Vol. 343 No. 9
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £60,311,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1983, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education (including Institutions of Science and Art), for certain miscellaneous educational and cultural services and for payment of sundry grants-in-aid.
Excuse me for interrupting. I should like to know the arrangements regarding time. I did not hear the Order of Business this morning.
There is no arrangement as regards time. Votes No. 28 to 33 will conclude at 4 p.m.
Is it correct that there is no break for lunch?
Thank you. I am sorry for interrupting the Minister.
The total gross provision for 1983 in the five Votes in the Education Group of Votes, excluding the Vote for the National Gallery, as provided in the revised Book of Estimates, is £889,478,220 including £18,434,220 as appropriations in aid. The corresponding provisional outturn for 1982, including non-voted capital being provided as a voted service in 1983, was £829,205,630. There is, therefore, an increase of £60,272,590 or 7.3 per cent for the education services in 1983 over the provisional outturn for 1982.
The capital provision for 1983 is £86,500,000. The corresponding provisional outturn figure for 1982 was £92,357,680 including non-voted capital of £15,875,000.
The gross non-capital provision for 1983 is £802,978,220. The corresponding outturn figure for 1982 was £736,847,950. The provision for 1983 represents an increase of £66,130,270 or 9 per cent over the outturn for 1982.
The gross provision for pay and pensions for 1983 is £655,704,000 or 81.7 per cent of the total non-capital provision. The comparable outturn figures for 1982 were £596,003,800 and 80.9 per cent. The provision for 1983 represents an increase of £59,700,200 or 10.02 per cent over the provisional outturn for 1982. The increased provision for pay and pensions represents 99 per cent of the overall increase of £60,272,590. The provision for non-pay non-capital expenditure in 1983 is £147,274,220 or 18.3 per cent of the total non-capital provision. The comparable outturn figures for 1982 were £140,844,150 and 19.1 per cent. The provision for 1983 represents an increase of £6,430,070 or 4.6 per cent over the 1982 outturn.
The provision for educational services this year reflects the financial situation and the budgetary policy adopted to cope with it. Pay and pensions comprise the single greatest cost heading and the greater part of the increased provision of £60,272,590 is to meet increased pay costs, including the cost of 300 additional national school teachers to be appointed in 1983. A sum of £1.9 million has been provided for an increase from £82 to £92 per student in the rate of supplemental grant payable to secondary schools in lieu of tuition fees. A sum of £1.1 million has been provided for an increase from £15 to £17 per pupil in the capitation grants payable towards operating costs of national schools.
By any standards the financial commitment by the State to education continues to be high. In the 1964-65 financial year the net audited expenditure in the education group of Votes plus non-voted capital for vocational school building amounted to 3.3 per cent of gross national product. By 1970-71 the percentage had risen to 4.7 per cent. In 1979 the figure reached 6.1 per cent. The Estimate for 1983 represents 6.6 per cent of estimated GNP for 1983. This is a very good percentage. Indeed the percentage of GNP we spend on education is one of the highest in the EEC. The net provision of £871,044,000 sought for education in 1983 is 15.54 per cent of the total net provision in all Votes. The comparable figure for 1982 was 15.17 per cent.
The amounts sought for 1983 include provision for the payment of the final phase of the 1982 agreement on pay from 1 January 1983. They do not include provision for the payments being made in 1983 in recognition of the postponement of this increase from 1 October 1982 to 1 January 1983. Neither is provision included for any general or special increases which may be approved in 1983. It will be noted that Vote 50 contains a provision of £60 million for increases in remuneration and pensions. A sum of £8.03 million has been included in that provision for the estimated requirements of the education group of Votes. This Estimate, in addition to the £889,478,220 provided in the five Votes for Education, makes a total of £897,508,220 for the education services in 1983. In his Budget Statement on 9 February 1983, the Minister for Finance stated that if the outcome of consultations necessitated increased expenditure on pay, it would be necessary for the Government to take appropriate measures in order to fund the cost.
The provision in the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education is for:
(a) the administrative costs of the Department;
(b) the services in relation to art and culture in the National Museum and National Library;
(c) miscellaneous educational services.
The net amount being sought this year for this Vote is £60,311,000, an increase of £4,802,800 or 9 per cent over the 1982 provisional outturn.
The administrative costs of the Department in 1983 are estimated at £14,369,000 as against an outturn of £13,616,900 for 1982. This is an increase of 5.5 per cent.
Late in 1982 the Government decided to allocate responsibility for youth affairs to the Minister of State at the Department of Labour. Consequently the Youth Section of my Department, comprising 17 officers, was transferred to the Department of Labour. The provision for administrative costs in the revised Book of Estimates reflects this transfer. This transfer of responsibility also involved the transfer to the Vote for Labour of the provision for a number of services, namely:
(a) The provision for grants to youth organisations towards the employment of development officers has been transferred and the provision in subhead D.10 in Vote 28 is now for grants to sports organisations only.
(b) The capital provision for recreational facilities formerly in subhead D.11 has been transferred in full.
(c) The provision for a grant-in-aid fund in subhead G.3 is now for grants to sports organisations only as the provision for grants to youth organisations has been transferred to the Vote for Labour.
(d) The provision for youth employment formerly in subhead G.3 has been discontinued and the funds included in the grant-in-aid fund for youth activities in the Labour Vote.
(e) The provision for receipts from the European Social Fund in respect of the Department's Temporary Youth Employment Scheme formerly in subhead H.7 has also been transferred.
In all, the transfer of responsibility involved the transfer of £3,718,000 gross or £3,418,000 net from the Vote for the office of the Minister for Education to the Vote for Labour.
A sum of £8,586,500 is being provided for higher education grants, an increase of £3,096,500 or 56 per cent over the 1982 outturn. This provision is required to make refunds to local authorities in respect of sums paid by them in grants in 1982. This increase reflects the improvements in the scheme introduced in 1981 by my colleague, Deputy Boland, then Minister for Education. The number of grant holders was 5,021 in 1980-81, 6,263 in 1981-82 and is estimated at 7,410 for 1982-83.
Heretofore, students attending approved courses in Northern Ireland were dealt with on the same basis as students attending approved courses in the Republic. The grants scheme is being amended for a pilot period of three years from the academic year 1983-84 so as to provide that:
(a) in the case of grants awarded under the scheme for 1983, (i) the lecture fee payable will be the appropriate lecture fee payable in sterling and (ii) the maintenance element of awards will be deemed to be pounds sterling and will take into consideration the distance between the student's home and the educational institution he or she is attending.
(b) in the case of existing award holders the position as from the academic year 1983-84 will be that the lecture fee payable will be the appropriate lecture fee payable in sterling and the maintenance element of awards will be deemed to be pounds sterling.
The provision being made in subhead D.6 for grants to students at Thomond College of Education shows a similar increase from an outturn of £469,500 in 1982 to £685,000 for 1983. The provision of £620,000 sought for scholarships, research grants and fellowships represents an increase of 13 per cent.
Provision is again being made for a grant-in-aid fund for cultural, scientific and educational activities. The organisations which receive grants from this fund include the Chester Beatty Library, the Irish Countrywomen's Association, An Cumann le Béaloideas Éireann, the Music Association of Ireland, Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Marsh's Library, Comhdháil Múinteoirí na Ríncí Gaelacha, the National Film Institute of Ireland, Dublin Institute of Adult Education, An Cumann Scoildrámaíoctha, Irish Committee of Historical Sciences, Royal Zoological Society of Ireland, People's College, Aontas and an Foras Éireann.
The provision of £666,500 for international activities shows an increase of 26 per cent. This provision is for a contribution to the UNESCO budget and incidental expenses of the UNESCO National Commission; costs relating to participation in the European Schools' Day Competition and in the International Apprentice Competitions; contribution to and scholarships at the College of Europe, Bruges; educational tours to the USA for teachers; expenses in connection with the organisation of any international conference of EEC, Council of Europe, OECD, and so on, which may be held in the country; scholarships and other expenses arising from participation in the European University Institute, Florence; EEC study visit schemes and exchanges under cultural agreements. This year Ireland hosted the 13th Session of the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education in Dublin from 10 to 12 May.
A number of separate programmes are catered for in the provision of £238,500 for exchanges under cultural agreements. Student exchange scholarships are awarded by the Irish Government on a reciprocal basis to other countries including Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Switzerland. Language assistants are exchanged with other countries — currently 49 with France, 12 with Germany and five with Spain. These assistants are student teachers who are assigned to schools in the host country for an eight month period from October to May for the purpose of enriching the teaching of their mother tongue in the schools and introducing the pupils to the culture of the assistant's home country, and of providing the assistant with the opportunity of studying the language and culture of the host country. In addition ten experienced teachers are exchanged with France each year for one school term.
The provision for school transport continues to be the biggest single provision in this Vote. The non-capital cost of the service in 1981 was £25 million. This rose to £28.109 million in 1982. When the 1983 estimates were being prepared the cost in 1983 was estimated at £33.6 million. This represents an increase of 34 per cent over two years. The provision of £28.2 million made in the Estimates for the Public Service and published in November 1982 was made on the basis that measures including the introduction of charges would be introduced to reduce the cost to the Department by £5.4 million. Subsequently, the present Government decided to waive the charge in the case of pupils who attend their local centre and whose parents or legal guardians hold medical cards. This concession will reduce by around £1 million the yield from these charges and the cost to the State will be £1 million higher.
The provision in the Vote for Primary Education includes national school teachers' superannuation. The net amount sought is £318,874,000, an increase of £25,333,200 or 9 per cent over the 1982 provisional outturn.
Salaries, allowances and superannuation of national teachers account for 85 per cent of the total gross provision. The increased provision for pay and pensions as a whole accounts for 99 per cent of the overall net increase.
At present 20,475 national teachers are employed in 3,401 national schools. The number of teachers continues to increase reflecting both increasing pupil numbers and improvements in pupil-teacher ratios. The provision sought reflects the full year cost of a net additional 581 teachers appointed during 1982 and also includes a provision for a further 300 additional teachers to be appointed in 1983, to cater for growth in enrolment. Recoupment of costs incurred in the employment of substitutes during teachers' absences will cost an estimated £3.52 million in 1983.
It had been decided, in framing the Estimates set out in the abridged volume published on 18 November 1982, to appoint remedial teachers to vacancies only where pupil numbers exceed 300. This decision is not now being implemented.
The gross provision for superannuation of national teachers is £38,732,000. This provides for retirement and other gratuities and pensions of retired teachers and spouses of deceased teachers. The number of pensions payable increased by a net 62 during 1982.
Ten point one million pounds is being provided for the payment of capitation grants towards the operating costs of national schools as compared with a provisional outturn of £8,863,500. This has allowed the grant per pupil to be increased from £15 to £17 with effect from the beginning of the 1982-83 school year.
A sum of £25.5 million is being provided for the building, equipping and furnishing of national schools. Projects for which grants may be paid include the provision of new schools in new housing areas, additional classrooms in existing schools, essential facilities such as sanitation, heating, lighting and furniture in existing schools, new schools where necessary for mentally and physically handicapped children, upgrading of existing schools to meet modern requirements and replacement of prefabricated accommodation. Twenty-one new schools and 33 extensions were completed in 1982, providing 9,940 pupil places on the basis of the current pupil-teacher ratio.
A sum of £6,649,000 is being sought for the non-capital costs of the colleges of education for primary teachers. A further £871,000 is being provided for loans and grants to students of the colleges.
The provision for child care assistants in schools for the handicapped is being continued and in fact is being increased by 33 per cent. A bigger than average increase is also being provided for special educational projects for children in disadvantaged areas.
The net amount being sought for post-primary education in 1983 is £394,359,000, an increase of £47,758,700 or 14 per cent over the provisional out-turn for 1982. The 1983 provision, however, includes £15 million for vocational school building which has hitherto been provided as non-voted capital from the Local Loans Fund. If this service is included in the 1982 outturn, the £394,359,000 sought for 1983 represents an increase of £31,883,700 or 8.8 per cent.
