By agreement, Deputy O'Kennedy will come in now and he has ten minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Financing of Education: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Rourke on 23 April 1985:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the major cutbacks in educational finances which have led to excessive increases in the size of classes, the unemployment of large numbers of teachers and many other serious problems in our schools and calls on the Government to make full and adequate provision for education.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
"Dáil Éireann recognises the progress made by this Government in educational development and reform in particular its emphasis on special intervention for the disadvantages, and considers that adequate provision has been made to maintain this progress."
—(Minister for Education.)
It is no accident that when the House is debating the Finance Bill as the major business of the House, Fianna Fáil have submitted a Private Members' Motion on the inexplicable and unjustifiable cutbacks by this Government in the Vote for the Department of Education. When our spokesperson, Deputy O'Rourke, proposed to the Front Bench of our parliamentary party that these matters were inevitably and inextricably interlinked, there was an immediate response in support for her from our Front Bench that this was the time to put down a motion on education to demonstrate the importance of investment in education for economic expansion in the future and, in particular, to demonstrate that this Government have shamefully cutback the expenditure allocations for education when the social and economic crisis requires a comprehensive and consistent plan for investment in education.
Facts speaks louder than words. The facts are contained in the Estimates for public expenditure to which I propose to refer. The allocations for primary, post-primary and higher education in 1985 on the Government's figures — and one can question their percentages and their calculations — show a mere 2 per cent to 3 per cent increase in nominal terms over 1984. In real terms, discounting inflation, they represent at least a 5 per cent cutback on last year. If we look across the board at primary, post-primary and higher education allocations, the one constant is 2 per cent to 3 per cent. Clearly the Government, through the Minister for Finance, issued instructions to the Minister for Education and the Minister of State for a 2 per cent cutback across the board and that was achieved. They decided deliberately to apply an indiscriminate reduction of that order right across the board in education without any regard for the social and economic consequences of such an indiscriminate reduction.
This savage attack on education contrasts sharply with the 48 per cent increase in the allocations for the administrative agencies of the Department of Labour which now account for the unbelievable figure of over £163 million of the taxpayers' money in 1985. The Minister of State apparently has a dual role in the Department of Education and the Department of Labour. This astronomical figure is actually 60 per cent more than the total allocation for higher education. That is a terrible reflection on any Government. It emerges from the Estimates for higher education. It is 60 per cent more than the total allocation of £101 million provided by the Government this year. On the basis of that allocation, the Government attach a much higher priority to short term training, work experience programmes, interviews for the sake of interviews, Manpower institutes interviewing thousands of children around the country for the sake of interviewing them, than they do to education for permanent employment in this era of technological change.
I heard an expert consultant from England interviewed recently on one of our own radio programmes and he pointed out that you educate the human for permanent employment and a capacity to adapt to changing circumstances, and you train the animal for one job and, if that job goes, he can no longer react. That is the Government's priority. They have singled out education and our young students to bear the brunt of their attack since taking office. This year the allocations across the board are 12 per cent less in real terms than the allocations provided by Fianna Fáil in 1982. This is not just the view of Deputies on this side of the House. The NESC pointed to this as being a very worrying pattern in this Government's approach to education.
I want to focus on higher education in the few minutes available to me. Higher education has been singled out for a particularly pernicious attack with real reductions of over 25 per cent since this Government took office. Even in nominal terms in 1984 we were dealing with a 1 per cent reduction over the previous year. Add them up and the figure is 25 per cent less than it was when the Government took office.
Investment in education was always a central element in Fianna Fáil programmes which lifted the country out of the doldrums of the original Coalition fifties into the vigorous and confident expansion in the sixties under Fianna Fáil. I was privileged to be the equivalent of a Minister of State in the Department of Education in the late sixties and early seventies. That is when we launched the NIHE, the technological colleges, to guarantee that we could exploit every opportunity in the future. This was a crucial element in our plans for economic expansion. In the most successful and buoyant economies throughout the world such as Japan, Switzerland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, Norway and the United States, they planned their economic expansion on consistent and major investment in education.
Investment in knowledge in this era of technology is a sine qua non for economic growth. Over 45 per cent of first time employees in Japan have third level education. This investment is repaid many times by the added value contributed by such specialists in research development, marketing and product refinement to exploit the ever-changing world markets. Is it any wonder that we are forced to react to what these people who invest in knowledge and technology are able to promote in a pioneering way? That is at the higher end of the scale and it is not being treated as a high priority by this Government.
Let me turn briefly to the lower end of the scale. The social tensions which follow from deprived educational backgrounds are all too obvious at the moment. Our prisons cannot cope with the ever-increasing numbers sentenced by the courts. Our prison officers, the Garda and the Judiciary are suffering from increased frustration and disillusionment as a consequence. The penal system is breaking down. The Garda are being blamed for not apprehending offenders and when they apprehend these children, who are deprived and who are habitual offenders because of the lack of educational opportunity, they bring them to court and get convictions. They knock on the front door of Mountjoy and they are sent home. Is it any wonder we have a breakdown in order at the moment? The only way to deal with it is to give those children the same advantages from day one, and not have them cast in the role of habitual offenders.
At the same time the Government can afford to lavish huge funds on the public relations consultancy of every Minister. Apparently the Minister for Education said our spokesperson, Deputy O'Rourke, put down this motion simply to attract publicity. Let us plead guilty. The Minister is quite right. We want to attract publicity for this neglect on the Government's part who are the past masters of public relations. They can afford to provide over £3 million for the public relations consultancies of Ministers. We never had them in our time. The Minister for Foreign Affairs never had them in my time. The Minister for Finance never had them in my time. They have them now. They have the public service for themselves personally. No PR exercise however sophisticated and sustained can hide the fact that the Government have turned their backs on the youth of the nation and the contribution which those young people can make towards a fairer and more prosperous society. A Government which has no confidence in our young people forfeits the right to direct the affairs of this nation in the challenging year which lies ahead of all of us.
The Minister of State at the Department of Labour. He has 15 minutes.
I must say that it is with some difficulty that I put my thoughts together, because I find this quite an extraordinary debate. Indeed, some of the contributions have left me quite flabbergasted.
The Minister should pull himself together.
All of us in the profession of politics have become used to a certain amount of it, but the sheer brass neck that has been displayed by the Opposition in framing their motion in these terms takes some beating. If the Deputy Leader of the party opposite had been involved, one could understand it.
Would the Minister leave my family out of this, please?
He has in the past managed to create something of a reputation for himself——
The Minister came down to Longford-Westmeath and denigrated my family. Would he leave my family out of this?
The Minister should be ashamed of himself. I am disappointed in him.
But that Deputy O'Rourke, the Opposition spokesman, would frame a motion in these terms is quite beyond it.
Leave my family out of it.
Deputy O'Rourke, please.
But he cannot drag my family into this debate.
Particularly extraordinary, if I may say so, is this attack by the Opposition spokesman——
Spokesperson, please.
——and her colleagues in supporting this debate, made on their own party leader. I find that particularly extraordinary in a party which adheres to the principle of Uno duce, una voce, and the experience of those who have questioned the role of their party leader——
Cloudcuckoo land.
