I should like to point out to the House that due to a typographical error the word "movement" was omitted at the end of amendment No. 1. I take it the House agrees to the inclusion of that word? Agreed.
Private Members' Business. - Public Service Expenditure Allocations for 1988.
(Limerick East): Before I move our motion I should like the permission of the Chair to divide my 40 minutes with Deputy Hussey.
For such propositions the Chair invariably asks for the agreement of the House and I should like to know if that is agreed. Agreed.
(Limerick East): I move:
That Dáil Éireann conscious of the serious effect of projected 1988 expenditure allocations on many public services currently provided:
—and in particular the unacceptable increases in class sizes at primary level through the worsening of the pupil-teacher ratio and the consequent weakening of the entire educational system;
—and also the difficulties for many public service employees arising from the operation of the redundancy and redeployment schemes;
notes that the cost in 1988 to the Exchequer of the Draft Agreement on Pay in the Public Service will be an estimated £70 million while the reductions through staff shedding are similarly estimated for 1988 at £70 million (before the cost of redundancy and lump sum payments, not yet disclosed):
—calls on the social partners forthwith to return to discussions so as to achieve a better balance between continuation of public services, public service employment and public service pay;
—and in the context, requests the public service unions to suspend all further action on the current 1987 draft Agreement on Pay in the Public Service".
All Members of the House are conscious of the adverse effects on the delivery of public services contingent on the projected 1988 expenditure allocations. There is scarcely a service provided by the State which is not being cut back severely, with very serious consequences for our people. We know of the long waiting lists for essential operations in our hospitals, of the discharge of the old and the ill from hospitals and homes, of the hardship caused by the £10 charges in public wards and the closure of local hospitals. We know of the reduced services provided by the Department of Social Welfare and the hunting and the hounding of people off the live register by the Jobsearch scheme.
We know of the effects of the cutbacks in the Department of the Environment resulting in our roads being pockmarked with potholes and not likely to be resurfaced for 25 or 30 years, depending on which county engineer one is talking to. We know that house repairs cannot be carried out by local authorities, that the local authority building programme has been slashed, that local authority houses will not be built, that the housing list is growing again and that all grants have been abolished and the consequential results of that.
Indeed, there is scarcely a service being provided by the State whose delivery will not be reduced in effectiveness by the 1988 Estimates. From all that menu of desperation — I do not intend that to be a complete list — we have chosen to focus our motion on the cutbacks in primary education which will result in larger classes in our primary schools. We believe that this is the most unkind cut of all and cannot be justified on any objective grounds.
The previous Government, while moving resolutely to put the country's finances in order, not only did not cut primary education but increased the allocation for that sector, each year we were in Government. We increased the number of remedial teachers each year. A new £2 million allocation for primary schools in disadvantaged areas was approved and a special pupil/teacher ratio in deprived inner city schools was agreed. There was also an increase each year ahead of inflation in the capitation grant for every school in the country. At the end of our period in office, for the 1985-86 school year, we have achieved a pupil teacher ratio of 26.8:1, a reduction from the ratio of 28:1 in the 1981-82 school year when we took office. According to the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, the pupil/teacher ratio will now revert to the 1979 position when the PTR was 29:1. Thus, the progress of a decade has been wiped out by one atrocious decision by the Minister for Education and the Government in which she serves.
The effects on our children will be very serious indeed. We are all aware that a PTR of 29:1 results in numbers in classes of a much greater magnitude. I have no doubt that many children in our primary schools in future will be in classes in the high forties, if not in the low fifties. This is not only deplorable but unjust and, most damning of all, unnecessary.
I have had some experience of large classes in primary schools. When I began teaching in 1963 I was asked to teach a third class in a primary school with 56 students in it. Any teacher who has experience of teaching a large class, or any parent who has a child in a large class, knows the difficulties that arise. The brighter pupils and those with the more supportive family backgrounds are least affected and the weaker pupils and those with disadvantaged family backgrounds are the most affected. There is a direct relationship between large classes, such as those we had in primary schools in the forties, fifties and sixties, and the high incidence of adult illiteracy in our population. I do not think we should now be sowing the seeds in our primary schools of another wave of adult illiteracy in 25 or 30 years time.