Pay and pensions account for the greater part of the increased provision, at £295,858,000 or £30,460,100 more than the 1982 outturn. This is an increase of 11.5 per cent over 1982.
A sum of £148,511,000 is being provided for incremental salary and allowances of secondary teachers. Currently 12,064 secondary teachers are in receipt of incremental salary in 518 secondary schools catering for over 200,000 pupils. Since 1978-79 the number of teachers has increased by 833.
A sum of £98,312,000 is being provided in subhead A.2 for grants to vocational education committees. Hitherto, provision was included in this subhead for the running costs of the technical and specialist colleges administered by vocational education committees. The provision for these colleges for 1983 has been included, with the provision for regional technical colleges, in subhead D.2.
There are at present 243 second level vocational schools catering for approximately 72,000 full-time students.
The sum of £31,290,000 is being provided for the running costs of comprehensive and community schools, £28,520,000 for pay and £3,400,000 for other expenses. The number of comprehensive schools remains static at 15 while the number of community schools has increased from 30 in 1979-80 to 41 in 1982-83. These 56 schools now cater for approximately 32,200 pupils. The number of teachers has increased from 1,545 in 1979-80 to 2,009 in 1982-83. One additional community school is scheduled to come into operation in 1983 and the total number of students is expected to increase by approximately 2,500 next September.
There are 18 regional and other technical and specialist colleges under the aegis of vocational education committees, catering for approximately 18,500 whole-time student equivalents and having approximately 2,056 full-time teachers. The number of full-time third-level students in these colleges has increased considerably in recent years — from 7,610 in 1979 to an estimated 14,300 in 1983.
A sum of £26,253,000 is being provided for grants to secondary school authorities of which £6,530,000 is for capitation grants which are payable to all recognised secondary schools at rates varying from £21 to £30 per recognised junior pupil and £24 to £38 per recognised senior pupil. A further £18,347,000 is provided as supplemental grants in lieu of tuition fees to secondary schools within the free education scheme. This sum represents an increase of £2,146,030 over the 1982 provisional outturn. This allows the rate of grant to be increased from £82 per recognised pupil to £92 per recognised pupil from 1 January 1983. The special arrangements for boarding schools, Protestant schools and pupils from islands and remote areas will continue.
From the initiation of the free post-primary education scheme in 1966-67 there has been substantial State capital investment in the provision of post-primary schools. This investment has increased from £3.82 million in 1967-68 to £7.81 million in 1973-74 to £43.2 million in 1982 and £43.3 million in 1983.
The investment programme has three main objectives: (i) meeting the growth in enrolments arising through population growth as well as population shifts, (ii) replacing unsatisfactory and uneconomic accommodation and (iii) replacing as speedily as possible the prefabricated accommodation provided in the late 1960's and early 1970s to meet the bulge in the demand for places.
A total of 56 secondary schools are at present under construction and a further 115 are at various stages of planning, while 33 vocational schools are at present under construction and a further 77 are at various stages of planning. Five community schools are under construction and 21 in course of planning. The 1983 provision will provide about 13,800 places of which about 7,900 will be new places and 5,900 replacement places.
A sum of £2.5 million is being provided in respect of regional and other technical and specialist colleges. This is mainly for: (a) payment of final accounts and completion of furnishing and equipping relating to the major expansion of seven regional colleges carried out between 1978 and 1981; (b) planning expenses and site acquisition costs in respect of new regional technical college premises in Tralee, where construction is scheduled to commence in late 1983 or early 1984; (c) planning expenses and initial site development expenses relating to the provision of new premises for the College of Marketing and Design in Dublin; (d) work proceeding at the College of Music, Dublin.
Planning is proceeding on other projects for example the School of Music, Cork, and Killybegs Hotel School. A full evaluation is being undertaken of the operation of the existing regional technical colleges preparatory to deciding whether any further expansion may be warranted. An evaluation of the needs of the Limerick Senior Technical School, in particular of the School of Art, is being finalised. A rationalisation and expansion programme for the colleges of technology in Dublin has been approved and planning is proceeding. Sites have been acquired for new regional technical colleges at Tallaght and Dún Laoghaire, and provision has been included for a deposit on a site at Blanchardstown. Consideration is being given to moving the Dún Laoghaire School of Art into buildings on the Dún Laoghaire site and provision has been made for adaption.
The net amount sought for residential homes and special schools in 1983 is £3,865,000 which is a reduction of £25,230 or 1 per cent on the provisional 1982 outturn. The main reason for this is the reduction in the capital provision from an expenditure of £1,773,600 in 1982 to £650,000 in 1983, as major building projects near completion. The non-capital provision for 1983 represents an increase of 52 per cent on the 1982 outturn.
A sum of £600,000 is being provided for grants to residential homes certified under the Children Acts for the reception into care of deprived children. The number of children in these homes who are the responsibility of the Department of Education continues to fall. The number of children in care has fallen from 243 on 1 January 1982 to 195 on 1 January 1983. The provision sought allows the rate of capitation grant to be increased from £68 to £85 per child per week, an increase of 25 per cent; half of this grant is paid by the Department and half by the appropriate local authority in the case of children under 17 years of age. The grants for children over 17 years of age who remain in care to complete their education are paid in full by my Department.
An amount of £2,540,000 is being provided in respect of the operational costs of special schools and assessment units for young offenders. This represents an increase of 71 per cent on the 1982 provisional outturn. The main reason for the increase is the opening of two new units in addition to the existing facilities at Finglas Children's Centre, Scoil Árd Mhuire, Lusk, and St. Joseph's Special School, Clonmel. Trinity House, Lusk, has been built entirely from State funds to provide a secure school for boys who cannot be provided for in an open setting. It has places for 30 boys and replaces Loughan House which was run by the Department of Justice.
Cuan Mhuire Assessment Unit for girls has been established in modern premises at Collins Avenue, Dublin, and will be used as a remand and assessment unit for girls.
The £2,540,000 sought is to meet the pay costs of non-teaching staff in these units and general running costs. Teaching staff employed are a charge on the Vote for Primary Education.
A sum of £650,000 is being provided for capital development this year as against an outturn of £1,773,600 in 1982. The projects involved include staff accommodation at Trinity House, Lusk, continuation of a development scheme at St. Joseph's, Clonmel, and miscellaneous minor works at other special schools. The decreased provision reflects the completion of the main construction at Trinity House, Lusk, and of the first phase of the development at St. Joseph's, Clonmel.
A sum of £25,000 is being provided for courses in child care. This is an increase of 97 per cent on the 1982 outturn and is intended to provide ongoing training and refresher courses for staff in the area of special care.
A sum of £93,635,000 is being sought for the Vote for Higher Education which provides for grants-in-aid of an tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas in respect of its own general expenses and the current and capital costs of designated institutions of higher education, and of the Dublin Dental Hospital, the Cork Hospitals Board and the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
A sum of £446,000 is being provided as a grant-in-aid of the general expenses of the Higher Education Authority. This is an increase of 14 per cent to salary increases and other increased costs.
A sum of £76,450,000 is being provided as a grant-in-aid to the Higher Education Authority towards the general non-capital costs of the universities and other designated institutions of higher education which are funded through the HEA. A sum of £14,050,000 is being provided in the Vote for capital costs.
Thirteen million pounds capital is being provided for the universities and colleges and designated institutions of higher education which are funded through the HEA. The bulk of this money relates to projects already under way — National Institute of Higher Education, Limerick, Library Lecture Theatre complex and Microelectronic Research Centre at UCC, completion of the first phase of the National Institute for Higher Education Dublin, completion of phase II of the National College of Art and Design and a variety of other smaller projects.
The only major project scheduled to commence this year is Phase II of the UCD Library. Consideration is being given to a list of priority developments at third level with a view to making the best use of the limited resources which will be available over the next few years.
In addition, £750,000 is being provided to help meet the cost of replacing obsolete and outworn furniture and equipment in these institutions.
The £200,000 in respect of building and capital costs of third-level institutions not funded through the HEA relate mainly to the final account for the new Cork Dental Hospital and School and renovations to the Dublin Dental Hospital.
A new dental hospital and school on the site of the Cork Regional Hospital was built in 1980 and the equipping and furnishing of the building was proceeding when damage was caused to the building and equipment by a fire which broke out on 14 May 1981. Restoration work was completed in 1982. The fire was the subject of a criminal injury claim by the Cork Hospitals Board against Cork Corporation. The Cork Hospitals Board were awarded full compensation but the award was appealed and the outcome of the appeal is awaited. A further £100,000 is being provided for capital furniture and equipment costs of non-HEA institutions mainly urgently needed equipment for the Dublin Dental Hospital.
The net amount being sought for the National Gallery Vote for 1983 is £633,000 which is required for the salaries and expenses of the National Gallery including grants-in-aid. This represents an increase of £88,600 or 16 per cent over the 1982 provisional outturn.
The greater part of the increase is to meet the increased cost of salaries and wages, travelling and incidental expenses and Post Office services.
So much for the details of the Estimates. I would hope that the House has taken note of the fact that, despite the exceedingly difficult financial situation, this Government were able to provide a sum of £1.9 million in order to increase the grant to secondary schools in lieu of school fees from £82 to £92. They also have provided an additional sum of £1.1 million to increase the capitation grant to national schools from £15 to £17, while the grant to children in care in residential homes has been increased by 25 per cent from £68 to £85 per child.
For many years now it has been the fashion to measure the success of Ministers by the amount of money they can obtain from the Exchequer to finance the services of their Departments. In other words, the bigger the spender, the better the Minister. Time and time again, Ministerial speeches triumphantly referred to the progress being achieved and the criterion invariably was the increase in expenditure — this, too, without any regard to where the money was coming from. It is not the Government who pay. The bill must be passed on in the form of taxation or charges.
Is it not more relevant to boast in terms of cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency, if one wishes to boast? It is not the big spenders but the prudent, cost-effective spenders who merit the approval of the people of Ireland. My Department could not hope to escape unscathed from the severe pruning in Government expenditure that is so necessary as a result of the extraordinarily misguided and shortsighted financial and political decisions made between 1977 and 1981.
The Minister is invoking the ghosts.
I want to put those economies into perspective. Facts are facts but fancy is free. The economies amounted in all to some 2 per cent of the total Estimate — a reduction of £2 in every £100. Even with this pruning of expenditure the financial commitment of the Government continues, by any standards, to be high. Indeed, the education services have been given more favourable treatment this year than many of the other State services. Let me illustrate the point. As I pointed out earlier, the provision for the Education group of Votes this year represents 15.54 per cent of the total budget for all State services compared with 15.17 per cent in 1982. This year, too, it is estimated that the budget for education represents 6.6 per cent of GNP, compared with 6.1 per cent in 1979, for example. These are tangible indicators of my Government's commitment to education.
In seeking economies the options open to the Government were extremely limited. Pay and pensions this year take 81.7 per cent of the non-capital budget for education. With such a labour-intensive service it was clear that the growth in the numbers of teachers over the past ten years simply could not be sustained at a time of economic retrenchment. In 1972-73 there were, for example, 29,187 teachers at first-and second-level. Ten years later in 1982-83 their number had increased by 11,068 to 40,255. This represented an increase of 37.9 per cent. At the same time the number of full-time pupils had increased by only 17 per cent. This continuous escalation in teacher numbers simply cannot be sustained at this difficult budgetary time for the country. Adjusting the overall pupil/teacher ratio in second level schools this year was merely restoring the ratio that applied in 1977. Because of the inordinately high percentage of the current budget devoted to pay and pensions, teacher staff numbers had to be looked at in seeking retrenchment.
On the non-pay side the scope for retrenchment was extremely limited. The four major areas of expenditure — school transport, scholarships and student grants, loan charges and the day-to-day running expenses of the some 4,000 institutions at first-, second- and third-level sectors — take some 90 per cent of the non-pay budget. Against this backdrop, economies of 2 per cent had to be found.