——should cause them to beware. Let one thing be clearly understood. Talk as the Opposition may wish to talk about education cuts, the only cuts that our society have experienced have been Fianna Fáil cuts.
What about 1982?
Much as the Opposition spokesman may find that embarrassing, much as the party may protest and want to run away from it, that is a fact. If the Opposition spokesmen want to criticise cuts in this House, let it be clearly understood who they are criticising. They are criticising their party leader and running away from the document The Way Forward, which we were told was the only way forward. That is a matter for them. However, they should be aware of what happens in that party to those——
The Coalition Government have been running the country for two and a half years.
We must have no interruptions. We must see that everybody gets a hearing. It is a limited debate. This is disgraceful, Deputy O'Rourke.
Deputy O'Rourke was not interrupted.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I had intended to suggest that the motion was timed and framed with a view to securing publicity. It now seems that that is not a necessary charge. Deputy O'Kennedy very kindly made that admission. I must say that to date it has been a less than successful attempt. However, we shall see. In that desperate attempt to secure headlines——
Which we got.
——any regard for accuracy and responsibility goes out the window. Nowhere is that more clear-cut than in the treatment last night and dismissal by the Opposition spokesman of the stand taken by the Minister in relation to eliminating sexism and in achieving equality for girls. Such initiatives were dismissed as worthless, all for the sake of a headline — all talk and no action. That is an outrageously inaccurate statement and can only be dismissed with contempt. How can it be made, still less made seriously? What interest has ever been shown in that area by any Fianna Fáil Minister or spokesman in Opposition over the years? The truth of the matter is that the only Government who have ever taken any interest in this area are the Government in which Deputy Hussey serves as Minister for Education.
Pious platitudes.
We get it again, pious platitudes — just dismissed.
That is what they are. Minister Hussey is a pious woman.
It is easy and cheap to dismiss, but that ignores the facts and ignores what is happening in our schools and our educational system. Let us look at it, step by step, detail by detail, to see who is uttering pious platitudes. The fact is that a most extensive programme for action has been undertaken and will continue. The Progress Report on the Programme for Action in Education, which was published in January, listed a series of initiatives taken in this area of eliminating sexism, but they were all dismissed. Let us examine them: in March 1984, a working group established within the Department to promote and monitor progress in the area.
A working party.
Agreement reached with publishers on eliminating sexism and stereotyping; steps taken to ensure that the examination papers were free from any instance of sexism.
Mammy does the garden, daddy goes fishing.
Changes were made in the numbering so that the sex of a candidate would no longer be known to the examiner. A review of pre-service training programmes has been carried out so that the obligation of teachers to avoid sexism is made clear. Seminars throughout November and December, promoting awareness of this area. Regional seminars held for principals of post-primary schools. Special measures taken to ensure that women are appointed to selection boards for teachers and principals of primary schools. The fact that schools have been asked to ensure the code of practice of the Employment Equality Agency is observed in regard to interview procedure. Co-education being promoted in the case of new school building programmes and wherever rationalisation of school facilities can be achieved. Schools being strongly encouraged to offer curriculum options equally to boys and girls. Equality of opportunities for girls. As every Member of this House knows this was one of the major themes sponsored by the Irish Presidency during the six months in which we held that position in the Community before Christmas. As the House knows, there was a major EC conference on that subject.
Yet we are told that nothing has been done. This very day, a major seminar was held on this topic of equality of opportunity——
I mentioned that last night.
——to which the Opposition spokesman graciously referred last night. That seminar, as she will graciously admit now, was organised by the Minister. The Deputy will also, I am sure, recall that among the papers read at that seminar was one by Jerome Morrissey, principal of the Senior College in Ballyfermot, in which he gave quite splendid examples of what schools are now doing in a very positive way in order to promote equality of opportunities. Much as some people might find it convenient to run away from this simple fact, things are happening and there is now much greater awareness of the problems than before the present Minister came into office and this Government took office. To say that nothing has been done is just absurd, so let us stop that kind of nonsense and proceed.
If the Opposition spokesman did not allow a concern for accuracy to inhibit her contribution, one must say that she was excelled by the contributions of some of her colleagues. One thinks in particular of that quite unique contribution to Irish education made by Deputy Hugh Byrne last night. He managed to produce insights into education——
It worried Avril. She is here now.
——in particular into the problems of remedial education that have not been available to me, my Department, or I suggest to any educationalist in the country. Let us be consistent.
Are you not a snide little man? That is what you are.
Let us consider some of his more interesting statements and see to what extent they stand up and to what extent other Fianna Fáil speakers are going to stand over them. Deputy Byrne took as his theme the question of remedial education. Let us put this clearly in context. It is quite true to say that there is a percentage of children who for any number of reasons fail to make normal progress in basic reading and other skills and equally true that in that situation our obligation is to help them to overcome those difficulties and do so as early as possible in the school system. It is precisely towards that end that all our policies and provisions are directed. What Deputy Byrne said in this House last night deserves to be quoted:
The results of a survey show that 75 per cent of all pupils entering post-primary schools are in need of remedial education because they have a reading age of ten or less.
He did not leave it at that. That was only in the nature of the hors d'oeuvres. He then went on to say:
This is the case with all pupils entering vocational schools.
That is a monstrous slander on the pupils of this country and on the teachers. Were it true, it would be a massive indictment of the work of every national school teacher here. If the statement were correct, every national school teacher would have to look to his or her laurels. Of course, it is not true. It is what I say it is — an inexcusable slander. The question now arises as to whether Fianna Fáil spokesmen are going to tell every national school teacher in the forthcoming local elections that that is the regard which that party have for their abilities. I wonder whether one of the teachers who sits on the benches opposite can seriously suggest that 75 per cent of all pupils entering post-primary schools and all coming into vocational schools need remedial education. It is so monstrous and absurd that a reply is scarcely necessary.
Let me move on. I come to the area of adult education. I want to take this opportunity in the few minutes which are left, to recapitulate briefly on the developments which have taken place in the lifetime of this Government. The House will recall that when the report was published the Minister welcomed it saying that it was Government policy to respond sensitively and positively to the needs of literacy and the requirements of community education in the disadvantaged areas. She went on to say:
I welcome the proposal that adult education boards should be constructed in each vocational area as subcommittees of the VEC with a representative composition recommended.
What has been the response? In the Government's national plan, Building on Reality, the commission's report is referred to and the commitment is reiterated to the establishment of adult education boards and the provision of a separate budget to be administered by local adult education boards. We spell out that the Government have agreed to provide over £1 million in 1987 in funds to the VECs to enable them to establish courses free of charge or at a nominal sum in community education and in literacy. Against that background a circular letter on the establishment of ad hoc adult education boards was issued to all VECs in December 1984. The circular invited VECs to establish such bords as a matter of urgency, using the structure recommended by the commission. As all of us know, a number of VECs have taken action on the basis of that circular.