The cuts in primary education are unnecessary and they arise from the Government's agreement with the social partners so inaptly called the Programme for National Recovery. The Minister for Finance informed the House that the public service pay agreement will cost £70 million in 1988. He has also informed us he envisages that the whole menu of items which are designed to reduce the number of public servants in 1988, including voluntary redundancies, will achieve savings of £70 million. Surely we cannot believe it is a coincidence that the two figures are so matched; that the agreement costs £70 million and that he must get £70 million in savings? Is it a coincidence that the figures happen to be the same coming out of the same computer?
It is usually futile debating which came first, the chicken or the egg, but in this instance it is clear what came first. When the pay negotiations were completed, the Minister for Finance calculated the total cost for 1988 at £70 million and decided then that £70 million was the amount he needed to save by reducing public service numbers through the redundancy programme and the other methods he has announced. A decision was taken subsequent to agreeing to pay out £70 million to achieve the same by redundancies and the non-filling of posts in the public service. We are familiar with that device in the private sector. We are all accustomed to unions going into factories and negotiating agreements for greater productivity which result in 50 fewer workers and the payroll being reduced or remaining the same. The approach of the Minister for Finance, and the Government, has been the payroll approach: give extra pay but do not increase the payroll; as long as they keep the payroll the same to hell with the service; the service does not matter as long as the cost is kept right.
In Education the unfortunate Minister had to achieve savings amounting to £10 million and that had to be found through not filling teaching posts and redundancies. The mathematical calculation was made that the pupil teacher ratio had to be increased by three points to reduce the number of teachers so that payroll costs would not be increased as a result of increased pay. We end up with our children in very large classes, paying the remaining teachers slightly more and we have the Government pretending there is no alternative. Of course there is an alternative. If the Government did not have to claw back on Tuesday what they spent the previous Friday we would not be in this position. We continue to train 1,750 student teachers in our colleges of education at a cost of almost £6 million a year. We are training them for teaching posts the Minister has abolished and she pretends there is no alternative to that either. The INTO call meetings all around the country to inform the parents of the disastrous consequences of the reduction in teaching numbers, to inform them of the disastrous consequences for their children being educated in very large classes, and they pretend there is no connection between the paltry increase the teaching unions negotiated for their members and the quite devastating consequences for education in reducing the number of teachers in our primary schools.
There are plenty of alternatives and the clear alternative is the one we are suggesting in our motion. The alternative is that the 1988 pay bill in the public service be reduced by £10 million so that class sizes remain at the same level as this year, that the number of teaching posts remain at least the same and that teaching posts are filled. Our motion calls on the social partners to return to discussions to achieve a better balance between a continuation of services, public service employment and public service pay. We call on them to deal in the first instance with the problem of primary education and to continue in other areas of the public service where the delivery of services is threatened by the combination of pay increases and redundancies.
Other countries when faced with financial problems not dissimilar from ours had a pay freeze for a number of years, or an actual reduction in public service pay. The example of Denmark is frequently quoted as the yardstick by which we should set out economic objectives. In Denmark they did not cut public services but they had a long pay freeze. When their economy came right, all their services were intact and they were able to run them properly. They were not involved in decimating their services as we are. When our financial position improves in four or five years time we should be able to pick up the pieces and put them back together again. I am not calling for a public service pay freeze. I am calling for a renegotiation of the public service pay agreement to achieve balance between delivery of services, pay and employment as advocated in our motion.
I am not asking the teaching profession to bear the burden alone. There is a misconception abroad which suggests that Fine Gael are asking teachers not to take any pay increase so that the teachers who are made redundant under the policy of the Minister for Education will remain in their jobs. We are not saying that. We are saying that all public servants, the whole 187,000 of them, including Members of the Dáil and Seanad whose pay is tied to public service pay agreements, should agree that the education of our children is a national priority, and consequently take a slightly smaller pay increase next year.