I mention these matters to indicate the difficulty in achieving economies. It is sad that, for the sake of short-term political opportunism, the Opposition have mounted a strident campaign against the economies made — precisely the same economies which, when in Government, they themselves had decided to implement and had included in the Book of Estimates for 1983 published in November last. I do not shirk from my responsibility as Minister in this matter. I regret that it was necessary for me to go along with the economies which the former Government had determined. As Minister, I must stand over them. The House will recall that two fundamental changes were made by my Government from the list of economies determined by the previous Government. First, the cut in the remedial teacher programme for national schools was restored and, second, medical card holders were exempted from the school transport charge. These changes are a measure of our concern for the disadvantaged.
I want to pass on now to more general issues of policy. It is generally expected that each new incumbent of the Education portfolio should spell out his or her educational policy when introducing the Estimates for the first time. The House will be aware of the fact that the country has had six Ministers for Education since 1981. This has led to the position that many groups involved in education have been seriously concerned at the lack of coherent planning in the educational system. In order to restore a sense of purpose and a sense of direction to the crucial area of educational planning, I have taken the unprecedented step of involving the major groups in education — parents, managers and teachers — and engaging them with a working party in my Department in the planning process. I expect to be able to announce a programme for action which will chart a clear path in Education for the next four years. I need hardly add that the programme for action must and will be rooted in reality and must have regard to the current financial situation. When the programme is available, and should the House so wish, I will be happy to cooperate in affording the House an opportunity for discussing it.
I do not intend today to pre-empt the recommendations of the working party. I do wish, however, to indicate some of the general principles on which I have asked my officials to base the action programme. One assumes that the programme, while not setting out a complete philosophy of education, will be based on the continuing role of the educational system in transmitting religious and moral values, as well as maintaining existing key traditions.
As I perceive the process of education here, I see the system enabling, as far as possible, all citizens to have access to an education which is relevant to their needs and which will enable them to fulfil the potential of their abilities and talents. Second, education should be continuously updated to make it relevant to the modern world, to changing employment patterns and to increased leisure time. Third, our system should enable our young people to appreciate and develop their cultural heritage, both Irish and European. Fourth, it should discriminate positively in favour of the disadvantaged in our society. Fifth, it should seek to delegate responsibility and authority as far as is feasible and in such a manner as to achieve a genuine partnership between all interests involved. Finally, I have asked the working party to examine in depth the issue of cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency in the use of existing and future resources.
The House may be aware of my own personal interest in the curriculum options available for girls. I am particularly concerned to ensure that girls have the opportunity of participating in the science and technological subjects in post-primary schools. The recent ESRI report highlighted the inadequacy of the subject options generally available to girls. I am having a special study of the report undertaken by my Department with a view to improving the situation for the girls attending our schools. Yesterday I met representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to discuss an important report which they have just issued on sexism in education generally.
I am not naive enough to think for one moment that the production of a programme for action will be the panacea for all our ills in the educational system. After six months in office I am fully aware, as never before, of the complexities in education, the minefields in which one must tread warily and the tremendous challenges facing us as a society. I acknowledge and respect the external factors — social, demographic and financial — which necessarily influence educational policy. Our large young population under 25 years, representing 48 per cent of the total population, the lack of employment opportunities for school leavers, and the new disturbing trends towards vandalism, drug-taking and other forms of socially disruptive behaviour provide a formidable challenge to us all who have responsibility for our educational services. In particular, the continuing growth in the number of full-time students will, it is projected, within five years, lead to an increase of some 50,000 students by 1987. In percentage terms, the increase will be of the order of 5 per cent. The greatest increase will take place at third level where some 15,000 additional students will be in full-time education. This, of course, is the most costly sector of all. For example, an intake of 1,000 pupils at first level is estimated to cost £470,000 per annum whereas 1,000 students at third level would cost £2,160,000. At the same time, our young population brings an immense vitality and hope. The educational system is providing a large cohort of well educated young people who want to play their part in the further economic development of the country.
Before I conclude, I wish to refer to another topic, not unrelated to what I have already discussed. I refer to the urgent need for fundamental reform in school curricular and assessment procedures. There is an almost universal demand from parents, teachers, students and employers that major changes be brought about. Many students, particularly those of lower ability and those in disadvantaged areas, increasingly find existing school courses irrelevant to their needs. I hope to set up by January 1984 on an ad hoc basis a Curriculum and Examinations Board and that this Board will be a means of undertaking a fundamental review of school courses at primary and post-primary level.
I want to confirm my commitment to the greatest possible development of the natural talents of all our children. Much has been done over the years; much remains to be done. The Government and I shall continue to strive for the provision of the most comprehensive and equitable system of education which is within our capacity to achieve.
I commend the Estimates to the House.
Before I commence I would like to ask you for some information. Do we finish at 4 o'clock without any break?
Yes.
Has the Minister the right to reply at the end of the debate?
The only order before the House is that the debate will conclude at 4 o'clock. The rest of it is a gentleman's agreement. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say in this case a ladies' agreement. The procedure on the other debates dealt with yesterday and today is that the Minister got in and had a reasonable time to reply. Perhaps we could agree now on what time the Minister could reply.
Is that a normal feature of Estimates debates?
Yes, it is.
Is there a to-ing and fro-ing arrangement?
No. The Minister has the right to reply and each person has the right to make one speech. We do not have a Committee Stage type of debate.
I am asking this because this is my first time in this position. When I say to-ing and fro-ing I did not strictly mean the committee system. Does it revert from Opposition to Government?
Yes. Perhaps at this stage we could agree on when the Minister would get in to reply. What does the Minister wish?
3.45 p.m.
I welcome the fact that this is my first time here as Front Bench Spokesman on Education for my party in replying to the Minister's speech on the Education Estimates. I should like, if I may, by starting on a less acrimonious note, to say to the Minister that she spoke of her philosophy of feminism in education towards the end of her debate. There is no more salient feature of feminism than today in the House, it is a female Minister for Education and a female Opposition Shadow Minister for Education speaking on this matter. I have not been a strident feminist but I have been a feminist in the real meaning of the word as I have always felt there should be equal access to men and women and boys and girls to all areas of employment, education and opportunity. It is quite a milestone that there are two women here today debating the very important subject of education. That is really feminism.
The Minister's speech contains the housekeeping for the year for the Estimate for the Department of Education. The Minister and her advisers have betrayed in her speech a sort of slick selectivity in the figures they are giving and the credit they are taking for some matters and not taking credit for other matters. I could not commence without saying that. The Minister takes credit for the increase in the total expenditure on education. She stated that this year it is estimated that the budget for education represents 6.6 per cent of GNP compared with 6.1 per cent in 1979, for example. In many parts of her speech she berates the previous Government for the stringent measures they put into their Education Estimate which she as Minister was forced to adopt. The Minister cannot have it both ways. She cannot take credit for the growth between 1979 and 1983, which was a Fianna Fáil growth in education and not want to take blame for any stringent measures which would have been implemented and had to be implemented by her. The Minister must take her responsibility seriously. This slick selectivity of figures is not quite fair or just in the situation we are talking about.
I would like to deal with general headings first and then I will get on to the various points I want to make. The Minister referred to her overall philosophy in education in the setting up of the curriculum board which she hopes to have in operation on an ad hoc basis by January 1984. You cannot always be destructive and I, unequivocally, welcome this announcement by the Minister. However, this was announced by her predecessor in the previous Coalition Government, Deputy John Boland, the present Minister for the Public Service. In fact he came into the Seanad when I was then a member of the Cultural and Educational Panel and spoke of the necessity, as he saw it, for the setting up of this Curriculum and Examinations Board. As the Minister pointed out, there have been many changes of Ministers since that time and it was allowed lapse. That was because of various pressures brought to bear. The present Minister announced formally at the teachers' conferences last April, but informally in a series of interviews she gave to magazines and newspapers, her interest in this field and the fact that she wished to pursue the setting up of that board. She has included it in her introductory remarks here today and has repeated it at many seminars and functions around the country. I quibble with the fact that it had already been announced by Deputy Boland, when Minister for Education, and that it will now take until January 1984 to set-up what I would regard as a very necessary board.
Deputy O'Donoghue ——
The Minister's speech was very notable in that there were no interruptions.
Not true, there were interruptions.
I would be glad if I could be afforded the same facility. If this is not to become a female screaming house I should like to be allowed to continue. The Minister said that she hopes to set up this Curriculum and Examinations Board by January 1984. I ask why will it take that long to set up such a highly desirable board, one to which I will give my fullest support? The Minister will have my constructive support, interest and comments in regard to this board. But the Minister should hurry up with it and, if possible, not wait until January 1984. If it is to be set up on an ad hoc basis it could be done in September. Why wait until January? Why not set it up earlier and so be able to say that it was set up in the Minister's first year in office? It is something which should be pursued with great vigour and celerity.
I welcome also the Minister's proposal to establish a planning board. Here I might quote what the Minister had to say:
In order to restore a sense of purpose and a sense of direction to the crucial area of educational planning, I have taken the unprecedented step of involving the major groups in education — parents, managers and teachers — and engaging them with a working party in my Department in the planning process.
I might point out to the Minister that the major parties in the educational process are the pupils who sit at the school desks, the students attending the schools. Therefore I cannot see how anybody, advisers or whoever was engaged in this submission, could say that they had taken the unprecedented step of involving the major groups in education when that group precludes the students who receive the education. If the Minister is involving herself and her Department in a major overhaul of the planning of education there must be a student input. It is ridiculous to maintain that one is concerned with the major interests and yet not be concerned with the numerical and direct interest involved, that being the students.
That brings me to my next point — I want to go into all of these before moving on to the general areas of education — and it has a bearing on what I have just said. If I may be pardoned for being parochial, on Monday night last at a meeting of County Westmeath Vocational Education Committee a most appalling circumstance occurred. One month ago, in May last, I proposed and had accepted by a vote at that committee that student representatives would be given observer status on the board of management in Athlone. That was a legitimate vote won as a result of intense lobbying by the students to have what I regard as their legitimate say — not as members because the board cannot be enlarged except by amending legislation — but that they would have observer status at board of management meetings. Exactly one month later, last Monday evening, Westmeath Vocational Education Committee met again. There was a rescinding motion put down by the Fine Gael and Labour Parties, won by the casting vote of a Coalition member, that the right of student observer status be taken from them.
This is in direct conflict with the Fine Gael policy on education of 1981 when they said they would provide for statutory representation, or student representation on boards of management in all schools in which they would be involved. Therefore there is need now for the Minister to speak to her partners in Government, to members of her own party. Why was the status granted them taken away by a rescinding motion? As a member of the Fine Gael Party said at that meeting, they did not want students poking into college affairs. I found a great echo of those sentiments in the Minister's remarks here today when she announced that she would set up a planning body which did not involve students. That is utterly ridiculous. It is quite extraordinary coming from a party who pride themselves on their youth involvement, the gearing of their policies towards young people, indeed their responsiveness to the needs of young people. I look forward to the July meeting of Westmeath Vocational Education Committee when I shall have a further motion down, and I look forward to hearing that the Minister has poked her Fine Gael and Labour councillors in County Westmeath, having seen to it that students get their right, at least to have their presence felt if not their voices heard. It is an issue on which I feel very deeply. It is ridiculous for a party who say they have a youth policy, to put in their manifesto, that they will afford statutory representation and then take it away, it having already been granted. I know that Deputy Boland, when Minister for Education, said he was preparing amending legislation of the 1930 Vocational Education Act to enlarge the boards of management, with the stated intention of allowing student representation on those boards. Perhaps the Minister would resurrect that amending legislation and have it implemented as soon as possible.
The Minister has given us the Estimates, as she said, which had been prepared by Fianna Fáil and with which she has had to cope. Again I must say that whoever prepared the Minister's speech has shown slick selectivity. I have in front of me the correct budget Estimate showing the additional measures brought in in the last budget by the Coalition Government. It is a document headed "Principal policy measures adopted by this Government in settling the revised Estimates"—that is the present Government. There are there detailed a number of cutbacks in education which were not, I might emphasise, detailed in the Fianna Fáil Estimates of last November, those Estimates which the Minister decries continuously when she talks about cutbacks in school transport. These are cutbacks they shrug off as not being theirs but you do not want to take responsibility for the additional ones listed here and of which you made no mention — remarkably slick selectivity — in your speech.