The grant-in-aid to all voluntary bodies has been increased substantially. In the case of Aontas, the national organisation, the increase has been from £52,000 to £95,000, an increase of 83 per cent. Yet, the Opposition speak of cutbacks. In the case of Nala, the national voluntary organisation founded to promote the interests of learners, tutors and organisers engaged in adult literacy activities, the grant has been increased from £10,000 in 1984 to £42,000 this year. In the case of the Dublin Institute of Adult Education there has been an increase of 38 per cent, the ICA have received a 25 per cent increase and the grant to the People's College has been doubled. All of this is eloquent testimony to the concern of this Government in the area of adult education. Action speaks louder than words and our action speaks eloquently.
Deputy O'Kennedy referred to the coordination of education and training and he seemed to believe too much money is spent on training. This is a constant theme of Deputy O'Kennedy. When he has been pressed to suggest an area for possible cuts in public expenditure, on every occasion he has suggested this area. I think young people should be aware of his thoughts on this matter. The young people who are given the opportunity to make the transition from education to working life and who benefit from the range of programmes funded by the 1 per cent levy should be aware of the intentions of the party opposite. They should know that apparently their intentions are to squeeze more money out of the taxpayers so that when these people get jobs they will be less well off. At the same time, this is an area that has been properly identified by the Government as an area of priority and this has happened in the case of every Government in Europe. Yet the need to respond to the problems of youth unemployment is to be the one area to be singled out for cutbacks. That represents nothing more nor less than an attack on young people who are trying to make their way onto the labour market. In particular, it represents an attack on the most disadvantaged section of young people for whom those programmes are specifically tailored.
I had thought I had heard everything then but then we heard the line that all the problems in the area of education and justice are inter-linked——
The Minister of State is touchy on that one.
Can anyone who has seen the thuggery and vandalism in this city put that case forward with any seriousness? Of course there is a connection between disadvantage and deprivation and crime. Nobody on this side denies that but this party have shown their commitment to tackle the problems of the disadvantaged. We have done this in the most practical way. In a unique way we have singled out the area of disadvantage from primary education to out-of-school informal education. We have said our priorities are the areas of disadvantage and to those areas we will respond. That continues to be the ethos on which this Government exist and operate. In the most practical way we have shown our concern for the disadvantaged and that is recognised by the people who participate in the programmes, either as pupils or teachers. Even if the Opposition do not know, they know that this Government have continued to support the educational system and will continue to regard the area of disadvantage as a priority. That is much more important than an attempt to run away from cuts imposed three years ago.
On a point of order——
Is the Deputy really raising a point of order?
On a point of order, I wish to know if it is proper and ethical for a Deputy to denigrate the family of the Opposition spokesperson when he rises to speak? I wish to register a protest.
The matter involved is a political charge. I am calling the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Creed.
In the limited time at my disposal I wish to deal with some of the points made in relation to the area for which I am responsible. Last night the Minister dealt in detail with the broader aspect of education. I listened to the contribution of Deputy Byrne but I was not here to listen to Deputy O'Rourke.
I shall deal first with the primary and post-primary school building programme. There has been no cutback in capital for financing the construction, furnishing and equipping of educational buildings. In fact the opposite is the case. The overall capital allocation for 1985 at £96 million is £13 million or over 15 per cent more than that allocated for 1984. Not only is it intended to maintain this large capital investment but as can be seen from the national economic plan it is intended to increase it. The planned provision for 1986 and 1987 is £107 million and £115 million respectively which shows a further considerable increase.
At the primary level the allocation to the building, equipment and furnishing of national schools for 1985 is £30.33 million. This programme has to cope with many competing priorities from new schools in new housing areas to additional classrooms in existing schools and the upgrading and improvement of schools which do not meet modern requirements. A significant number of the new buildings replace prefabricated and other temporary accommodation and a proportion of the available finance is also reserved for the renewal and improvement of basic facilities such as sanitation, heating, lighting and furniture.
The programme of primary school building continues apace and a target for the provision of 18,500 school places has been set for the current year. Present indications are that this target will be achieved. At the present time 137 projects for new school buildings and 218 projects involving extensions and renovations are being dealt with in the various stages from grant sanction onwards through detailed design, tender action and construction.
A further 255 projects are under active consideration while 215 more are at the stage of preliminary investigation. There is no evidence of cutback either in the size of this programme, or in the pace at which it is being handled. There have been no cases of projects being held up at the tender or advanced planning stages due to inability to finance new starts. Indeed, the Government's concern to ensure the expeditious handling of primary school building projects and to minimise administrative delay is at the base of their decision to transfer the responsibility in respect of primary school buildings, hitherto exercised by the Office of Public Works, to the Department of Education. Discussions are taking place as to how best this decision might be implemented without interfering with the ongoing progress of the programme of school building work.
In the second level sector the demand from school authorities for additional school buildings and facilities continues to be very heavy. In fact, the demand has increased to the stage where my Department are at present processing over 400 second level building proposals. This represents a very large proportion out of the 800 second level schools recognised by my Department. May I say that it is my policy that the architectural planning of all building projects proceed in the normal way until each has reached the stage where it is ready to go to tender. At that stage I have to make a decision as to whether to allow it to go to tender or not. This decision is taken in the light of the finance available and the other commitments that have to be met. I am glad to say that to date I have been in a position to release to tender all the projects that have reached that stage. To date in 1985 I have released to tender 32 projects — all major projects. No case has been held up for financial reasons alone. This is an indication that adequate finance is being made available for the purpose.
In acknowledgement of the increased demand from school authorities, a significant increase in the capital for second level building has been envisaged in the national economic plan. This is reflected in the capital provision of £37 million for 1985, £41 million for 1986 and £47 million for 1987. As you will see, far from these being major cutbacks in capital for second level building projects the provision is being increased. In providing this increasing capital investment we are keeping in mind our main priority — the provision of student places. In the remaining years up to 1990 it is estimated that 65,000 new places will be required at second level. About 30,000 will be required to meet new enrolment growth arising from population growth and population shifts. The balance will be replacing unsatisfactory and temporary accommodation which has outlived its usefulness. We are making adequate provision for that purpose and will continue to do so in our Public Capital Programme.
I want to deal with what was said by Deputy Hugh Byrne last evening with regard to school transport.
The Minister said last evening that we had had no debate on education.
We have had, as the record of this House will show, lengthy debates on the question of school transport and on the cutbacks initiated by the previous Fianna Fáil administration which necessitated the introduction of charges for school transport in the case of eligible post-primary pupils. Let me remind Deputy O'Rourke of the statement issued by her colleague, Deputy Ger Brady, then and for a brief period, Minister for Education, on 18 November 1982 in the context of the publication of the Estimates for the Public Services, 1983, and I quote:
There will be no charges for pupils of national schools eligible for free transport in accordance with the school transport regulations. The cost of the scheme for primary and post primary schools has, however, been growing to such an extent that measures need to be taken with regards to it. Since no alteration is contemplated on the range of the service, the measures required to control cost must involve the introduction of a charge in the case of second level school pupils. Consideration is being given to the question of the arrangements to be made for the implementation of such charge. It is contemplated that such arrangements would take the form of the issue of a season ticket, that there would be a lower rate for junior pupils and that a concession would be made to take account of the circumstances of large families.