A reduction of the increase envisaged for 1988 by less than one third of 1 per cent would bring about the necessary saving. I believe teachers, civil servants, Garda, prison officers, judges, nurses, local authority officials, TDs and Senators are prepared to sacrifice what is, in net terms after tax, the price of a pint of Guinness a week. That is what 187,000 people need to do to keep classes at the same size and maintain the level of service for our children in primary schools, as well as maintain the same number of teaching posts.
The teaching profession have provided an excellent service to all of us and our children over the years. The standard of education in our schools is extremely high and I believe this is due to a great extent to the dedication and high professional standards of our teachers. They will not be able to continue the high quality service to which we have become accustomed if the classes are so large that an inordinate amount of time is spent on disciplinary matters. The leaders of the teaching unions who played such an important part in the negotiation of the national pay agreement, with the other social partners, should reopen discussions with the Government.
I would like to turn briefly to the amendments to our motion. The first amendment is in the name of the Minister for Finance. I think it is sufficient for me to say again what I said when the Estimates were debated in this House. The so called Programme for National Recovery is neither a plan nor a programme and will not lead to economic recovery. It is a public service pay agreement dressed up to look like a national plan. Because the Minister for Finance is insisting that savings equal to the amount conceded in the agreement have to be found by reductions in public service numbers, the programme is having a devastating effect on the delivery of all services, and a particularly disastrous effect on primary education.
There is no difference of any consequence between the amendments put down by the Labour Party, The Workers' Party or the Progressive Democrats. All of them simply call for the withdrawal of the Department of Education circular 20/87. I am not in the least bit surprised at the Labour Party amendment or the amendment in the name of The Workers' Party. The Labour Party have always had their heart in the right place but are again basing their approach on the crock of gold school of economics. This particular economic theory allows one to propose all sorts of worthy objectives without suggesting how a particular scheme will be financed and if pressed and asked a direct question, who is going to pay for them, they have no difficulty in referring one to this crock of gold which is uncollected taxes, wealth tax or the bank levy. The old crock of gold is dipped into time and again for any scheme.
I must say I am extremely surprised that the Progressive Democrats are now attached to the same school of economics. The original motion put down in the names of Deputies Quill and Desmond O'Malley, motion 57 on the Order Paper, is very much along the lines of our motion and is worth quoting:
That Dáil Éireann finds the proposed reduction in the provision of services in primary education unacceptable; in particular, it deplores the proposed reduction in the number of primary teachers, with the consequent increase in the already high pupil/teacher ratio; Dáil Éireann calls for the retention of the existing number of primary teachers, and is of the opinion that these should be paid for within the limits of the Estimate for Primary Education for 1988 maintaining salaries for teachers, and other public servants at their present level.
I would like to call on the Progressive Democrats to stick to their original motion, to stick by the strategy outlined by their party leader in the course of his conference address recently and not to take the easy option of the left wing parties. If the strategy we have outlined gets the support of the majority in this House, it is a strategy which the Government can implement very easily.
We are not afraid of an election.
U-turn McDowell.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): It will maintain the existing number of teaching posts in our schools, it will keep classes at least at their present size and will avoid the unacceptable deterioration in the primary education system in this State.
We are prepared to fight and shadow box with anybody — as long as they do not fight back.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): Finally, I want to issue a challenge to the Opposition parties. The Government have an amendment to our motion. Under the normal procedure of this House the Government amendment will be the first amendment we are asked to vote on next week. If Deputies are against what the Government are doing, we will be voting against the Government amendment, and if they want to get to the point where they can even have a vote on their own amendments, they will follow us into the “Nil” lobby and between us we will have the numbers to defeat the Government next week.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): If the Deputies want unity of the Opposition parties, the first vote will put their credibility to the test. If they want unity in the Opposition parties, it will occur when the Ceann Comhairle calls the first vote on the amendment proposed by the Minister for Finance to our motion.
