.
In a statement issued by the Minister on 11 January of this year she said she was not satisfied that there was any substance in the view expressed that the revised transport arrangements would affect the viability of rural schools. She went on to say that these schools would continue to be attended by pupils of the areas they served. I refute that statement in total because, as the Minister knows well, children will not be able to continue at school because of the transport charges. In a press release of 23 December 1982 the Minister said that no charge would be introduced for national school pupils eligible for free transport and that in the case of pupils at second-level schools the arrangements would involve the issue of a season ticket at a lower rate for junior cycle pupils. She said also in that statement that it was proposed to introduce a concession that would take account of the circumstances of larger families. I should like very much to hear about this concession but in my exhaustive research I have not been able to find any trace of it.
In a joint report issued by the ASTI, the TUI and the INTO, there is reference to the Minister saying that she wants to reform the curriculum in schools and to introduce more practical and technical subjects. Again, I should like to hear how that will be possible in terms of the present proposals.
I am appealing to the Government to listen to the views of parents, teachers, pupils and the various unions and organisations concerned as well as the views of Fianna Fáil and The Workers' Party Deputies and, I suspect, some Fine Gael and Labour Deputies also in regard to the dropping of this proposal. I appeal to all Members of the House to support the motion.
To sum up, the salient points of this whole issue are as follows: 14,000 children each year will not be able to avail of second-level education; there will be fewer teachers in schools resulting in bigger classes; there will be a decline in the education system; specialist subjects are on the way out with less chance for the pupils most in need but worst of all children will be denied the right to education. I am appealing particularly to the Labour Party for their support. The Government's status will not be changed by losing the vote this evening. Labour Deputies must be feeling the brunt of this proposal. They have the opportunity now of letting their supporters see that they care. I appeal to the Minister, to her great maternal instinct, to extend to every child the right to education. A vote for this motion is a vote of confidence in the future.
Question put: "That amendment No. 1 be made".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl,68.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Mark Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, Joe.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick West).
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and Fitzsimons.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.