When the present Government came into office, on 15 December 1982, despite inheriting a substantial shortfall in the provision for school transport services, they set about maintaining the structure and level of this service. In order to do this it was necessary to proceed with the imposition of charges in the case of eligible post primary pupils, but having given full consideration to the possibility that such charges would constitute a hardship for very many families, they took steps to alleviate this hardship by introducing a maximum charge per family and by exempting from the charges eligible post primary pupils whose parents or guardians were in possession of a medical card. In the event while there was some reduction, approximately 15,000, in the number of pupils availing themselves of school transport, it is clear that the pupils concerned had alternative means of getting to school as there is no evidence of reduction in school enrolment following the introduction of the school transport charges.
The essential fabric of the school transport service was maintained and it continues to operate successfully, providing this valuable service for some 70,000 primary and some 84,000 post primary pupils. All of the former and 39,000 of the latter are carried free of charge. The receipts from charges contribute less than 10 per cent of the cost of school transport, which will be of the order of £34.5 million in 1985. The charges have been increased from January 1985 by an amount in line with the much attenuated rate of inflation brought about by the prudent financial management of the present administration. A cutback there may have been in school transport provision, a cutback which was initiated by the Fianna Fáil administration before it left office. But this cutback has been contained by the Government and the essential fabric of this valuable service has been maintained as an important factor in the access of 154,000 children to education.
I want now to deal very briefly with what I regard as a very important aspect of education, that is, special education. Let us look to the area of special education to see whether the Deputies' contention regarding cutbacks and serious problems in our schools can be sustained in this area. I can state emphatically in this, the most sensitive of areas of educational provision, that they cannot.
The policy of providing extra teachers to meet the remedial needs of children in primary schools who encounter difficulties in mastering the basic skills of literacy and numeracy has been continued under the present administration and 30 extra remedial posts were sanctioned in each of the school years 1983-84 and 1984-85, bringing the total of such posts to 797, serving 1,030 schools. In this connection, too, I might add that the Department, in co-operation with school management and the teachers' organisation, is examining on a pilot basis how best the services of these teachers may be deployed in the interests of the children. As Deputies must well know, there are many ways of approaching the problems of remediation and the responsibility of my Department clearly does not stop at merely sanctioning extra teaching posts. This whole area of remedial teaching is being systematically backed up by an enhanced programme of inservice training in which special attention is being given to coping with remedial problems in smaller schools where specialist remedial teachers would not normally be available. The pre-service training of teachers generally is also being examined to ensure that all newly qualified teachers are given appropriate training to cope with the problems of pupils who encounter learning difficulties.
The policy of educating mildly mentally handicapped children in special classes in national schools was one which received special mention in Fianna Fáil's White Paper on Educational Development. It was seen as a policy which would facilitate the integration of these children with their peers and contribute to their overall social and educational development. The present Government, while recognising the excellent work done in the special schools and foreseeing an essential role for them in the future, has no quarrel with this policy of integration by means of special classes. In fact it not only advocates such a policy, but is prepared to do something to encourage it, as evidenced by their decision in January 1984 to pay the same rate of capitation grant in respect of pupils in special classes in ordinary national schools as that which obtained in the case of similar pupils in special schools. This had the immediate effect of increasing the capitation grant for the majority of such pupils from £21 to £48.50. Such a decision — and I would be the first to acknowledge that it did not cost the earth and to wonder why it was not taken during the period when Fianna Fáil was in office — put the ordinary national schools in a position to provide the resources in the way of teaching aids and materials so vitally needed for the education of these children.
I would contend that a decision of this kind is not an evidence of a "cut-back" mentality where there is a genuine need, any more than is the fact that since the present administration took office some 12 extra special classes for mildly mentally handicapped children, three extra special classes for younger moderately mentally handicapped children in remoter parts of the country and some 23 additional special classes for the children of travellers have been formed. I can add, for Deputies' information, special measures to improve the funding of pre-schooling for the younger children of travellers, the appointment of extra visiting teachers, the increase in the number of training centres financed totally or partially through my Department and, above all, the decision, arising from the recommendation in the report on the education of children with severe and profound mental handicap, to provide an educational service for these children, on which it is planned to make a start in the present year. God knows, and so do Deputies, we can claim little credit for providing for the needs of these, the most special of all our children, whatever our financial circumstances; but the outline I have given, and by which I stand, is a clear indication to the House that special education is an area that has continued to develop as it should and that there is neither evidence nor intention of cutback, but indeed the contrary in this important area of educational provision.
Finally, I want to deal with another area of my responsibility, sport. Having regard to the current economic climate and the resulting restrictions on public expenditure, I am satisfied that the Government's allocation of £1.36 million to sport at national level in 1985 has been an extremely generous one. Indeed, since this Government took office the allocation for the promotion and development of sport at national level has increased by 68.5 per cent. This increase is evidence of the Government's commitment to cater for the sporting and recreational needs of the community and in particular of our young people.
On the advice of COSPÓIR, the National Sports Council, I have allocated a total of £589,780 in direct grants to national sports organisations for 1985, in addition to special allocations amounting to £275,000 announced by the Minister for Finance in the budget for designated organisations. These grants represent a significant increase over 1984 allocations and will ensure that the needs of sports organisations are catered for to a greater extent than ever before in this country.
The major beneficiary of the increased allocation for sport in 1985 is the Olympic Council of Ireland which has received a total grant of £240,000 this year. This is the most substantial and significant contribution ever made by a Government to the development of athletes of Olympic potential from the commencement of the four year Olympic cycle. The allocation of this grant to the Olympic Council of Ireland is in response to a joint submission which has been prepared, at my request, by the Olympic Council of Ireland and COSPÓIR. This submission contains specific proposals as to the best means of meeting the requirements of our athletes in elite sport leading up to the 1988 Olympics in Seoul and also relating to Olympic sport in the long term.
I am convinced that this grant will have a major impact not only for our most elite athletes but also for the identification and development of the potential of junior athletes in the various Olympic sports.
Ireland Special Olympics will host the European Special Olympic Games in Dublin from 3 to 7 July 1985. I am very happy that the Government was in a position to provide in the budget for a grant of £50,000 to Ireland Special Olympics to ensure that these games will be a successful undertaking.
Various other schemes administered by my Department to assist sport, such as the sports scholarship scheme and the scheme of grants to assist sports organisations towards the cost of sending teams abroad to compete in major international events, have also benefited from the increased provision for sport in 1985.
In addition to the provision made for sport at national level a sum of £812.000 has been allocated to assist vocational education committes to support and develop youth and sports services and activities at local level. The sum of £812.000 represents an increase of 6 per cent over the 1984 provision and will ensure that the level of support for activities at local level will be maintained.
I am very happy indeed that this Government have given due recognition to the importance of sport and physical recreation in our society through a record investment in the development of sport at a time of economic stringency.