It is not that the Chair wants to be addressed but perhaps the Deputy would address her remarks through the Chair.
Yes, of course, you are quite right. It makes for more correct procedure. I do understand.
And less personalities.
Of course it does, yes. In all of the Minister's speech there was no mention of these additional expenditure cuts which have been brought in by this Coalition Government. It is in this area that I contend that what we have been presented with today is a slightly dishonest document. If we are going to point out where there were cuts envisaged last November surely any correct ministerial statement would have pointed out then where additional cuts had had to be effected because I understand what we are discussing are the revised Estimates announced by this Government.
The areas that will be hit more are the regional technical colleges and the colleges of technology in Dublin. Fees will be raised by amounts ranging from 100 per cent to practically 300 per cent for a small number of schools. All of these increases are listed in the revised Estimates. The Government have stated that £100,000 will be obtained by raising fees and further measures will also be taken in the regional technical colleges and in the schools of technology. The savings include the following: increased fees, increased academic standards required for EEC scholarships and reduced provision for pay and non-pay will amount to £1.55 million; reduced provision for class materials in the VEC sector, £0.5 million; reduced provision for science and other equipment grants, £0.465 million; reduced provision for pay and non-pay in the HEA sector, £1.3 million; reduced provision for running costs in training colleges, £0.35 million; allocation from youth employment levy receipts towards the cost of VEC preemployment and secretarial courses, £5 million. The Minister also referred in her speech to additional provision for youth services.
All the above in addition to what was in the budget amounts to an assault or even a dismantling of the regional technical colleges and the colleges of technology. The Minister has been very political in her speech and I aim to be the same. All the measures taken during the years by Fianna Fáil Governments are slowly but efficiently being eroded by the Coalition Government and the Minister for Education. I am thinking of matters such as the attempt to raise the school leaving age. Now we see the pillage of the RTCs. In the 1960s we had the OECD report and the Commission on Education and finally between 1967 and 1970 there was the setting up of the RTCs. This was in response to a real need that was emerging throughout the country. What is proposed in the document to which I have referred is a dismantling of the RTCs. Let us not forget that these measures are specific additional entries in the Estimates for Education as prepared by the Government and the Minister.
I want to address myself to a matter about which I feel particularly aggrieved. I intend to embark on a crusade, much as I embarked successfully on a crusade against the harshness of the measures introduced in the school transport arrangements. I devoted myself to that matter for three months. It may have appeared at the time that I was not going to do anything else in the educational area but I intend to embark on a crusade to highlight what I regard as a measure that is not acceptable from the social or educational point of view. As was stated in the small print of the budget last February, and this was confirmed by the Minister in a speech to the IVEA Association in Portlaoise on 18 May last, it will now be mandatory for a student who wishes to avail of a vocational education scholarship to enter an RTC to obtain two straight honours in two higher level subjects.
The Minister cannot in justice or from the social or educational point of view justify that decision. She attempted to justify it in her speech in Portlaoise in which she stated:
We must face the reality that measures of this kind cannot be avoided if we are to maintain the quality of our educational services. In the case of the two-honour requirement, let me mention the recent survey which has drawn attention to the high drop-out levels at the end of first year by students who attend third level colleges. We cannot ignore inter alia the cost implications of this and must recognise that the State is only in a position to subsidise those whose record of attainment shows that they have a good chance of coping with courses at this level.
I regard that as a dreadful statement. It is saying that only the best educated, qualified people will benefit by vocational education scholarships, that they will be the only ones allowed to enter that level of education. It was a quite horrific statement. The attitude is that only the good, bright, capable boys and girls should step forward but that the not so bright or not so capable — but who may have vast potential if they got the opportunity — should step aside because there is no place for them. The more I read the statement of the Minister the more my blood boils. I say to myself, how dare any Minister for Education put that in a speech and hope to get away with it, as obviously the Minister did at the time?
When dealing with the two-honour requirement the Minister referred to a report. I do not know if it was the report of Dennis Murphy, Lecturer in Economics, Galway Regional Technical College, or if it was the report entitled Participation in Higher Education — a National Survey by Patrick Clancy. The Minister in an apologia for her requirement for two honours says it is because she and the Department are worried about the drop-out rate of the lower academically geared students entering college. I draw the attention of the Minister and her advisers to the report of Dennis Murphy issued in April 1983 entitled The Characteristics and Performance of First-Year Students in Galway Regional Technical College. In table 9 there is a statement under the heading “Prior educational attainment of failures and drop-outs in percentage proportion”. We will take the year 1981-1982 as the figure in which we are interested. In 1981-1982 the drop-out rate from Galway Regional Technical College of students with no honours at entry was 20.5 per cent; the drop-out rate of students with one honour in their leaving certificate examination was 23.3 per cent; the drop-out rate for students with two honours was 24.6 per cent and the drop-out rate for students with three or more honours was 31.5 per cent. These are statistics from the report of Mr. Murphy, Lecturer in Economics at the Galway Regional Technical College. I accept that some of the drop-out rate would have been in respect of students who got employment or who went on different courses.
The regional colleges have various demographic characteristics, but we must take one example — this is what this man said when he carried out a survey in Galway. He said it was the higher honour students who had the highest percentages of drop-outs. I dispute the reason the Minister gave for the drop-out rate, which is that they were among the less academically geared children because that cannot be sustained.
I asked the Athlone Regional Technical College to provide some statistics. Up to now if a student wished to apply for a vocational education grant/scholarship and wished to enter a regional technical college, he could do it by getting five passes in stated subjects. Then he could follow the course of his choice. The Minister announced, and it was also in the small print in the budget, that now a student must have a minimum of two straight honours in two honours subjects before he can get into an RTC. In the months of May and June, when the students are leaving, the Minister cannot say they need two honours to get a scholarship for next September. I do not say that this requirement should ever be introduced but if it were it could only be introduced in two years time because the leaving certificate course takes two years. Whoever decided that this should be a feature of the budget was a very silly person who did not know anything about education and did not realise that after intermediate certificate a student had to do a two-year course for the leaving certificate. A student decides which subjects he will take in fifth year. In most schools, thanks to Fianna Fáil there is a good guidance counsellor to help students on the courses they wish to follow. How can the Minister decide now, in the month of June, that these students must have two honours subjects? That is daft.
I have met very distressed children coming from their leaving certificate examinations when it burst upon them suddenly that they needed two honours to get a vocational education scholarship/grant. They told me they could not afford to go to Athlone Regional Technical College next September because, while they were confident they would get five or more passes, they knew they would not get two honours because they had not done the honours course. I realise I am going on and on about this, but I will take every opportunity to put this point across because it is a gross miscarriage of justice to say to students at this late stage that they must have two honours this year. They cannot do it.
The Minister has plenty of commonsense and humanity. I know the Ceann Comhairle told me not to be personal but I am being personal in a nice way. I ask her to use her commonsense and change this requirement. Whoever thought up this idea — I know it was not a woman — did not know what he was talking about. This will make her the laughing stock of the country and will be a grave miscarriage of justice.
As I said, I asked the Athlone RTC for statistics because I wanted to see what was happening in my own patch. Of the total intake of students at present 58 per cent are on VEC scholarships. In 1982-83 the number — I want the Minister to listen to this——
The Minister is entitled to consult her advisers. It would be better if references were not made to civil servants because they are not answerable——
I would not dream of mentioning the words "civil servants".
"Advisers" have been mentioned several times. Neither advisers nor civil servants are answerable to the House. When civil servants are in the house they should be regarded as invisible.
I take the point you make but I never mentioned "civil servants", although I used the word "advisers". In the year 1982-83 the number of first year VEC scholarship holders with one honour or less is 70.2 per cent. That is a massive statistic and one the Minister will have to bear in mind. To bring that to a more precise calculation, 40 per cent of all first year entrants to the RTC with one honour or less got a VEC scholarship. This means Athlone RTC would have 40 per cent fewer students if this new requirement had been enforced; 70 per cent of VEC scholarship holders have one honour or less and 58 per cent of total students are on VEC scholarships.
What we are witnessing is the pillage and plunder of the RTC system. It is very serious that a system which has served so well and which should be growing and getting stronger is being dismantled. Perhaps there is a need for a review because the first RTC has been set up for 14 years and most have been set up for more than a decade. I admit there is a need for a review of the efficacy of the curriculum and the whole system of RTCs now that a decade has passed since they were set up. However, we cannot implement what the Minister sees as economies in a selective way and not present them in the Estimate speech today. But we must also mention the marvellous strides that were made, and quite rightly, in the extra provision of remedial teachers and in the amelioration of the worst and most horrible aspects of the school transport arrangements.
I am very glad the question of the catchment boundary facility areas, which I adopted last February and never let go of, has been acknowledged by the Minister and the Minister of State as being entirely necessary for review, and that they will be reporting on it. At the time I was accused of exaggeration and hyperbole. The fact is that it was a very unjust decision that the children of medical card holders could not get school transport because they were going to schools to which they had traditionally gone. The Minister was very good to make the change. Children of medical card holders will now be exempt and will be allowed to go to the school of their choice. I take no little credit for having hammered that point so often that it struck a chord.
The Minister mentioned her commitment to feminism and to opportunities for women in education. The ESRI report showed alarming lacunae in the choice of subjects for girls in second-level schools. I agree fully with her sentiments. I will gladly support her in any research and development she intends to carry out in this area. The Minister mentioned the ICTU report which she received yesterday. There is a very good article in the Irish Press of Friday, June 17. It talks about women's rights in spirit but not in practice. The second paragraph reads:
Mrs. Fennell was hearing the results of a survey of 35,000 white collar women workers by the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations in Dublin. The survey, entitled "Report on Women in Employment", follows a similar survey by the same group made in 1980.
What it really says is that women are not getting the top jobs. The Minister of State has agreed that women are not getting the top jobs and she will see that more women will get more top jobs. That is relevant to the ESRI report. If women are not doing the correct subjects, if they have not got access to them, or if there are lacunae, it follows that they are not being geared towards the top jobs. I welcome all these reports which detail deprivations in education for women. The Minister has stated her commitment to follow them up.
While I was in my office this morning I listened to Deputy Kelly speaking about lack of access for women to some educational subjects. He said women should be encouraged to take up subjects in the field of technology. He said he did not receive requests for advice from parents whose daughters wanted to take up engineering, and that there is a very small number of women engineers in the country. This is something to which we can all usefully address ourselves.
The Minister said we shed crocodile tears about school transport cuts because there were cuts in the earlier Estimates. In my research for the debate today I delved deeply and I found the Official Report of the Dáil Debates of 9 July 1982. A Cheann Comhairle, on that date you played a major part in the debate on an estimate for the Department of Education.
I am like the civil servants now. I am invisible.
You said these were the Estimates of the present Government and that the Opposition should stop saying: "They are not my Estimates. They are somebody else's Estimates." You said the Minister should accept his responsibility. I am now saying to the Minister, Deputy Hussey, that she should accept her responsibility. In the same debate the then Deputy Boland said:
The Government had their opportunity in their budget to change any of the Estimates published in January. They did so in respect of whichever Estimates they chose to change. They did not do so in respect of those Estimates they wished to adopt in their totality. It ill behoves the Minister, or some of his colleagues whom I have noted also in recent days, to adopt this Pontius Pilate-like attitude of endeavouring to suggest that the Estimates were incapable of being altered.
That was a former Minister for Education talking to the then Minister for Education, Deputy O'Donoghue. It is all very interesting. You can say one thing when you are in Government and another thing when you are in Opposition. You are like "Goody Two Shoes" when you are in Government and "Baddy Two Shoes" when you are in Opposition.
The sanctimonius and self-righteous way in which the Minister for Education presents her Estimate must be noted. Methaphorically speaking she wags her finger at the Opposition and tells us what she has had to bear in more strident and abusive language than I would care to indulge in.