On 16 June I spoke in this House on the earlier Fianna Fáil cuts in education in 1987 which amounted to £11 million. I used the occasion to detail by quotations the broken promises in each area, scrapping of computerisation, cuts in school transport, cuts in curriculum reform work, cuts in training colleges, cuts in vocational education committees, cuts in illiteracy provision, cuts in adult education, cuts in the special fund for disadvantaged schools at primary level, cuts at third level, the abandonment of the transition year, etc. I illustrated each cut with a corresponding promise made by the Minister and Taoiseach when in Opposition and up to the day of the election, all of which led to the banner headline in The Irish Press of 16 February last —“Haughey pledge on school cuts welcomed”.
The Taoiseach and the Minister for Education were fully in possession of the financial facts and circumstances of the economy when they made these famous promises because Fine Gael made sure that every single relevant figure was published in full. There are no excuses, no hiding places in the whining of Fianna Fáil Deputies at mass meetings around the country when they say that the economy was in a terrible state when they came to office and that they had to do something. Fianna Fáil knew full well what they were doing when they led the country up the garden path with calculated and cold-blooded promises. Tonight, we contemplate an education system which has been rocked to its foundations by the Government and the Minister who have cut a swathe through the hopes of parents by announcing a giant step backwards for our primary system. They have been the cause of growing anger, resentment and bitterness among parents, managers and teachers who rightly feel outraged by the most regressive decision I can recall in any Government's dealing with education.
I should like to know what has happened since the Minister informed the House on 8 April that she would give special priority to primary education. The record of the Dáil is littered with such assurances but the record of the deeds in which this sorry Government have been engaged is one of crisis management, running scared and turning on the weak to placate the strong. I have a leaflet here which contains a full selection of Fianna Fáil promises in 1985, 1986 and 1987 on primary education, which I understand was compiled by the INTO. The quotations are choice but I will not detain the House by going through them all because I have already used them in various speeches. Of course, each one of those statements was made with full knowledge of the exact financial circumstances of the country. Speaking at the INTO congress this Easter, the Minister said that the improvement of the pupil/teacher ratio was indeed high on her priorities. In referring to the problems of illiteracy, the Minister said in April 1985 in the House that the problem, no matter what angle we view it from, can be related back to the unfavourable pupil/teacher ratio. Last month, when the Minister was asked why she changed her position on all these promises said that of course she was in Cabinet now. That was last month, when the full realisation of the dimensions of the confidence trick played on the parents was hitting home to them as circular 20/87 dropped through the post boxes of school managers.
The Official Report of 6 February 1986 would be amusing if it was not so sad. A former Minister for Education, Deputy Wilson, in the heat of debate, made the following statement:
A Government without honour is a Government without support. This Government have no honour left. They have no word.
I can only say to the Minister and to the Government that if the cap fits they should wear it.
Looking at the record of Fine Gael in Government between 1982 and 1987, in Coalition with our Labour partners we gave priority to primary education because we knew and we acted on the conviction that primary education was underfunded, classes were too big and the financial burdens too heavy for most parents. We created 92 extra teaching posts under our scheme for disadvantaged schools, we increased capitation grants to relieve the burden of raising endless money to meet basic school needs. However, this Government have now frozen that rate in 1988, on top of the freeze in 1987.
We established the first special fund which bought books and materials, paid off crippling debts, established special training courses for teachers and helped the weakest in society. It grew to £2.5 million under our stewardship. It is being cut again by Fianna Fáil in 1988 who already cut it in 1987. Each and every such initiative, when brought to the floor of this House, was grudgingly welcomed by Fianna Fáil but always with accompanying loud calls for greater spending. For example, in 1986, when I had increased the fund by £250,000, the present Minister called for a bigger increase saying that while the amount had increased so had the problem. Now it is time to ask the Minister and the Government to stop for a moment to contemplate the problems they will cause throughout this country, problems which will particularly affect the weaker, slower child who needs help and attention. I am sure every Fianna Fáil Deputy has been inundated — as I have been — by calls to their offices and clinics from angry and bewildered parents who fear the worst for their children. They have every right to fear the worst because the facts are so grim as they emerge.