On a point of order, at the beginning of my speech I referred to the approach taken by the Opposition Deputy Leader. The Opposition spokesman took exception to it and on reflection I can see that that might have been understandable and accordingly I would like to qualify my remarks appropriately.
I accept the apology.
I am amazed at the reaction of the Government side of the House to the presentation of solid facts from the Opposition last night. The contributions from this side have been denigrated in strong terms not by the Minister of State for Education whom I commend for his honesty in his approach to this problem, but by other Members. Any criticisms I direct at the Minister's Department are not intended personally. I will leave the fixation on sexism which is obviously emanating from the Government side of the House to the Minister. The presence of Deputy Doyle, in response to the very valuable contribution and concerned expressions last night from Deputy Byrne, is an indication, as is the presence of the Minister of State with responsibility for youth, of their concern for the facts we presented here. Statements made by the Ministers last night are difficult to accept as facts. In her opening statement the Minister said:
My first reaction to the motion proposed by Deputy O'Rourke is one of surprise as to why it has taken the Opposition nearly two and a half years to put forward this motion.
In his statement on school transport the Minister of State said:
We have had, as the record of this House will show, lengthy debates on the question of school transport and on the cut backs... which necessitated the introduction of charges for school transport
How can those two statements be reconciled? One is grossly inaccurate.
The Minister last night responded to our spokesperson in a paranoid fashion and referred to the schizophrenia of Fianna Fáil. We came into this House to outline the difficulties that are becoming more serious and to expose the ongoing constant posturing and struttings of the Minister and the ongoing churning out of material from her office to the public, which has little significance and which makes a hollow contribution to the problems so evident in the field of education.
I do not want to spend all my time commenting on what is a very cleverly worked out facade by the Minister. I support the motion, which reflects the mounting concern of Members of the House and the public at the abysmal failure of the Minister and the Government to develop and maintain educational services at the level at which they found them. The serious cutbacks in education allied to the lethargic approach of the Minister — although she is not too lethargic when it comes to publicity — to the present issues under her administration must be condemned as anti-social and in many respects it reflects a lack of understanding. When we talk about education we are talking about an integral part of our contribution to the well-being of society. There has been increasing unrest at all levels in the education area, and if the Minister of State does not know that he has not been reading the papers recently. I do not believe everything I see in the papers, but when I see an obvious consensus emanating from all the practitioners in the field, I do not ignore it.
The Minister's abject failure to address the problems of large classes at primary level and the increase in the ratios at post-primary level and her failure to bring forward a code of discipline for primary schools is deplorable. I unequivocably condemn the decision by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Boland, to remove corporal punishment from the schools without introducing a clearly worked out code of discipline. Nobody regretted the passing of corporal punishment from the schools but a Minister understanding the situation would have phased it out while at the same time introducing a clearly worked out policy and code of discipline in consultation with the teaching interests. The shortsightedness and the hunger for glory caused the Minister to make this hurried and, in hindsight, very unwise decision.
An obvious link is being illustrated between the cutbacks in education and the increase in juvenile deliquency. This, along with a totally inadequate response to the pressing problems in the area of special and remedial teaching, has contributed to a growing cynicism among young people. If the Minister of State with responsibility for youth is not aware of that cynicism, he has not been listening to our young people. The Minister spoke of young people in glowing terms, and I agree with him, but we also have a lot of cynicism among young people. This cynicism has grown because they are being so callously rejected by this Government and it has spilled over in many instances into violence. It is evident in the indiscipline and in the mounting challenges to authority in our class rooms. All this is a manifestation of a festering sore born out of disillusionment and rejection and it reflects a failure by the Government to grasp the fact that the needs of the education services are central to the well-being of society. If up to now the Minister has felt that she has had no responsibilities in many of the areas mentioned, as seems to be the case, and if the Government felt that an improvement in services and resources to education could not significantly address those problems, I hope both she and the Government took the opportunity recently to listen to an analysis from many practitioners and specialists who in their capacity as professionals have amply demonstrated where some of that responsibility lies. I am not saying that the responsibility lies with this Government only. I am referring to previous administrations also, but the Minister has not faced up to the matter. There is ample evidence available to her. To dismiss that as mere nonsense is to be foolish, lacking in understanding as to the real meaning and significance of education and the contribution it must make to society.
I hope the Minister has accepted that there is a logic and a reasoning to many of those views. There is greater onus on her to ensure that resources for education are increased substantially as soon as possible. The cuts in education are causing frustration in the system by preventing schools from responding adequately and caringly to student needs. It is becoming very apparent at post-primary level that it is now almost impossible to maintain standards. The Minister's speech last night would tend to suggest that she is not aware of that and I suggest she consult those involved in that area. It is now almost impossible to offer certain courses as the school populations are increasing while teacher numbers are being reduced.
The failure of the Government to provide finance to employ teachers to teach continental languages is very disappointing. French is taught in most of our schools but other continental languages, so necessary for international trade and commerce, are assuming less importance. The Minister may say that there has not been a numerical reduction but a teacher who leaves the service on leave will not be accepted back into the system unless a new post is created in the school. The cutbacks in 1983 meant that if a teacher died, changed job, or retired the vacancy in many cases could not be filled.
Minority subjects which are vital for, and basic to, technological training and industrial development are seriously affected. Physics and applied mathematics are traditionally chosen by small numbers of students, but the days of providing class for numbers below 20 are gone.
The Minister may say that the ratio is 20 or less but the practicability of establishing classes below that number has gone. The effects of the cutbacks at post-primary means that class sizes must average 27. Since class sizes normally should not exceed 30, it means that any class below 24 is not viable. This is a disastrous blow to the prospects of students whose aptitudes are in the less popular subjects. It is also a disastrous blow to the technological potential of the country.
As this problem extends to other areas, such as the need for greater individualisation of learning for the greater numbers of students going through the system, the increase in the level of need for remediation as well as special education facilities and resources, is it any wonder, therefore, that the practitioners and the public at large are becoming increasingly incensed at the Government's repeted kicking of the rights and needs of young people out the classroom window? The Government, and the Minister responsible, are ruining the education system at first and second level, and by allowing exorbitant increases at third level are denying many students any reasonable hope for the future by refusing them access to third level education and by their deplorable failure to invest in the provision of jobs.
I should like to reply to the reaction of the Minister of State to Deputy O'Kennedy. The Minister of State conveniently quoted Deputy O'Kennedy out of context when he said that the Deputy was obviously against training programmes for our young people. Deputy O'Kennedy is against substituting the very necessary creation of jobs by training programmes. That is the context in which Deputy O'Kennedy has consistently referred to the potential for saving.
A look at the Estimates for Public Services from 1980 to 1984 with regard to public expenditure on primary education reveals some interesting patterns. In 1981 the Fianna Fáil Government's allocation to the primary school capital programme was £30,500,000. The 1984 figure from the Minister was nearer to £29 million. If that is an increase I am baffled. Taking inflation into account over the period this must represent a real decrease in the order of at least 30 per cent. The outcome is most unacceptable.