I wish to speak now about the group with responsibility for adult and continuing education in Ireland. Recently the Minister met the Aontas people and they told her about their extreme disquiet, and their very real fear that Aontas may go out of existence. Aontas have the responsibility to see that all the adult education programmes are carried out properly. They are the administrative body. They give a marvellous service. They say quite starkly that Aontas will collapse at the end of August 1983 unless they can obtain additional finance before the end of the financial year. This collapse will mean making all three staff redundant and surrendering the lease of the office. I know the Minister is sympathic to the concept of adult education. On 21 November 1979 there was a debate in the Seanad. The then Senator Murphy moved the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to formulate a policy on adult education, provide a comprehensive adult education service with adequate funding and resources, and identify priorities in the development of adult education within the Government's development plan.
The then Senator Murphy very ably moved his motion and the then Senator Hussey seconded it in a very erudite fashion. She praised the role of Aontas and their contribution to the furtherance of adult education. I know the Minister still has those sentiments but, no matter how worthy she considers it not to ask for extra money, nevertheless I ask her not to prune in this area. Aontas say starkly that they are going out of business in August 1983 unless they get additional finance. A sum of £25,000 is very little direct extra expenditure and is all that is required to keep Aontas open. I appeal to the Minister to allow Aontas to continue their estimable and worthy activities which, as a Senator, she so heartily endorsed in 1979. That motion on adult education makes marvellous reading and it would be very sad if they had to close the shutters. Some way must be found to allow them to continue.
To sum up, I welcome the proposed setting up of the curriculum and examinations board but it must be set up quickly. I also agree with the setting up of a planning board but I do not agree with the exclusion of students from that board. I cited the VEC in my own constituency of County Westmeath. How can you set up a development board for the planning of education and exclude students?
The Minister said that the greatest increase will take place at third level education where some 15,000 additional students will be in full-time education. This is the most costly sector and, unfortunately, the one on which she has made her most savage assault, notably on RTCs and the schools of technology.
I also want to dispute the huge rise in fees to students entering RTCs and schools of technology. They range from 100 per cent rising steeply to an increase of 304 per cent in one case. We must not allow those fees to be implemented. The increase in population has worked its way through primary school and second level education and is also emerging in the third level sector. The Minister seems to be trying to prevent more people seeking third level education but what is going to happen to all the students who are not allowed to continue their studies because of prohibitive fees or the two honours requirement? How are these young people going to occupy their time? There are few jobs available and those there are require a third level qualification. We are told that the Government are gearing themselves towards growth. We may never again see a boom time but surely young people must be given an opportunity to fulfil their potential.
Recently the Taoiseach spoke about an up-turn in the economy and hoped it would not be too long before this happened. One needs to instill confidence but if our economy, in tune with that of the rest of the world, does show an upturn, how are we going to be able to cope with it if we do not have trained young adults? If a huge percentage of those students are not allowed to avail of this opportunity because of extreme academic requirements or financial restrictions what will happen to them? We cannot say that our young people are the great hope of the country, our shining beacon, and at the same time extinguish the light. Young people have the right to express their talents and to see what their potential is. To cruelly cut off that right in the month in which they are doing their leaving certificate is Marie Antoinette type politics. Let them eat cake. Let them get their two honours if they wish to further their education. I am very angry indeed about this situation.
I welcome the constructive parts of the Minister's speech and I hope to help and advise in the areas about which I spoke. I should like to say something now which does not just apply to me as spokesperson for Education, it applies to the whole role of opposition. Nowadays there is a belief that there should be consensus in everything and we are going to have committees on every subject. I spoke here on Dáil reform as being in favour of this committee system. I am also on record as saying that there must always be a Government and an Opposition. It is healthy that there should be a tension between a Government Minister speaking on policy and an Opposition spokesperson giving his or her view as to how that policy should or should not be altered or implemented. It is the essence of democracy that there be an Opposition and a Government. One cannot have benches of Government people putting forward new policies and benches of people fresh from committees giving agreement on these. One must run the country on the basis of a working Government and a working, healthy Opposition.
I reserve the right as Opposition spokesperson on Education, to speak for my right and that of any other Opposition Member to criticise and put forward the Members' views and the constituents' views and to see how those views might be amended, adopted and implemented. I will not listen to self-righteous humbug that I should not put forward my point of view on education. I do not say this in any sense of aggrandisement but I come from a tradition of education which ranges back over 120 years. I have that tradition to maintain and will do so from these Opposition benches. I will devote my energies to pointing out the shortcomings where they exist and to agreeing with those areas which are correct. I reserve my right to make my input into the educational process in the Ireland of the eighties and looking forward to the Ireland of the nineties.
I offer my good wishes to the two women who sit below me, first to my colleague, Minister of Education, Deputy Hussey. She has done a very good job since coming into office and it has not been easy. There is no joy in making cuts and trying to redress the imbalances of what has been accepted as being bad Government for a number of years. The Minister has taken on that role and mantle with courage and, I would say, without any experience. I offer her my congratulations and good wishes.
At the same time, I offer my good wishes to Deputy O'Rourke on the Opposition side. She certainly has the training and although she implied that she was politically naive, she has the political skills and expertise to be a very effective Opposition spokeswoman.
Thank you, Madam.
However, I would suggest that she see the reality of life.
I see a fair bit of it.
I would not deprive the Deputy of the right to make strong statements and, in effect, be a strong and responsible Opposition. However, I say advisedly that to indulge in intemperate rhetoric is unfair to the people in education about whom we should be very concerned—the pupils and the parents.
Deputy O'Rourke considers herself realistic and responsible in her comments, but I would remind her of a Sunday up in Ballybofey when she was standing on the trailer next to me and, no doubt carried away by political election zeal——
No comment.
——was making statements which implied that education in Ireland was going to go back to Famine times.
Hedge schools.
I ask her to be a little fairer to the parents and the children.
We are talking about the record of the House, not of Donegal.
Ladies, ladies, please.
I am making this point because we are talking about Estimates and cutbacks and those whom they affect. It creates a certain unnecessary fear and uncertainty. What is important is that we maintain a system of education which is something for which we need not apologise or of which we need not be ashamed. This is a very difficult time and we must maintain the system as best we can and have a responsibility to do that. I appeal to Deputy O'Rourke to temper her zeal and lower her rhetoric a little. I will take my cue from Deputy O'Rourke——
Is that not great?
——seeing that she gave me an entrée earlier on, in the publicity in today's press regarding the report issued last night on Women in Employment. That report indicated the low representation of women in jobs above a certain grade. They are bunched in very great numbers in service areas—low paid jobs, low status. While women are making progress, and have certainly made great progress in the ten years since the marriage bar was lifted, they are not making as much progress as one would wish and this applies across the board.
We must look at education in examining why women are not making the grade in job areas. This is my special area of responsibility and that is what I will talk about. I shall not spend too long, because other people wish to contribute, but I refer to the ESRI report recently published which has been mentioned before today in this debate. I know that the Minister has this report and that she is committed to equal opportunities for women and for their advancement and will take this report very seriously. I wish to praise the foresight of the ESRI and the Employment Equality Agency and congratulate Professor Hannan on the timely publication of the report. As the Minister has announced, a committee is already working within her Department on the setting up of a Curriculum and Examinations Board. It is important that this board have at its disposal, from the outset, the findings of Professor Hannan.
Unless we examine seriously the educational lifestyle of our children, we will not prepare them for the reality of work life after school. The whole area of stereotyping and subject selection is important, but there are areas of what are called hidden curricula. I hope that this report will be read by teachers in the staffroom and discussed by them. Very often teachers can bring into their classes their own attitudes, perhaps their biases and prejudices, even in their attitudes collectively to a class on how they address a mixed group based on preconceptions of boys' or girls' reactions and expectations. We need to go very deeply into this subject. Perhaps a lot can be done in the schools with a will and I believe that the present Minister has that will. However, there is not much point in changing the curriculum to give opportunities on selective subjects which are going to stream girls into, say, the scientific and technological areas, rather than the service areas as in the past. Before I came into the House I bought some of these books thinking in my innocence that this was nonsense about mummy baking bread.
No exhibits, no apple tarts.
I could have asked the Deputy for them. These books are being used in schools.
I am keeping my eye on the situation.
I am reluctant to intervene on what to date has been a woman's world——
The Deputy is a brave man.
——but it is rather unusual, especially with a time limit on debate, to have a junior Minister from another Department making representations to a Minister which she could very readily make to that Minister in the ordinary course of events. The tradition is that ordinarily such representations and such a tête-à-tête takes place outside the House and other people who have not the same access to the Minister are allowed the few minutes we have here to make their thoughts known.
As Deputy Tunney knows, the only control the Chair has over speakers is that they be Members of the House and that he rotates from one side to the other.
I hope Deputy Tunney is not referring to my contribution as a tête-à-tête.
No. The Deputy has access to her colleague which we do not have as regards promoting policy to her. This is the only forum we have.
I take the Ceann Comhairle's advice on this. I consider that what I have to say is important for the record. I shall not be very long as I do not want to deprive anyone of contributing.
As regards adult education, I have been closely involved with groups in Dublin who have organised themselves locally despite all the difficulties and obstacles which were in their way. These happen to be all women's classes. This is an area of vital importance in the educational field. I know the extent to which many women, particularly those working full-time in the home, benefit from this form of adult education. I know that a report is due to be issued from the Department in the autumn. Many women left school at 13 or 14 years of age and did not have access to second-level let alone third-level education. In the main they would have had low paid jobs. There is an awareness among women who married in their late teens or early twenties that the educational opportunities available through the VECs are far broader than baking, cooking, domestic science or dressmaking or some of the traditional skill areas. Many women are now enrolling for maths, history and other subjects. This is a worthwhile change.
Full credit must be given to these women groups. One such group is the Kilbarrack Local Education Adult Renewal. They started as a group of local housewives interested in self-development and discovered what academic subjects were available to them. They approached the VEC to arrange morning classes for them. Following discussion the women agreed with the VEC on the content of courses in English and basic maths. The success of the first course can be gauged from the fact that 50 women have now enrolled for a range of subjects, many of which lead to the leaving certificate. Testimonial to the strength of the group's motivation is that they have successfully organised crèche facilities with help from the National Manpower Service work experience programme. They have published a booklet and they plan to publish another in the near future. Mothers who stay at home while their children are young benefit from this experience not only from the social interaction with other participants but also from the intellectual challenge which faces them.
Many educationalists feel that at a time of recession and unemployment adult education should be made more accessible. In a recession the ideal approach is to pursue creative activities and make up the shortfall by learning useful skills. This is a new movement and I am sure it is happening in other areas. Mothers at home organise baby sitters and push prams long distances to get to classes.
As regards the link between women in employment and the education system I should like to read an extract from Review of Policies for Equality of Opportunity", the Irish Report of the OECD:
The extent of sex differentiation is deeply institutionalised in the ideological and cultural presumptions underlying the educational system. Provision, allocation and choice are influenced by the "hidden curriculum" which reflects the attitudes and values which are dominant in society, and clearly reflected in schools.
Participation in second level education among teenage girls is as high as for boys. However, there are significant differences in the range of subject courses followed by boys and girls. In general, girls are under-represented among those following courses in technical areas such as technical drawing, metalwork, etc., and in advanced mathematics and physics — subjects which lay the groundwork for further study in most engineering and technological disciplines. These differences manifest themselves both in the more academically orientated secondary schools and in the vocational education sector.
While the subjects taken by boys and girls are in part determined by pupils' choices (influenced by attitudes in the home and in society generally) there are indications that differences in the subject choices offered by schools to boys and girls is a contributory factor. A substantial proportion of the subjects taken by girls at second-level influence the range of choices open to them subsequently — (choice in employment, in future education, and in post-educational training). Thus, rather fewer girls than boys go on to third-level education. Of these, nearly three times as many girls as boys go into training colleges orientated towards primary teaching, nursing and secretarial courses; about half as many girls as boys go on to third-level technical colleges, and those who do tend towards the business rather than the engineering disciplines; and among those who go to university, girls tend mainly towards the humanities and the social sciences.