As 1 January approaches, teachers are being told they must get ready to go on the panel, move to other schools or go on the dole. They are being wooed with the carrot of a redundancy package not yet finalised to get them off the payroll altogether. There is widespread confusion about the total number to be lost but the Minister says she hopes to save £10 million on the worsening of the PTR in 1988. Schools are bracing themselves for a massive reorganisation of already large classes; smaller schools are contemplating a future with no principal to organise the whole school, to see parents, to look after sick or injured children and to advise and help teachers on disciplinary problems which are, unfortunately, crucial today.
The Minister is confused as she set the figures on the numbers of teachers to be lost originally at 1,300 but it is creeping upwards at each pronouncement. She is in direct conflict with the INTO figures which are well above 2,000. Whichever is correct, the results will be dire for schools which will see children herded into classes which will have to be much larger than before. The amount of remedial work possible will plummet and the gains made in recent years by dedicated teachers and parents working together will be set at nought. All this will affect the child's progress through primary school, particularly the weaker child, and, therefore, affect the whole education of the child who depends on the start he or she gets at primary level to see her or him through second level education and, for the fortunate few, to third level. How was this extraordinary decision made? How could the Minister and the Government have impaled themselves upon this hook which sees their Deputies wriggling on the end of it at every mass meeting across the country? The explanation is simple and Deputy Noonan mentioned it earlier on, simple in its cause but very nasty in its effects.
As negotiations went on during the summer to reach a pay agreement with the public service unions, the price of that agreement clocked up more and more millions with every percentage point conceded. The unions, naturally, were doing their job and doing it well. How are they to know that over at Merrion Street in the Cabinet room every Minister was chopping away at the public service, getting rid of civil servants, agricultural specialists, An Foras Forbartha but, most seriously and cruelly, getting rid of teachers to match the rising cost of the pay bill? The area they hit on was the softest target — or so they thought — that of primary education. The figure to be saved there was £10 million, the biggest staff cut in any area. The announcement was held over for five days after the £70 million extra in pay was conceded. It took considerable questioning and probing to establish that £70 million was also exactly the sum to be clawed back from cutting staff right across the public service. Delay or no delay, it was immediately apparent to me and to my colleagues that a desperately bad bargain had been struck. The group in society put first in the firing line and paying for this was children. I said that on 13 October and I have been saying it again and again ever since.
Fine Gael have had the courage to point out something the Government are afraid even to contemplate, that they went massively wrong in balancing pay and numbers in that deal. The circular known as 20/87 carries a price tag of £10 million. Any call for its withdrawal immediately cuts £10 million and costs £10 million and the taxpayer must know where that will come from. The Government and the Minister know they have tripped up and made a very costly blunder. The public service unions now know that they were hoodwinked. Ten million pounds is one-seventh of the £70 million pay deal. Will the Government have the courage to ask the social partners to look again at the pay figures so that the disastrous cuts affecting vital areas like primary education can be put right, so that circular 20/87 can be withdrawn without breaching the financial targets set by the Government and without involving more taxation or more borrowing? All of us who are paid out of the public purse are to benefit from the infamous bargain cooked up by the Government and put across on the unions. There is no alternative method of finding £10 million within education, an area which has been stripped bare by the second massive attack on it in one year to the tune of £97 million, an area where all of our student numbers are still growing each year and where facilities are wildly overstretched in every area.
The Fine Gael motion has two main characteristics. It is responsible and it is workable. All it needs it goodwill from Government and unions. Hardship need not be caused by some adjustments in the pay deal while untold damage to children above all will be caused by the Government's proposal. We do not propose to insult the intelligence of parents by pretending that £10 million can be easily found. We are putting forward the logical and consistent way of finding it.
I am mystified by Deputy Quill's announcement this morning that it could be found by scrapping the building of a veterinary college. There is not a veterinary college to be built. There is no money for any veterinary college. As far as I can ascertain neither is there any money earmarked for a dental hospital in 1988. That pronouncement is an example of a desperate casting about and it illustrates the collapse of the Progressive Democrats under the first serious pressure they have encountered. They went to these meetings around the country and decided they wanted to be the heroes of the parents by throwing away all their principles in one fell swoop.