On the current side between 1980 and 1981, Fianna Fáil provided a substantial increase in investment to resources. I allow that a considerable portion went on teachers' salaries but it was a considerable increase. The increase every year since then has diminished rapidly so that from 1983 to 1984 there was but a miserly increase which did not take account of inflation. The pattern from 1982 to 1983 was almost identical.
The effects have been to lessen the annual level of resources available in our primary schools and thereby diminish enormously the prospects of tackling the many very serious problems at this level. It really says something for the commitment of the Government to our young children. One has to regard all the pious platitudes thrown around with such ostensible flaithiúlacht and no little eloquence by the Minister as nothing more than a load of old hat.
Last year the Minister committed the Coalition Government to what she titled The Programme for Action 1984-1987. That programme, or catalogue of needs identified many of the serious problems which had been addressed in the 1980 White Paper on Educational Development. However, its failure to address the pupil-teacher ratio, the most serious outstanding problem in primary education, represents a fundamental weakness in this document.
On 1 September 1980, the appointment figure for a first assistant was 35 pupils. That situation obtained until 1 September 1982 when Fianna Fáil reduced it to 33 pupils with a pro rata reduction down the line. Since that date in 1982 there has been absolutely no change in the pupil-teacher ratio in national schools except where additions to school populations have caused increases in class sizes. The only change in ratio was at post-primary and as I said that was in the reverse direction.
The Minister has waffled on for many hours over many pages of policy statement and through many columns of newspapers, but the figures, the statistics, the facts remain the same. This Government have not the slightest intention of doing anything about the many large classes in our schools, and they should come clean and admit that this is so. It is a public shame and disgrace that this Government can keep "hollering" about their concern for the disadvantaged while we have 58,000 of our children still in classes of over 40 pupils. Nobody outside the Department knows for sure how many of these are in the mid or high forties.
A further 360,000 are in classes of over 30 and a considerable percentage of those are in multigrade classes. Because the Department only give a breakdown in bands of ten, it is not possible to be certain how many of this group are in classes above 35 but it is fairly conservatively estimated that the vast majority are.
The only solace the Minister had to offer recently to all those concerned — thus important — about the problems emanating from large classes was to make the extraordinary statement that smaller classes did not necessarily make for improved educational services. What evidence is available to the Minister to lead her to such an outlandish and convenient conclusion? It must be considerable if the Minister's statement is to have any credibility. If she has such evidence, she has a duty to let us all know its source and its content. If she has not such evidence then she should retract that recent statement and admit that it was based solely on financial considerations.
I can tell the Minister that there is a huge body of evidence built up over many years by large numbers of practitioners and research experts that large classes have created and contributed to numerous and sometimes enormous problems. One simply cannot speak about moves towards equality of educational opportunity, about more innovation within the classroom, about greater individualisation in attention to special needs or about intervention for the disadvantaged unless this crucial and vital problem is tackled.
In the many schools where remedial facilities have not been provided, there can be very considerable learning problems for individual pupils, and large classes with a multiplicity of needs do not enable teachers adequately to assist these children on an individual basis.
In mixed ability classes, which form the vast majority of classes within the primary school system, the pupils of high and middle ability have also to receive their fair share. But where the ability range is great and the numbers are high, progress on all fronts, to enable every child to realise his or her true potential, is extremely difficult to achieve to any satisfactory degree.
I was glad to hear the Minister in her speech last evening utter one truth. Under the heading Resources Re-Allocated, the Minister said that of course the pupil-teacher ratio had been disimproved but she asked what had been done with much of the money saved from these cuts. The Minister said that the Government had introduced a series of new measures which in the main divert the saved resources to the disadvantaged and other priority areas. The main thrust of that statement is that they went to the disadvantaged. She then went on to a neat arithmetic exercise which this Minister is very good at. While the measures she outlined are very necessary, commendable and worth-while, it is simply not true to say that they are in the main diverted to the disadvantaged. This kind of arithmetic juggling, which the Minister has brought to a very fine art since assuming office, does not prove anything about education.
A decision to disimprove the pupil-teacher ratio is a very retrograde step. It is blind, shortsighted policy and quite frankly it clearly illustrates the philosophy of the Minister as a sophisticated cosmetic exercise. It is nothing more; hollow in the extreme. That kind of maladministration will do absolutely nothing to improve the ills of the system or address the problems in society.
Turning to the disadvantaged, which of course embraces a wide spectrum of the school going population — I admit it is very acute in the inner city but it is also extending to new parishes in suburbia and to many urban and rural areas — if performance over the past three years was to be measured in terms of the profusion of pious platitudes emanating incessantly from the Minister's office the result is dismal. Any Minister who is capable of spending the same £500,000 four or five times over in the same year has not only dreamt about but must surely be living the life of Alice in Wonderland.
Apart from the increase in the capitation grant to pupils in special classes in ordinary schools, a very necessary measure I accept, very little else of any significance has been done to alleviate the mounting problems of this entire sector. Indeed, it is fair and reasonable to state that the entire primary sector and the remedial, disadvantaged and special education services have in real terms been taken back to the middle seventies. I can say with conviction that the remedial services are a very grey area in the Minister's list of priorities. Like her statement on the pupil-teacher ratios, she probably considers that the development of this service does not necessarily improve the educational services. Any argument, no matter how hollow, couched in eloquent waffle can save face, for a while, when a Minister wants to shield herself from public reaction to the disinvestments she is bringing about.
I have recalled in the main the few items incessantly being thrown at the public as evidence of care for the disadvantaged. The Minister of State, Deputy Creed, has just informed us that the present total of remedial teachers at primary level is 797 and that 30 additional teachers per year have been appointed for the past two years. He goes on to concede that there are many ways of approaching the problems of remediation to tackle the problems encountered by children trying to master the skills of literacy and numeracy. Yet the only item to which he and the Minister resort for solace is the 30 additional teachers per annum. This is surely to disregard the numerous initiatives taken in this area by bodies and groups working in this field outside the Department.
First of all, the numbers added to the pool of remedial staff simply do not reflect a favourable comparison with the enormous investment made in this area by Fianna Fáil up to 1981. Thirty extra teachers per annum to serve present needs is totally inadequate. It does not compare with the enormous growth in the pool of these specialists brought about by successive Fianna Fáil Governments.
More importantly, the statements from the Minister and Minister of State over the past two days fail to grasp the central fact that this whole area has been crying out for review and updating for the past three or four years. Surveys conducted on a local and national basis by the INTO and other agencies during 1981 and 1982 have clearly illustrated the need for immediate and comprehensive reappraisal of the entire service to ensure that the pool of talent trained and partially trained within the system is fully and effectively utilised. The teachers involved in this section have been crying out for the past three years for clear policy directions regarding the future development and expansion of the service. Yet nearly all the initiatives over the past few years have come from outside the Department. I certainly do not blame the section inspectorate for it as I am fully aware of their care, concern, enthusiasm for initiative and innovation. I also happen to be aware that they are constantly muzzled and hog-tied by the present administration. Any initiatives involving, or even implying, the possibility of financial commitment are frowned upon and quickly nipped in the bud.