I do not think many parents look through primary schoolbooks but their illustrations are as bad if not worse than the pose of the caring mother. You never see a father fixing a child's jacket or putting on a baby's nappy or a child's shoes. Fathers do this type of work. We must reflect reality in children's schoolbooks. We have the caring mother seeing the child off to school. We see mammy at the stove making a cake in that one. Here we have Uncle Seán showing little Seán how to build a kennel for the dog. This is Matthew sailing his boat and talking about his boat with his father. The girls tend to be clean, tidy and neat and shocked and horrified at anything the boys are doing. It is just a case of this being a boy's and a man's world in that anything serious is being done by the boys. We get the picture of daddy showing the way but we know that that is not the case in today's world. We have a changed approach and we must reflect that in our text books.
Is mian liom cuidiú leis an meastachán seo. Caithfidh mé a rá gur chuir sé áthas orm gur tugadh cóip as Gaeilge de óráid an Aire dúinn. Tá brón orm nach bhfuil aon dul chun cinn luaite in óráid an Aire faoin Ghaeilge féin. Chuir sé sin isteach go mór orm. Tuigim go luaitear rudaí cultúrtha agus a leithéid ar leathanach éigin ann ach níl rud ar bith faoin Ghaeilge agus easpa Ghaeilge ón Aire ann. Measaim nach tuar maith é sin do scoláirí agus múinteoirí na tíre seo. Tá laghdú tagaithe ar suim sa Ghaeilge. Ba mhaith an rud é dá dtosnódh an tAire nó an Roinn Oideachais clú agus cáil a bhí ag múinteoirí agus páistí scoile, a chur ar ais i n-aigne na ndaoine. Is dócha go mbeidh sé deacair é sin a dhéanamh, ba chóir dom a rá, nuair nach bhfuil flúirseacht agus líofacht Ghaeilge ag an Aire Oideachais. Tá roinnt bheag Ghaeilge, ceapaim, ag an Aire Stáit san Roinn Oideachais de bharr go bhfuil sé as mo chontae féin agus go bhfuil Gaeltacht beag ann. Is dócha go bhfuil sé de chuspóir aige agus ba chóir go mbeadh agus é mar Theachta san áit seo. Ní maith liom a bheith ag caint mar sin ar an díospóireacht seo, ach cuireann sé isteach go mór orm go bhfuil easpa dul chun cinn maidir leis an nGaeilge, san Roinn Oideachais faoi láthair agus caithfidh mé é sin a rá.
Nílim chun tagairt go mór a dhéanamh ar an meastachán seo agus ar óráid an Aire. Dhein an Teachta O'Rourke fiosrú ar gach rud ann agus do lua sí a lán rudaí agus ní gá na rudaí sin a lua arís. Chomh maith leis sin tá roinnt daoine anseo gur maith leo a bheith páirteach san díospóireacht seo agus, cosúil leis an Aire Stáit a bhí ag caint, nílim chun mórán ama a thógáil.
There are many aspects of this Estimate to which I should like to contribute but unfortunately the time available to us is much too restricted. It is ridiculous that having begun debate on this important Estimate at 12.45 p.m. today we must conclude by 4 p.m. This is a bad advertisement for us as legislators so far as people involved in education at all levels and also parents and pupils are concerned. Even with the Friday sittings of the House we have not been able to arrange more time for a debate of this kind.
I should like to refer briefly to the chaos and confusion that have followed the arrangements made by the Minister in the area of school transport. The problems began on 23 December last when without consultation with anyone involved, the Minister rushed in with an arrangement that was intended to try to embarrass the previous administration. However, that did not work and to add insult to injury there have been various changes since in the school transport arrangements. All of this has led to utter confusion. If it is the intention of the Government to discontinue the school transport system, a system that was introduced by the late Mr. O'Malley, as Minister for Education, and which was financed down through the years by Fianna Fáil administrations and by a Coalition Government for a short term, they should say so instead of discontinuing the scheme by stealth.
Every effort is being made to reduce the numbers of children being carried on the buses. The concept of the catchment area has assumed a very important role in recent months. The position often is that if one is in a certain catchment area one goes to the nearest school although there will be no bus transport to that school. Therefore, the children caught in this situation must make some other arrangements for going to school. The social aspect and the affinity of people with the areas in which they live and such factors as parochial boundaries do not matter so long as the Department can save money. They are applying the most stringent regulations possible. In my time as a public representative I have never seen so much effort being made as is the case in this instance. Obviously the Department are eliminating school transport to the greatest extent possible.
On the general question of education, we should educate our people for life rather than in the interest of academic qualifications. There is so much pressure on students leading up to examination time that their ability to take their examinations is being affected adversely. Pressure is put on children to attain the same level of success as was obtained in the previous year by their neighbours. I am glad to note that the Minister is acting on a proposal that we put forward while in Government by way of a White Paper. I refer to the setting up of a board to investigate curriculum. The curriculum indicated by the Minister was included in our White Paper some years ago and I am glad to know that it is to be retained and made a reality.
Student accommodation at third level colleges was not mentioned by the Minister. Instead we have a requirement of two honours for scholarships to the regional technical colleges, the implications of which were spelled out by Deputy O'Rourke. I contacted Cork County Vocational Education Committee to ask them what effect this might have and I received a letter which stated that a total of 142 new scholarship awards were accepted for the 1982-83 school year and 90 of those students had obtained grade C or higher in two honours papers in the leaving certificate examination. The effect of the Government's proposal would be that 52 of those students could not have gone to the Cork Regional Technical College last year because they had not the financial wherewithal.
An education system which provides only for the academic and intellectual development of students is very narrow and shortsighted. I condemn the dropping of the axe by the Minister on the counselling service and I would point out that in the present climate of social change the education of our young people is more important than ever. Because of the change in direction of employment possibilities young people need to be equipped to maintain personal stability in their emotions and relationships with others in the face of repeated change and constant challenge.
It is argued that one must focus on generalised skills which will live on regardless of the fluctuating employment scene. We are in the era of the microchip but some of the old skills will be needed. I refer to such skills as decision making, coping skills, conflict solving skills, relationship and communication skills, learning and creative skills. Social and personal education could, therefore, enable the young person to face the future confidently and optimistically, knowing his or her own worth, aware of his or her own strength, capable of making decisions and coping with uncertainty. Adaptability, flexibility, resourcefulness, openness to challenge and change are the qualities which need to be nurtured in the social and personal development of the young person. Nevertheless we have a Minister for Education who at one fell swoop has discouraged the kind of guidance service we need.
The first year at secondary school involves a major transition for the student. A guidance counsellor would focus on the difficulties encountered in the change from primary to secondary school, allowing pupils to express their hopes, fears and anxieties. Self-awareness is developed by helping them to see themselves as unique individuals with different interests, likes, habits, values, attitudes and abilities and by enabling them to see themselves as persons of worth, regardless of potential or achievement. They are encouraged to discover, to explore and to express their own individuality, thus building up confidence and a positive self-image. These are the directions which we as legislators should be encouraging our educators to pursue. Forty-eight per cent of our young people are under the age of 25. Where counselling is available students are given the opportunity to talk about love, fear, anger, disappointment, loneliness, anxiety and worry and they share ideas on how to deal with these feelings. Making friends, coping with conflict, with quarrels, with the bullying that goes on in some places, shyness and attitudes to school and study can be explored in the classroom or amongst small groups.
I pay tribute to the social and health education programme being provided by Ogra Corcaigh. We are fortunate to have such a comprehensive and worthwhile programme in Cork. Two hundred teachers are engaged in this project which has been formally recognised by the Southern Health Board. I would hope for some rethinking within the Department of Education. I do not totally disagree with the previous speaker in regard to education for life, although I might stop at supporting some of these suggestions.
I should like the Minister to give some consideration to the position of scoileanna lán-Ghaelacha. I had this matter in mind during the debate on school transport but I will not go into detail about the reason I did not raise it. At present there are only 3,000 students attending lán-Ghaelach post-primary schools in the whole country, apart from State schools, technical schools and community schools. Only one of 14 lán-Ghaelach post-primary schools has an intake of more than 250 pupils. The Minister's Christmas package has in effect meant that no provision would be made for career guidance teachers, that the raising of the pupil-teacher ratio will mean that other subjects will have to be dropped from the curriculum. As most pupils attending these schools live well over three miles away and in some cases travel up to 35 miles each way to their school, the only compensation they had was free travel and that is now being withdrawn. Private schools run by religious orders—they are not private in the sense that people might have an ideological idea about them — are financed by the parents to a large degree. I was given information about one such school here in Dublin who must raise £18,000 a year to pay bank interest. Now parents must pay to send their children to school also, and to a very restricted curriculum.
I have a question to ask the Minister. Coláiste an Phiarsaigh in Cork ——
I am sorry to interrupt you, Deputy, but approximately five Deputies are offering. It is now 3.12 p.m. and the Minister must conclude at 3.45 p.m. It is no fault of mine. It is not my responsibility. An order was made last week that the business would conclude at 4 o'clock. I regret that we must adhere to it.
On a point of order, is it the order of the House that the Minister must get in?
By agreement the Minister would come in.
Was the agreement between the Whips?
That is most unusual. I occupied your Chair for a very long time and there was never such an agreement before. Rather was an opportunity given to people to make their contributions.
On a point of information, when I came in here I asked if it was usual. I thought it was not usual that the Minister would reply and the occupant of the Chair, at that time the Ceann Comhairle, told me that it had been the procedure. I was rather amazed. He said it was the procedure. It is on the record.
When I occupied the Chair I was advised that the Minister would conclude the debate at 3.45 p.m.
It was agreed.
Before it was agreed I asked if that was the arrangement and if that had always appertained and I was told yes, that was the arrangement that had appertained heretofore.
You, Sir, and the rest of us are governed by the order of the House. The Ceann Comhairle continues to remind us of that. The order of the House is that the debate takes place. There is no order providing for an Estimate debate that anybody must get in to conclude.
Why was I told that there was?
I was not here but I was informed that it was agreed that the Minister could come in at 3.45 p.m. to conclude. It is now 3.15 p.m.
I must make this clear. Before it was agreed I asked—and it is on the record that I asked—if that was the procedure. I doubted very much if it was procedure for the Minister to come in. I was told that it was procedure for a Minister to come in.
It is not.
Then I was misinformed and any arrangement I came to was incorrect.
On a point of order, was it an order of the House at 10.30 this morning?
No, it was not an order at 10.30 a.m.
Was the order made this morning at 10.30?
We were told that there was an agreement that the Minister would come in at 3.45 p.m.
That agreement was made from misinformation then.
I did not misinform you. I was not here.
I wish to confirm that to my knowledge and recollection that agreement was arrived at on the basis of procedure as outlined in response to a request for information from this side of the House. I interpret that to mean that if that information which became available from the Chair was in any way inaccurate or inconsistent with the procedure then it would invalidate that agreement.
I requested the information before I made the agreement and that is on the record of the House.
It is very clear that our spokesman was misinformed, hence her agreement, but the agreement was not in the order of the House this morning.
Are Fianna Fáil trying to stop my right of reply? What are they afraid of?
Deputies, please, I would like to talk. I interrupted Deputy Lyons and I apologise to him for interrupting him. I reminded him of the time factor and that started the whole hullabaloo. An order was made last week that the sitting of the House on Friday would conclude at 4 p.m. Some decision was made in my absence that the Minister was to reply at 3.45 p.m. for which I have no responsibility. I have not got the details. I reminded Deputy Lyons that at least five Deputies are waiting to get in. They are Deputy McLoughlin, Deputy De Rossa, Deputy L. Fitzgerald, Deputy Barnes and Deputy Tunney and it is now 3.16 p.m.
There is obviously misunderstanding here. Surely you can inform the House of the detail of the agreement.
Deputy, I do not think that you are any more aware of the misunderstanding than I am because neither of us was here.
The Ceann Comhairle turned to me and asked me at what time I wished to conclude and I indicated 3.45 p.m. and everybody said "agreed".
He should not have done that.
That is not true.