I hope that as this debate goes on serious thought will be given to the enormity of the wrong which is being done to primary school children in order to give pay increases to us. I hope this House will unite to direct the Government to sit down again and find a way out of this morass into which they are plunging the educational system. This is 18 November; there is time to call a halt to this disastrous process. I hope that all parties in this House will support the motion before the House.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and insert:
"affirms that the Programme for National Recovery, including the Draft Public Service Pay Agreement and the analogous Draft Private Sector Pay Agreement, negotiated between the Government, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Federated Union of Employers, the Confederation of Irish Industries, the Construction Industry Federation, the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Cooperative Organisation Society and Macra na Feirme represents a concerted and balanced approach, unique in our history, to the grave problems facing the country and an equitable sharing of the burdens which have to be borne by the different sectors of the community as well as providing a sound basis, agreed between all economic and social interests, for increasing growth and employment; in that context it endorses the contribution made by the trade unions particularly as regards pay in the formulation of this type of participative economic programme long sought by the trade union movement.
The Programme for National Recovery represents a concerted effort by the Government, in agreement with the social partners, to confront the major problems, economic and social, which currently face us. It also represents a clear recognition and acceptance by the most influential sections of our community that major adjustments, both fiscal and otherwise, will be required to accomplish this task. It is clearly vital, in the national interest, that the objectives of the programme be achieved. For the Government's part, we will make every effort to ensure that these objectives are achieved; we trust that all sectors of the community will do likewise.
(Limerick East): On a point of order, I do not mean to be rude, but a script would be convenient. Are scripts available?
I would say they are on their way. I would not have minded having one of yours.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): It is already recorded.
I did not get it when the Deputy was speaking, nor did I ask for it. However, I will ensure that the Deputy gets a copy of this. The economic and social problems now facing us did not suddenly appear overnight — they are more the end product of a steady deterioration in our position over a long number of years. The huge growth in our national debt in recent years and the unprecedented levels of unemployment are only two of the more obvious manifestations of this deterioration. In late 1986, the National Economic and Social Council produced a report, A Strategy for Development 1986-1990 which set out the basic principles which it saw as being necessary for a recovery strategy. The most striking aspect of the report was that all the interest groups represented on the council — trade unions, employers and farmers — endorsed the four pronged strategy envisaged.
This strategy involved integrated macro-economic policies, tax reform development policies and a more equitable society.
The thrust of the report was formally accepted by the new Government on coming to office in March of this year.
Where is the tax reform?
Central to the recovery process is the pursuit of a budgetary policy which faces squarely the financial realities. In that regard, the stabilisation of the ratio between the national debt and Gross National Product has been identified as a key step. If this fundamental relationship was allowed to continue to deteriorate, the servicing of the debt would absorb an increasing share of resources, leaving less and less for other purposes.
To tackle this problem in an optimum way, policy actions must be mutually consistent. We believe we have achieved the correct balance in the Programme for National Recovery— the various elements of the programme will act in a mutually reinforcing manner to curtail borrowing and reduce interest rates, making possible faster economic growth and increasing employment. The stabilisation of the debt/GNP ratio in the course of the programme will involve a reduction in the Exchequer borrowing requirement to between 5 per cent and 7 per cent of GNP, depending on developments in economic growth and interest rates. The proposals for public expenditure in the coming year, reflected in the recently published abridged Estimates volume and in the Public Capital Programme, dovetail into this strategy, while the next stage, the 1988 budget itself, will have the objective of consolidating the adjustment process now begun.
Turning to the motion before us, I cannot understand what its terms are intended to mean. Is it being suggested that the Government reopen a fundamental feature of a programme which has been concluded voluntarily with the social partners after a protracted period of difficult negotiations? Is it being suggested that we set aside the process and the results of ballots which have just been concluded in good faith throughout the length and breadth of this country?
Yes.
More particularly as far as the education system is concerned, is it being suggested that we set at nought the outcome of the teachers' ballots on the draft pay agreement, which, according to media reports, has been substantially in favour of the draft agreement on pay in the public service?
Yes.
Furthermore is it then being suggested that the Government return to the negotiating table with a revised strategy that would exclude pay increases for public servants over the next three years and then realistically hope to conclude a revised programme?