There is tremendous potential even within the pool of existing staff numbers that simply has not been tapped because the necessary back up and resources to facilitate its realisation are being denied it by the present Minister.
She knows very well that the addition of 30 teachers per annum to the pool represents a substantial decrease in the annual growth of any sector up to her time. Again I want to stress, however, that the practitioners involved in this sector have become very disillusioned at being literally abandoned, since many of them were not trained or assisted to take on the increasing and changing demands being placed upon them.
Neither is there any mention from the Government of the slightest intention to undertake a programme of psychological service to primary education. This is vitally needed because of the difficulties of children of varying abilities in reaching their true potential. It is widely agreed that there is a need for the establishment of this kind of service.
I wish to outline some of the fundamental aspects of the programme which should be initiated. It has been appealed for by all those involved in the primary sector. If the Minister of State has any influence with his Minister this is a matter he should raise with her, as well as the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools.
It is fundamentally important that the training and work of educational psychologists orientate them towards all pupils to ensure that the mediation of their skills contributes to the optimisation of attainment by children, from the most able to those requiring special provision. Most of their time and energy would be spent with teachers rather than pupils to enable them mediate these skills as widely as possible.
The role should be a positive and developmental one, not wholly therapeutic. Their findings should have a direct bearing and relevance for all aspects of educational activity within the school, including curriculum development.
It should be accepted that a considerable amount of time would be spent dealing with the special school, the special class and the remedial groups. Contacts with clinical psychologists should be ongoing to ensure the meaningful transmission of clinical findings to the classroom setting.
They should see their role also as striving to ensure that the school and a normal class would assume responsibility for the great majority of children who have difficulties.
Involvements with parents in so far as possible should be encouraged and promoted. I repeat what our spokesman said in our document on education — that we as a party are committed, as we stated in our 1980 White Paper, to the principle that every child should be educated in the least restricted environment and that this principle should be cherished by all our schools, special and ordinary. I thank the Minister of State for acknowledging that.
For some years now difficulties regarding the referral of children with special problems for assessment to health board clinics have been very acute. This has now reached crisis point. Children can wait for anything between nine months and a year — and I have heard of cases of 18 months — from date of referral to date of assessment. The queues are growing longer and longer. Yet this caring Minister chose to let incessant pleas and cries from school principals for help and intervention by her Department fall on deaf ears. That is the record she is trying to defend in this House.
I am not blaming the health board psychologists who, I am reliably informed, are already overburdened. I am informed though that officers at the health boards, because of constant pressure from schools arising from those backlogs, are dodging school principals out of embarrassment and shame.
I am sorry the Minister is absent tonight. She very often leaves this House when the heat comes on. She has often left the Minister of State to deal with questions at Questions Time.
I have no objection to standing in for the Minister at any time. She is on very important business in Ennis.
I paid the Minister of State the compliment that he spoke honestly and frankly tonight. The Minister should remember that for every day a child with mild or moderate form of mental handicap is left in limbo considerable damage is done and a grave injustice is inflicted. Any Minister countenancing such injustice is a disgrace.
Surely there is a clear duty on a Minister for Education who witnesses such a system fall before her eyes and performs so inefficiently to intervene at the Cabinet table and ensure as an immediate interim step that the resources of both the Departments of Health and Education be brought to bear to reduce the waiting period to a more reasonable duration.
It is simply no excuse to say that parents sometimes are slow to give consent for referral or that children awaiting referral can be placed in the most convenient special class available. The latter, although in operation, is merely a cop out and in most instances is administratively impossible. Again, I regret the failure of the Minister even to refer to the plight of these young children. Another aspect of this problem refers to the nature and content of the clinical findings passed back from the assessment unit to the class teacher. There is serious inadequacy of contact between assessment teams and the schools and teachers providing the educational input. Very often, therefore, the clinical findings are not meaningfully transmitted into the classroom settings.
A programme of psychological service to primary schools referred to earlier, would have a very meaningful and worth-while role in ensuring that these findings would have a direct and relevant bearing on all aspects of educational activity within the special, remedial or the ordinary classroom. Present arrangements are far from satisfactory and the lack of initiative as well as the apparent absence of committment or conviction by the Minister to the needs of this area give a very hollow ring to her sentiments of care and concern.
If the Minister wants to act seriously to tackle the development of this area, a programme of psychological service to primary schools involving educational psychologists should be got underway. The Alice in Wonderland mentality has bitten deep into the Department of Education in the past three years. For all our children's sakes, let us hope it can be rooted out quickly, so that this fairy tale can end.
Sitting here listening to this debate I have had at times to pinch myself to ensure that we are not on some large stage acting a farce. There is one character missing however. He had at least the honour not to appear in this House on the last two evenings. I refer to Deputy Ger Brady. He must be squirming in his office in embarrassment listening to the utterings of his colleagues in relation to the education programme now being implemented.
He is away.
There is nothing like a spell on the Opposition benches to distance otherwise intelligent people from reality. Even my colleagues have questioned why two and a half years have elapsed before this motion appeared on the Order Paper.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Deputy Byrne was not interrupted during his speech.
The motion appears now after the teachers' conferences and with only six weeks left before the local elections. The Opposition think the electorate are fools but they are wrong.
We know they are not fools.
Those in the Opposition benches who have led this farce for the past two evenings are the main characters on the stage. The opportunistic timing of this motion has not gone unnoticed by those who have been consistent in their approach and in their concern for our children's education. Despite Deputy O'Kennedy's efforts this evening to put a respectable face on the action of the Opposition, parents, children and teachers realise what is being tried on by way of this motion, by way of the antics of the Opposition.
These antics do not become the Deputy.
We pay lip service to our children by referring to them as the nation's most valuable resource. Such phraseology comes lightly from the lips of too many politicians. It is the overriding principle of this Government to pass on the reins of State to the next generation without having mortgaged their future. We will insist that they have a future and a future with the best possible education, having regard to the limits of the Exchequer. Our taxation rates are penal but this results from our having lived beyond our means for years. Our borrowings, particularly our foreign borrowings, are much too high as a percentage of GNP. Yet Deputy O'Kennedy suggests that we allow our children a shopping list that will enable them to make a contribution to a fair and more productive society. We are anxious to ensure that there is a society for them, that the option for them will not be the emigration ship, that they will have jobs and not merely be well educated people on the dole queue. We must balance this whole argument. The tragedy of this debate is that basically when we talk about this subject outside these doors we agree on what we consider best for our children in terms of education yet the Opposition come in here and continue this farce as if we differed from them in regard to the educational needs of our children.
Hear, hear.
Is this why the Deputy has been called in?
I am speaking here as a member of the back bench committee on education. There has been reference to the gall of the Minister for indicating one hour after she had assumed office that she was ignorant of what was going on in the country. Immediately she came and enacted what the previous Minister, Deputy Gerard Brady, had insisted on and had included in the Estimate for 1982. The Minister for Education ameliorated the worst effects of his Estimates. She insisted that children should not have to bear the brunt of what he had proposed. Fianna Fáil do not mention the word "cuts". They try to conceal from the people what is happening but they do not fool anyone. To use the words used by Deputy Brady, they like to restrict current expenditure. That, in 1983 would have included amendments to the conditions relating to the appointment of teachers in post-primary schools. Now two and a half years later and when we have ameliorated the worst effects of those Fianna Fáil policies, they have the gall to produce this motion. This Government will ensure that all our children will receive the best education that the Exchequer can afford.
