Vol. 349 No. 4
asked the Minister for Education if she has examined in full the submission made by the school manager, the board of management and the principal of a school (details supplied) in County Dublin, indicating how imperative it is that she sanction and pay the wages of a caretaker who is essential to this school which caters for 652 pupils and has a staff of 23 teachers.
3.
asked the Minister for Education if she will agree to allow the replacement of national school caretakers who retire or resign; and particulary if she will sanction the reappointment of a caretaker for a school (details supplied) in County Dublin in view of the impossibility of a principal of a school with more than 600 pupils, doing caretaker work in addition to carrying out educational responsibilities.
4.
(Dublin North-West) and Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Education if she will sanction the appointment of a full-time caretaker for Sacred Heart Boys National School, Glasnevin; and if she is aware of the great need for such a service in this school.
5.
asked the Minister for Education if she will sanction the reappointment of a caretaker, paid by her Department, for a school (details supplied) in Dublin.
6.
asked the Minister for Education if she will sanction the replacement of a school caretaker for a school (details supplied) in Dublin 11.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 together.
The Estimates for Public Services, 1983, provided for the phasing out of the scheme for the provision of caretakers in national schools through a policy of not creating any further posts and not filling vacancies as they occurred. The decision is of general application and is still in operation.
In the circumstances it is not open to me to sanction the appointment of caretakers for the schools in question.
Would the Minister agree that in a school where the enrolment exceeds 600 with a staff of 23 a caretaker is an indispensable member of the staff?
I would point out to the Deputy that his party made this decision in the first place and I am sure they were aware of the difficulties for big schools. The management authorities of national and secondary schools are responsible for the day-to-day running of the schools including making arrangements for the carrying out of any caretaking work that arises.
The reappointment of a caretaker will not require the Minister to spend any extra money this year as it is simply a replacement of an existing caretaker and in view of the size of the school and the number of teachers involved does the Minister not agree that a caretaker should be provided.
It was decided under the 1983 Estimates for Public Services to phase out caretakers. The Government decision was to phase them out and included not filling vacancies as they arose.
(Dublin North West): The board of management of a school recently refurbished it at a cost of a £¼ million. There is a staff of 23 and over 600 pupils in the school. The school had the service of a caretaker since 1972. Now that facility will be taken away from them. How does the Minister envisage that caretaking duties, including maintenance, will be carried out?
I refer the Deputy to the fact that it was his party who made the decision. Perhaps he should refer his question to whoever was Minister at the time. I am aware of the difficulties of schools as regards caretaking arrangements. I would draw attention to paragraph 3.11 of the Programme for Action in Education which states that when it is possible to consider the re-establishment of these schemes, a higher priority will be attached to caretaker appointments in schools in disadvantaged areas. I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to reconsider a particular scheme but when it is possible schools in those areas will get priority.
Would the Minister clarify if we are dealing with the Estimates for 1983 or for 1984?
That is when the decision was made.
Please wait until I finish asking my question. Not only did the Minister implement the Estimates for 1983 but we are now dealing with the Estimates for 1984. Does the Minister consider it a correct social policy that in an area where there is a high incidence of vandalism a school should not have the services of a caretaker? Does she think that a school principal, in addition to his other duties, should carry out the duties of a caretaker?
I can only reply to the Deputy by asking if she is repudiating a decision made by a Fianna Fáil Government and considers it to be very bad social policy. I should repeat that I am aware of the difficulties these decisions cause. We all wish that decisions like these did not have to be made. However, I must repeat that the management authorities of the school are responsible for making arrangements for the carrying out of the caretaking duties that arise.
May I say that the tune is getting very old and out of play now. We are now in the year 1984——
The Deputy should ask a question.
Does the Minister propose — in the case of the provision of caretakers for schools — to implement the aspirations expressed in her Programme for Action in Education for the years 1984 to 1987 so that there would be a renewal of this desirable objective? When can this school expect to receive the services of a caretaker particularly as the board of management have no way whatsoever of paying a caretaker?
As I said to the Deputy earlier, when it is possible, or when financial circumstances permit — and, as the Deputy knows, financial circumstances are difficult to predict in advance — these schemes will be reconsidered and a higher priority given to schools in disadvantaged areas.
The Minister is avoiding the question I put to her, which was that the retention of a caretaker in this school would not cost the Department one extra penny than has been already provided for in the Estimates.
I have already answered that.
The Minister did not reply.
I did.
The Minister said simply that Fianna Fáil had taken a decision to rule out caretakers and that she had decided to continue that policy. I would ask the Minister to consider the reappointment of a caretaker for this school in which there are 652 students and 23 staff bearing in mind that it is essential that a caretaker be provided for this school.
I have already answered that.
The Minister did not answer it.
Would the Minister confirm that she sees her role as Minister for Education as one of being prisoner to or of exercising slavish adherence to policies of previous Governments?
No, I am very glad to say that I do not see myself, and I am glad to say that neither do Fianna Fáil see themselves, as having slavish adherence to their policies.
Would the Minister then accept that, apart from other considerations, there is tremendous diseconomy in having the school principal carry out the duties of the school caretaker? Would she not apply her own good judgment to the situation, asking her Government to give her the necessary money so that a school of this size may have what is indispensable to the good running of the school, that being a caretaker?
The Minister does not need any extra money to do so.
Certainly I do not take the decision as to who will carry out the caretaking duties. That decision is taken by the principal or somebody else——
The Minister must never have been in a national school.
That is a decision for the management authorities. I can only repeat that, when it is possible to reconsider these schemes, schools in disadvantaged areas will be given priority.
I might put it to the Minister that her present predicament arises from her statement——
There is no predicament.
——when she assumed ministerial office in the Department of Education that she did not see her role as one of looking for money around the Cabinet table. She is now paying for that policy and so are the schools.
I am not going to remain with this question.
A final supplementary, is it not correct to ascertain——
Order, please. I am allowing Deputy De Rossa to ask a question — I hope it will be a question — and then allowing Deputy O'Rourke to ask a question.
Would the Minister confirm that the reappointment of the caretaker involved would not cost the Department additional money this year? Would the Minister confirm that that is so?
I must repeat that the decision, as announced in the Estimates for 1983, said that the scheme would be phased out as vacancies occurred.
The Minister is avoiding the question; it will not cost any more money to reappoint a caretaker.
Do the Estimates for 1984 embrace the payment for this caretaker? Furthermore, if they do, will the Minister sanction the appointment of a caretaker?
I cannot answer that question except to say that the Government decision involved the phasing out of these posts as vacancies occurred.
Why cannot the Minister answer the question.
I am calling Question No. 7.