No.
That is nonsense. If any or all of the foregoing suggestions are implied in the Fine Gael motion, I can only conclude that the proposers of the motion are in cloud cuckooland, blindly refusing to face reality.
The draft public service pay agreement provides for increases in basic pay as follows: 3 per cent on the first £120 of basic weekly pay and 2 per cent on any amount of basic weekly pay over £120. Where the application of this formula would result in increases of less than £4 per week in basic pay for full time adult employees, the increases shall be adjusted to that amount.
In the public service the first increase is due for payment on 1 January next, a full six months after the expiry of the 25th round agreement.
As regards the general increases proposed, I would have to reject any criticism of their level — about 2½ per cent per annum over the next three years — as both unreasonable and unrealistic. The levels of the increases are moderate by any standards.
Over the years the ICTU in their guidelines on round claims, have regularly sought provisions to improve the relative wage income of the lower paid. While some such provision was included in the various National Agreements during the seventies the position of the lower paid did not attract special consideration in recent years. For this reason I am glad that the pay provisions of the programme will facilitate a genuine improvement in the lot of the less well off over the period of the programme.
But primary education will be less well off.
Furthermore, the fact that the Government know clearly in advance the level of pay increases for a long period ahead is of crucial significance for the purposes of economic and social planning. Given the size of the Exchequer pay and pensions bill and the fact that it constitutes the greatest single element of current Government expenditure, the value of knowing this and the certainty it gives to planning public service pay costs cannot be overstated. The fact that this has been achieved by consensus with the social partners is especially noteworthy.
To return to the problems facing us on our return to Government, our first priority had to be to address the basic problem — excessive public expenditure.
The Minister knew that already.
If the basic framework of our public services was to be safeguarded we had no option but to make major and immediate savings in expenditure.
Why did the Minister call for increases?
It was armed with this knowledge that we tackled the 1987 budget and the 1988 Estimates.
Why did the Minister call for increases?
I did not interrupt the Deputy when she was speaking.
Interruptions are particularly unwelcome in a debate to which a time limit applies. The Deputy was heard without interruption. Could we have the same good attention for the Minister, please.
The 1987 budget was the first phrase in implementing our strategy and significant progress towards our objective of reducing dependence on borrowing was made. In the very short time available to us significant public expenditure reductions totalling £120 million were made on the expenditure allocations made by our predecessors. These expenditure reductions were, inter alia, intended to ensure that the 1987 budget would be seen as the turning point in the restoration of the economy.
Even then, though, it became crystal clear that the progress made would only be the initial step on the road to recovery. The scale of our problems was such that we realised that the process would have to be continued into 1988 and beyond if order was to be restored to the public finances and our economy was to be got moving again.
The Government, therefore, set about preparing their expenditure plans for 1988 immediately after the budget. The first step in this process involved an in-depth review of all existing spending programmes. This exercise was the most rigorous and searching review of Government expenditure that has ever taken place in this country. Priorities were reassessed, programmes and schemes which were no longer relevant or which had outlived their usefulness were identified and ended, and waste and duplication were eliminated. The result has been that savings of £412 million have been secured for 1988.
The 1988 Estimates show that the Government have succeeded in their main objective of finally arresting the upward spiral in public expenditure. Expenditure has been reduced — in cash terms — for the first time in almost 30 years. Major cuts have been made while at the same time, ensuring that an adequate level of service is maintained, particularly for those dependent on social welfare.
The overall full-year effect of the non-capital reductions made in the 1987 budget and the 1988 Estimates combined, has been to reduce expenditure in 1988 by about £650 million below what would otherwise have been the case, that is a cut of about 10 per cent in real terms. This is a very significant achievement in anyone's book.
The package of cuts affects all areas of expenditure. It was considered that while no one section should have to bear the brunt of expenditure reductions neither should any areas be exempted.
At times of major expenditure adjustments there is a particular need to consider the interests of the less well off. The package of measures produced is a genuine attempt to spread the burden of adjustments where it can best be shouldered and to protect the less well off members of society. This is as it should be.