I repeat that the spokesman on this side of the House sought clarification of a number of issues and this was one of those issues. She got clarification on the basis that I have outlined to you, Sir.
This is selectivity.
Deputy O'Rourke, are you referring to my ruling?
No, not at all. I used the word "selectivity" in my speech to refer to the Minister's comments in her speech and I am using it to refer to her comments now.
Deputies will appreciate that several items were raised by different Deputies, including Deputy O'Rourke, and I presume she would prefer the Minister to answer.
I asked if there was agreement and I was told that there was.
It is now 3.20 p.m.
It does not matter who said what and when. For my own information in future on the procedure of this House, is it the practice, the usual performance, that on Estimates the Minister replies at the end of the debate?
Not in a limited time debate, no.
You are not the chairperson.
You are not the Ceann Comhairle, Minister. The Ceann Comhairle was wrong in inviting you to reply.
That is ten minutes wasted with waffle.
I am in the invidious position that I came in when the arrangement was made with the Ceann Comhairle. We now have 40 minutes remaining.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I appreciate the dilemma you find yourself in, but I must put it to you that in your absence an agreement was arrived at on the basis of what to me was inaccurate or misleading premises.
Why did the Deputy not say so then?
I took it for granted.
When am I to get in?
I took it to be a factual representation of the situation which I now have doubts about.
I regret very much intervening in this fashion. I remind you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that while you occupy the Chair you are the interpreter of the order. You are not obliged to inherit any agreement made by anybody, and we are not concerned here with the details. The Ceann Comhairle was entirely incorrect in a limited debate in assigning time for anybody to reply. That is Standing Orders as they are. I am not looking upon myself as being there and you, as Leas-Cheann Comhairle, are not obliged to inherit any arrangement that is not in accordance with your interpretation of Standing Orders. It is as simple as that.
Are you indicating that there was no formal order for the Minister to reply?
There is no provision in a limited debate. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance a short time ago did not have any time to reply in the earlier limited debate.
The relevant point is if the House decided that the Minister should reply at 3.45 p.m.
The House did not decide that.
According to the Minister the Ceann Comhairle nodded to the Opposition side and it was agreed.
The basis on which an agreement was reached is now said to be inconsistent with normal interpretation of Standing Orders in a limited debate.
The obvious thing to do now is to adjourn the debate on the Estimate at 4 o'clock and resume it next week.
On 8 June the House made an order to the effect that from 17 June 1983 the Dáil shall meet on Fridays at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.
That is correct.
The Order of the House yesterday was that debates on Votes 28 to 33 would conclude not later than 4 p.m. today. The House made two orders on Estimates and both of them provided that the debate should conclude at 4 o'clock.
That is correct but they only required that at 4 o'clock the Chair would put the question. There was not anything about the Minister getting in at any time.
Deputy Lyons should continue his contribution.
Are we clear that the agreement made earlier in the House stands?
We now have a transcript of the debate which I will submit to the Chair.
The Minister is referring to a ministerial agreement with the Ceann Comhairle. That has been admitted by the Minister. In fact, I believe the Minister has embarrassed the Ceann Comhairle.
I have been informed by the Clerk of the Dáil that there was an agreement that the debate would conclude at 4 o'clock and the Minister would commence her reply at 3.45 but that is not an order of the House. If we continued with the debate perhaps the Minister will be able to get in for five minutes.
It was agreed that the Minister would get in at 3.45 p.m.
That was an agreement but not an order of the House. We should continue with this important debate. We have wasted almost 15 minutes so far.
I referred to that earlier. I indicated that it was regrettable that we were confining the debate on the Department to such a short space of time. In view of what has happened in the last 15 minutes it is possible that we could have agreement that the adjournment be moved at 4 p.m. so that Members who are anxious to contribute will get that opportunity later?
The debate has to be finalised at 4 o'clock and that is an order of the House.
I must accept the ruling of the Chair but it is regrettable.
That is not my decision but a decision of the House.
My apologies because I did not realise it was a decision of the House. However, I regret that the House decided to give such a short amount of time to a debate on this Department. It would be in the best interests of all if the debate was adjourned at 4 o'clock and resumed next week. I accept that because of an order of the House that cannot be done. I had intended to deal with many other matters connected with the Department but in deference to those anxious to contribute I will conclude. I am almost at the point of being annoyed that we do not have sufficient time to deal with the Estimate in the manner it deserves because the future, and the lives, of so many people are at stake. It is regrettable that the House made such an order.
There are 25 minutes remaining for the debate and the order of speakers is as follows, Deputies McLoughlin, De Rossa, Liam Fitzgerald, Barnes, Tunney and, if possible, the Minister. I regret that I cannot do anything about the matter but it was an agreement that was reached. An order was not made by the House.
Have we to have another agreement now so as to stop me speaking at 3.45 p.m.?
The order is the order of the House. I cannot enforce an agreement, only an order.
Fianna Fáil are depriving me of the right to reply.
The Minister is depriving us of the right to speak.
I am not depriving any Member of anything. I am dealing with an order of the House. We are wasting time.
I appreciate that it is not the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who is depriving us of the right to reply but I wish to put on record that Fianna Fáil are going back on an agreement they entered into earlier and refusing a Minister the right to reply. That is extraordinary. They are cowards again. They do not like what they hear.
Let there be no more faleshoods put into the record of the House.
I am calling on Deputy McLoughlin.
The Chair allowed the Minister to make a statement.
Fianna Fáil are afraid to hear what they do not like.
I am not allowing any Member to make a statement. I am calling on Deputy McLoughlin.
I am anxious to show the Chair the transcript of the debate.
I am aware of what is in the transcript and the Deputy should resume her seat. I respect ladies and because of that I have more patience with the Deputy.
I agree with the Minister. The Opposition are deliberately wasting time so as not to give the Minister the opportunity to reply.
We did not expect the Deputy to say anything else.
The Deputy was not present.
The Opposition should have manners. I did not heckle them. I want to remind the Opposition of a few home truths. They complimented the Minister on bringing forward their White Paper but Fianna Fáil have constantly avoided the fact that they left the school transport service short £5.4 million. Had they been returned to office they would have had to make the same cuts in that service that we did. I have often said that it is a pity there was a change of Government in the last election.
We all know that.
Hear, hear.
The reason I say that is that Fianna Fáil were returned to power in 1977 with the biggest majority ever secured by any political party but they failed to do anything. From 1977 to 1981 they borrowed £9,088 million. What did they do with that money? Had that money been spent correctly many schools could have been built and equipped and roads improved. The problem the Minister, and the Government, have to face is the disaster that occurred following the implementation of the 1977 manifesto. That was the root cause of all the problems in education. Deputy Lyons prompted me to make those remarks.
The Opposition seem to forget that they have ruled the country for 80 per cent of the time since the foundation of the State. We are all aware of the number of people who had to emigrate and the fact that we were handed 165,000 unemployed when we took office. Previous Ministers in Fianna Fáil Governments promised that there would be full employment but we all know what happened to that promise. They cannot blame us for the situation the country is in six months after we are elected to power. It appears that the Opposition have forgotten The Way Forward in a few months. I accept that a former leader of that party lost his memory but it now appears that Front Bench members of that party are losing their memories as well as their minds.
I accept that the Government are in difficult circumstances because of what we inherited but when things improve in the Department of Education I hope the Minister will provide more money for the primary school sector. I am a member of the Meath VEC and I am aware that seven of the eight vocational schools in my constituency are in urgent need of attention. There is need for new vocational schools in Trim, Kells and Nobber. The school in Kells has been promised for 21 years and we all know which party were in Government for most of that time. At every general election since 1962 Fianna Fáil approved the erection of a new school in Kells but the sod has not been turned. That was not done by Coalition Governments. We had all heard rumours at election time that the school will be starting soon.
There is a need for permanent extensions to Longwood, Athboy, Oldcastle and Dunshaughlin vocational schools. Most of the money we get in Meath for the VEC is spent on administration and most of our schools are old, particularly those with less than 200 pupils. Repairs are needed and money is needed to replace equipment. Unfortunately, often there is not sufficient money to deal with these essential matters. Would the Minister get her officials to have a special look at the allocation this year to Meath VEC to see if it can be improved?
I want to say something about the decision the Department of Education took about charging people £24 for school transport to people outside the catchment area. The Department must look at this again. The population of Meath is 100,000 and there are 30,000 living in the area from Dunboyne, Dunshaughlin, Duleek right across to the sea but there is only one secondary school in that area, the community school at Dunshaughlin. Parents constantly come to me complaining about having to pay £24 for school transport. Those people live in Dunboyne and in Laytown and their chidren are going to schools in Drogheda and Dublin. The Department cannot provide educational facilities for people in that area. The Minister inherited that from the previous administration. I am putting it on the record of the House that the Department of Education have agreed in principle to erect a secondary school in Ashbourne. I want the decision on that speeded up. I also want to put it on the record of the House that a new secondary school in Dunboyne is needed. I do not see why the people of Meath, with a population of 100,000 should have to go with their caps in hands to secondary schools in Dublin and Louth asking them to take their children.
I attended with the Minister for Industry and Energy a meeting lately of 200 parents who discussed the cuts in education. Despite what the Opposition say, I believe the public at the moment know the financial situation and would support a Government who tackle the problems and are seen to be tackling them. I believe that is why the Leader of the Opposition lost the last three elections. The people knew he was not the man to lead the country.
We did not lose three elections.
He is the only Fianna Fáil leader who lost three elections in a row.
He did not.
He did. Fianna Fáil should keep him because he is good for us.
Would the Deputy please keep to the Estimate because time is running out?
When the economy improves and money becomes available I would like to see money going back into education. I do not like to see cuts in the money available for career guidance teachers and I do not like to see cutbacks in relation to remedial teachers. I am aware, because of what we inherited, that the money is not there at the moment. People come to me and say: "Frank, you are a Labour TD, can you not speak to the Minister about this?" I am man enough to know that, even if the Government were composed entirely of Labour Members, there is very little we could do with the economy at the moment because of the deplorable mess it was left in by bad government from 1977.
Deputy De Rossa.
Why has the order of speakers changed?
Deputy De Rossa offered and has been accepted and Deputy Fitzgerald is being accepted afterwards. Does the Deputy intend delaying the debate again?
I am asking this for clarification.
I am trying to be as fair as possible and the choice rests with me. If the Deputy would let Deputy De Rossa speak I will call on him afterwards.
I am ruling that Deputy De Rossa will come in now. I presume he will not have a very long speech and he will allow Deputy Fitzgerald to come in then. If the Deputy would accept the ruling of the Chair Deputy De Rossa could commence his speech.
I will, reluctantly.
I have savagely cut my speech because of the position in relation to finishing. I would like to refer to the 100 per cent increase in the fees of the regional technological colleges. That is a completely unjust move and is illogical. The idea of trying to bring technological colleges into line in terms of fees with universities is ridiculous. The Dublin Institute of Technology and regional technological colleges do not enjoy anything like the facilities universities enjoy, from library services to sporting facilities. There is no comparison between the two, although some of the facilities in the universities are completely inadequate. It is important to remember that the VEC colleges were originally set up to provide technical skills for those who could not go to universities, hence the need to keep the fees low. The scheme was mainly aimed at working class people.
I would also like to deal with the decision to cut equipment grants and material grants by nearly £1 million to VECs and RTCs. The capital provision cutbacks of £7 million which will severely hit VECs and RTCs is disastrous. Does the Minister not agree that in a sector badly in need of more money it is wrong that those cuts should take place at this time? The Rathmines College of Commerce, for example, has a library which seats less than 90 people with a student population of 1,000 full-time students and 2,000 part-time students. The library is a prefab building and is so bad it could well be a health hazard because of the very bad conditions.
It is an indictment not alone of this Government but of successive Governments over the years—we have to accept, as Deputy McLoughlin says, that the Fianna Fáil Party have been in power 80 per cent of the time since the State was established—that one in every four primary schools has prefabricated classrooms, that one in ten do not have any drinking water, that three in every four do not have a telephone and that one in eight of all primary classes have in excess of 40 pupils. It must also be said, despite these conditions, that the standard of achievement of the pupils is a credit to the dedicated teachers who teach under those conditions.