Before I commence——
It will not be easy for the Deputy to follow that.
Deputy Carey's contributions are always so stimulating. I wish to refer first to an attack that was made in the House this evening on my family and for which an apology was proferred. Perhaps I should be honoured that such an important chappy as the Minister of State at the Department of Labour should wish to speak about us. Twelve months ago he came to my constituency and denigrated my family. He has done the same here this evening. However, that may be some kind of inverted tribute from one who, in his own mind anyway, is such an important person. I can produce headlines from the papers to illustrate the scene he seems to be engaging in. All I can say is that this portrays something rather sordid in his mentality. Admittedly, the Minister offered an apology but I cannot let the occasion pass without saying that what I represent is my business and my business only. The Minister's efforts to denigrate my family indicate the level to which he has sunk.
The Deputy is overreacting. The Minister apologised.
With respect, the Minister did not refer to Deputy Doyle or to her family. He was referring to me and to my family. The Deputy is such a silly woman. I am as I am, warts and all. I am not anyone's property.
The Deputy is a disgrace to female representatives.
There is a total dichotomy in what the Minister for Education said last evening and what are the facts. She said that two and a half years have elapsed since a debate on education has taken place in the House. This evening the Minister of State, Deputy Creed, said rightly that there have been many debates on education in that time. Wherever the script writers do their business, they do not meet in the corridors. Since I have become spokesperson for Education for my party, we have had three major debates on school transport, one of which was initiated by Deputy Byrne. The other two also were initiated by us. In addition, in that time we have had two major debates on the Estimates for Education and we spent two days discussing the so-called action plan on education. Soon we will have another Estimates debate on Education. Therefore, there have been seven major debates on education in the past two and a half years yet the Minister tells us that two and half years have elapsed since Fianna Fáil have debated education.
I was speaking in the context of school transport.
I am in the business of putting together the various thoughts that have been put before the House during the debate so far on this motion. The attitude of the Government and in particular of the Minister for Education is that no one has the right to oppose. One dare not say anything against our Minister on the basis that everything she says is right. Therefore, if we criticise her we are told that we are looking for media attention. That is the problem. The Minister wishes to have all the media attention all of the time. The Minister of State, Deputy Birmingham, admitted that we have featured in the headlines. From now until 20 June and thereafter I shall continue to play my role in Opposition. We are not living in some country where there is to be a permanent Government. God forbid that would be the case so far as this Government are concerned. We are living in a democracy which has within it a Government and a government in waiting. There is no democracy that does not have an Opposition. Every democracy has an Opposition and I never heard of a Parliament in which the Opposition were not entitled to put down a motion relating to an important area like education. However, that is what the Government have said — last night in the person of the Minister and tonight in the person of the Minister of State, Deputy Birmingham. They do not think that we have any right to put down a motion on education although we are the only party which made any significant attempt to further the cause of education.
The Minister said last night that no previous Minister for Education ever comes into the House. We have the honour to have with us tonight Deputy John Wilson, arguably the man who made the greatest input to education and we are glad that he has come in.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I have several questions to put to the Minister, some of which I asked last night, but none of which has been answered. The Ministers of State, Deputies Birmingham and Creed, Deputy Avril Doyle and Deputy Carey have all spoken but none of them has answered my questions. I will ask these questions again tonight and perhaps in the numerous media speeches which the Minister will make in the months ahead — one gets weary of them — they will be answered. Will schools take in four year olds next September? I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Creed, will tell the Minister when he sees her that I want an answer to that question. As the representative on education for the largest party and on behalf of parents, I want to know if four year olds will be taken into school next September or will it be a case of the Minister giving an interview and then denying what she said?
What about the age of transfer? The Minister said that she had proposals ready to go to Government in this regard. School principals, managers, parents, pupils and I want an answer. Where has this mysterious pool of extra remedial teachers been appointed to? When are they going to be appointed? Will the Minister consider my request last night to at least replace school caretakers and primary school secretaries, as schools have been without their services for the last two years? I make a special plea in regard to caretakers because, in inner city schools, they are essential. I have had many letters, telephone calls and deputations from harassed, careworn and overworked school principals who find their windows broken and other kinds of vandalism perpetrated on their schools. They cannot cope with the problem and it is taking from the educational content of their daily lives. As a result, they cannot give time to running their schools.
I also asked a question three times last night to which I got no reply. I must now have a reply because the integrity of the Department of Education and their personnel in Marlborough Street is at stake. I quote from the January report of the National Economic and Social Council entitled "Economic and Social Policy Assessment". It is a Government publication which said that the percentage of gross national product spent on education had fallen and will continue to fall. The Minister said that the gross national product on education had not fallen and that it would continue to rise. However, the NESC report is clear and concise. I also want to give notice to the Government, as I have done over the last two years, that I intend to continue as Opposition spokesperson on education doing my job which my constituents sent me here to do and for which Deputy Haughey selected me. As long as he leaves me in this position, I will continue in that role and I will not be browbeaten by anyone.
I also intend to show up the shameless hypocrisy of the Minister in speaking about her commitment to equality of opportunity in education for girls. The greatest constraint on equality of opportunity is the pupil-teacher ratio, and the cutbacks over the last two and a half years mean that girls that have the ability and brains and who want to get on are unable to do so. I spoke last night about a school which was brought to my attention in which there are four of the brightest young women in the country who cannot take honours mathematics because the teacher who took that subject has left and has not been replaced even though the Government pay lip service to equality of education for women. The location of this school prevents its pupils from attending another school to avail of the subject. If the Minister is seriously committed to equality of education and for access by girls to non-traditional subjects, she should commit herself to resources and stop preaching about it. When we hear about commitment to curriculum reform, the greatest constraint in that regard is the adverse teacher-pupil ratio. I meet teachers who would dearly wish to participate in reform but there must be provision for such commitment. The Minister is suspect in this regard and the house of cards which has been so carefully constructed by herself, her Department and various consultants——
And an official press agent according to the newspapers.
A vast amount of money has been spent on all this but the house of cards is now beginning to topple because there is dreadful anger and the Minister is insulated from it. She has slipped into the habit of thinking that if she says sweet nothings to people they will reciprocate in kind.
(Dún Laoghaire): It sounds like a tea party.
That is exactly it — Alice in Wonderland and the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. Deputy Barrett has really put the tin hat on it.
(Interruptions.)
I would give Deputy Barrett an A plus if I was marking his end of term sheet.
Deputy O'Rourke is not in the classroom now.
I commend to the House the terms of the motion put forward by the Fianna Fáil Party that we deplore the cutbacks in education initiated by the Government.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett and (Dublin North-West).
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 25 April 1985.