I would like to refer to a point which is gaining currency at the moment. There is a very dangerous theory being floated about—based on the idea that the unemployed, like the poor, will be always with us—that to deal with the increasing number of unemployed we must train them to deal with the so-called leisure time. I must make it clear that leisure time and leisure facilities are very important, but they are available to us after a day's work, a week's work or a year's work. Leisure time is not an occupation and must not be allowed to become another word for unemployment. We must plan for full employment, educate and train our young people in academic and technological subjects so that they can advance our economic development. We have the resources to make that advance. We have the resources in our seas, on our land, beneath our seas and beneath our land. I have no shame in continuing to press the Government, or any other Government that may be in power in the future, for more resources for education, demanding the millions of pounds due in unpaid taxes from the rich and the ruling classes and that some at least of the 200,000 unemployed could be more usefully engaged in educational services, in reducing the pupil/teacher ratio, building new schools so badly needed, acting as caretakers and engaging in other ancillary duties rather than remaining on the dole queues.
All attempts to deprive education of adequate financing must be resisted. It seems that this Government are determined to follow the Tory line in Britain, where savage cuts in public spending have included education and have become the order of the day. The Government seem bent on following that line here. If we follow suit and deprive the students of today it means that we are abandoning their future. A progressive and developing urban industrial society requires an educated and adaptable population, adaptable to change and properly equipped to cope with the demands society makes on it. We need to reorientate education to provide for a population optimistic about industrialisation and urbanisation, motivated by the tremendous opportunities presented by developing technology. In this way only can we make technology a servant of society. Only then shall we dispel any notion that technology is an alien force threatening our lives.
The schools curricula should be changed to place more emphasis on our social history, the developing urban culture and aspects of science and technology. Our educational system must become a positive part of our society in harmony with the needs, real culture and aspirations of the majority of our people.
I might refer briefly to one or two points in the Minister's introductory remarks. She referred to the unprecedented step of involving the major groups in education, engaging them with a working party in her Department, in the planning process. She says she has laid down the principles on which that working party will report to her and said:
I assume that the programme, while not setting out a complete philosophy of education, will be based on the continuing role of the educational system in transmitting religious and moral values, as well as maintaining existing key traditions.
If the Minister has an opportunity to reply to this debate today, or at some other time in the House, I should like her to explain what she means by "maintaining existing key traditions." It must be accepted that the traditions and values of this society of ours are changing. Society is changing, moving from being ruralbased to urban-based. If we are going to endeavour to maintain key traditions through our educational system without spelling out beforehand what the Government see those traditions as being and what value they see those traditions as having, then in this society of ours today and that we are likely to have in coming years we may be developing an educational system and curricula which will not be able to cope with technology or the manner in which our society is to develop. Therefore I should like the Minister to spell out exactly what she means by "maintaining existing key traditions" so that we can have a debate on whether those traditions are relevant to today's society and to the needs of our people.
I had a lot more to say on the subject of curricula and the need for change there. I note that the Minister said she intends to set up a Curriculum and Examinations Board on an ad hoc basis by January 1984. I should be anxious to know why she chose this ad hoc basis. Would she not have considered that it would be better to have a permanent board which would carry out a continuous review of curricula and examinations. Practically everybody is agreed that the curricula have to be changed and that the examinations system must be changed. Numerous approaches have been made to the Department over the years, before the present Minister took office and since, stressing the need for such change and outlining how they should and ought to be effected.
Rather than go into a lot of detail on the matter I would urge the Minister to explain more clearly what are the Department's views in relation to how this board will operate and whether there is any possibility it could be established before early next year. I am sure the Minister will agree that there is an urgency about this matter, that the sooner it is set up and reports the sooner the necessary changes can be implemented.
Ba mhian liom i dtosach báire mo dhíomá a ghabháil chuig an Aire os rud é nár bhain sí úsáid as focal amháin Ghaeilge. Nílim ag iarraidh gearáin, nó masla, a chur ar éinne go pearsanta. Táim ag iarraidh a chur in iúl don Teach seo, don Roinn Oideachais agus don Aire an tábhacht a bhaineann agus a bhain agus a bhainfidh, le cúnamh Dé, le Gaeilge agus le labhairt na Gaeilge. Mo náire thú, a Aire, nach ndearna tú iarracht. Tá a lán daoine sa tír seo agus níl mórán Ghaeilge acu. Ach ó tháinig Liam Ó Murchú ar an aer agus chuir sé "Trom agus Éatrom" ar aghaidh. Mar a deireann daoine go minic i láthair na h-uaire "na cúpla focal." Tá an pobal a baint úsáid as. Ionas nach bhfuil siad sásta cúpla focal a úsáid, ag an am gcéanna molaim go ndeineann daoine agus go ndéanfaidh daoine, agus go ndéanfaidh Aire Oideachais, iarracht agus beidh mise sásta.
Sí an Ghaeilge an gné is tábhachtaí dár gcultúr. Cuirfidh an Ghaeilge go mór le caractaer ár ndaoine. Le dhá mhíle bliain anuas bhí sí á h-úsáid againne. Tá sé sofheicthe gur cailliúint tubaisteach a bheadh dá rachadh an Ghaeilge i léig. Sin é mo thuairimse agus sin é tuairim formhór na daoine sa tír seo, ach tá siad ag brath ar dhea-shampla. Tá siad ag brath ar dhaoine atá in ann an sprid sin a chothú; agus a leathnú sa tír. Sin an príomh chúis atá agamsa ag iarraidh ar an Aire as seo amach sa Teach seo iarracht a dhéanamh agus cúpla focal a rá as Gaeilge. Molaim gur chuir sí amach na Meastacháin trí mheán na Gaeilge freisin. Tá daoine taobh amuigh den Teach seo ag féachaint orainn agus ag iarraidh dea-shampla a fháil uainn.
Cuirfidh an córas oideachais freisin go mór leis an nGaeilge a athbheochaint ar fud na tíre sa mhéid go bhfuil an Ghaeilge ar eolas ag scata mór daoine agus go mbíonn siad ag iarraidh úsáid a bhaint as an méid atá acu. Ach níl an Ghaeilge á labhairt sa Ghalltacht ach go fíor annamh agus níl sí á labhairt sa Teach seo ach go fíor annamh agus molaim ar Teachtaí agus iarraim ar na hAirí i bhfad níos mó úsáid a bhaint as.
Sílim féin go raibh dearmadaí bunúsacha sa pholasaí oideachaisiúil ón tús. Ar an gcéad dul síos bhíomar ag brath barraíocht ó na scoileanna agus is beag a rinneamar taobh amuigh de na scoileanna an aidhm sin a chur i gcrích. Rinneamar dearmad ar an bhfiric go ndeineann páistí aithris ar dhaoine fásta. Sin an cleachta is tábhachtaí go gcaithfimid féin a fhoghlaim: go ndeineann paístí aithris ar dhaoine fásta. Má tá cúrsaí Gaeilge riachtanach sna scoileanna caithfimidne, mar dhaoine fásta, mar Teachtaí Dála agus mar Airí, an dea-shampla sin a theaspáint do na daoine óga sna scoileanna. Bhí sé riachtanach go múinfí an Ghaeilge sna scoileanna ach bhí sé níos tábhachtaí atmosphere a cothú taobh amuigh den scoil a cuideoidh leis an aidhm tábhachtach seo a bhaint amach.
Gidh gurb é an aidhm a bhí againn an Ghaeilge a chur á labhairt shílfeá gurb é an toradh a bhí á dhith orainn ná scoláirí Gaeilge a dhéanamh de pháistí bunscoileanna, mar de réir dealramh bhí sé níos tábhachtaí go mbeadh páistí ábalta an tuisil ginideach a aithint ná a bheith ábalta abairt simplí a rá. Sin an béim atá mise ag iarraidh a chur inniu anseo. Tá an ré sin thart — an ré nuair a chuireamar an iomarca béime ar an gramadach. Tá dearcadh na ndaoine i bhfad níos ciallmhara inniu. Tá modhanna múinte ar fáil anois atá i bhfad níos éifeachtaí ná mar a bhíodh. Tá béim ar labhairt na Gaeilge sna bunscoileanna ach tá an iomarca béim ar scríobh na Gaeilge sna meánscoileanna. Sé ár n-aidhm labhairt na Gaeilge. Sin an aidhm is tábhachtaí. Sin an modh is éifeachtaí chun sprid na Gaeilge a athbheocaint, a leathnú agus a cothú.
I appeal to Ministers and to Deputies to use more Irish. I have read the Estimates speech and I regret the failure to mention the importance of Irish or to mention the promotion of Irish language projects. I know they are there. The Minister spoke about lip-service in another context. The significance of having that reference in the Estimates is to put on the record of this House — if that record means anything — the commitment of the Minister and the Department to a particular issue. I had hoped there would have been such a reference in the speech so that I would have the opportunity to comment favourably and positively on it. I ask that this matter be noted seriously so that in the future we can look forward to a more serious attempt by all of us to promote what is the basis of our culture and our tradition.
I regretted the apprehension expressed by Deputy De Rossa when he pointed to the traditional aspects to which the Minister had referred. I do not think we should be apprehensive about traditional aspects. I would be one of the first to concede the need for change and ongoing development in our thinking on educational training and on the content of the curricula and syllabi. Nevertheless, if we imply that is to discard what is traditional and what has been the basis of the values on which generations of Irish people have been nurtured——
Tá sé cúig nóiméid chun a ceathair, cúig nóiméid don Aire chun deireadh a chuir leis an ndíospóireacht.
Tá cúpla poinntí agam fós.
Tuigim.
That is the fundamental basis on which our nation has developed. We should not imply that the development of new thinking should cause us to discard what was fundamentally the source of the unity of our great nation.
I noted with interest the statement of the Minister of her intention to set up a curriculum development board. I know other Deputies have commented on this. I regretted the Minister's decision to establish the board on an ad hoc basis by January 1984. On the basis of commendable research done by the VEC and other organisations in the educational structure, I cannot see that it would cost an inordinate amount of money or that it would incur an inordinate amount of time by experts in the Department or outside the Department on whom the Minister might feel obliged to call upon to establish such a board. If the Minister acknowledges that the board is necessary, why does she not set it up now? We must keep abreast of the new needs that emanate from the industrial, commercial and other sectors as they need to be reflected in our educational thinking and training. I ask the Minister, having deliberated on what has been said by Deputies here, to come back to the House within the next few weeks or at the earliest opportunity and tell us that this curriculum development board will be brought forward. It should be established on a formal working basis, not next January but as early as possible in the next session of the Dáil.
On a point of information, did the Chair not say that the Minister would be allowed to reply?
Fianna Fáil refused to let me make my speech.
We heard the Minister for one hour and ten minutes.
I am taking the opportunity available to me to comment on some of the points made by the Minister and on some of the areas of allocation with which she dealt with. As I noted earlier, there were some areas with which she did not deal but which I consider she should have dealt with. In her speech the Minister made the following comment:
I regret it was necessary for me to go along with the economies which the former Government had determined in the area of sport and community activities.
I want to ask the Minister a question——
The Deputy may not ask me a question because I am not allowed to reply.
I am sure the Minister will have an opportunity at an early date to address herself to this matter. I am questioning the content of her statement. The amount provided by Fianna Fáil in the Estimates for grants was £700,000. I am asking the Minister to confirm at the earliest date if her provisions have taken almost £100,000 off that amount and if it now stands at £619,000? She could by way of nod or otherwise confirm that what I am saying is the situation.
The debate may not be conducted by means of nods
The Minister will have an opportunity of commenting on the matter at an early date. If that is the situation it is very serious. The Government and the Opposition in an unanimous way have expressed the need for development of recreational and leisure facilities and they have given great emphasis to community games. I think I am correct in saying that the former Coalition Government saw fit to appoint a co-ordinator for the community games and I commended that action at the time. Now, this Government have decided to slash £100,000——
It is now 4 o'clock and I am putting the question.