Our concern for the less well off is clearly demonstrated in both our actions since coming to office and our published commitments for the next few years.
For instance, we paid this year's welfare increase from July instead of from November as had been proposed by our predecessors. This helped to ensure that welfare recipients would not fall behind.
Is this not totally irrelevant?
Secondly, we maintained the Christmas bonus for welfare recipients despite widespread concern that it would be reduced or abolished. Up to 920,000 recipients and dependants will benefit from this bonus. We also extended the equal treatment alleviating measures so that beneficiaries could not suffer a sudden drop in their welfare incomes coming up to Christmas. Another notable achievement was the more equitable use of existing resources. I refer here to the free fuel scheme where, by a small reduction in the length of the heating season, we are able to extend its coverage to the long-term unemployed.
On a point of order, is it in order for the Minister to speak about a free fuel scheme in a debate about education?
Doubtless Deputy McDowell will have an opportunity, if he wishes to avail himself of it. In the meantime he must desist from interrupting or leave the House.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am asking why the Minister should refer to a free fuel scheme in a debate about education. It is a scandal.
If the Deputy persists with further interruption I shall insist on his leaving the House.
If the Deputy read the motion before the House he might understand why. Obviously he is concerned only in a narrow sense. This is a wider debate than that intended by his party.
Finally, the Programme for National Recovery safeguards welfare recipients generally with its commitment to maintaining the overall value of their payments.
In summary, therefore, our deep concern for those on welfare has been translated into decisions to keep welfare programmes largely intact despite significant reductions on all other current expenditure programmes. It will and must remain firm Government policy, however, to keep all programmes under constant review with a view to more equiptable and efficient targeting of benefits and the avoidance of abuse.
In the health area the strategy initiated last year of reorganising the health services to deliver a more efficient service is being continued. Cost containment units have been established to ensure that hospitals and other institutions are run as efficiently as possible while reviews of the various schemes for the supply of drugs will be undertaken to ensure that they are operating in the most efficient way possible.
Our major concern continues to be the provision of adequate public care to those who need it and sufficient resources are being made available to the health services to achieve this.
I turn now to education and I hope Deputy McDowell will listen very carefully to what I have to say. I want to spend some time on what precisely is happening in the education sector given that the motion and the other amendments refer specifically to it. Currently, 6.5 per cent of GNP is being spent on this sector. Before 1979, we were spending less than 5 per cent of GNP on education. In 1986, 16.5 per cent of net Exchequer expenditure on non-capital services was spent on education services. In 1988, even with the savings measures proposed, £18 out of every £100 expenditure will go on education services. With the many other demands on the public purse, we simply cannot afford to divert a larger slice of our resources to education. Given the size of the education budget and given our public finance problems, there was no way in which the education sector could be exempted from contributing to the corrective action needed in the public finances.
In 1988, we will be spending £1,129 million on current services in education. This appears to represent a reduction of 2.8 per cent on the 1987 provision. However, this is not the case. Because January 1988 begins with a bank holiday and a week-end, a pay issue for national teachers which would normally fall in 1988 will be a charge on 1987. This means we need about £37 million less to pay the same salaries in 1988 as in 1987. When account is taken of this one factor, the £1,129 million to be spent in 1988 represents a decrease of less than 1 per cent on what was provided for 1987 and in fact represents a small increase of 0.4 per cent on the outturn now being projected for 1987.
In real terms it is less.
I knew Deputy McDowell would not like that. I do not think this has generally been adverted to or appreciated.
In examining the scope for savings in the primary sector — which appears to be the principal concern of the proposers of this motion — the House should note that in the present year, 1987, over 90 per cent of the current cost of running the primary education system goes on pay and pensions. The pay and pensions bill comes to £386.5 million out of a total of £428.7 million.
That is the problem.
Given the high proportion of total spending that goes on pay and pensions, the proportionately smaller segment of non-teacher expenditures could not sustain reductions in funding of an order large enough, in toto, to yield the savings that were necessary.
In these circumstances, there was no alternative but to consider a significant reduction in pay costs. Realistically speaking, this could only be done by reducing numbers in the teaching force. This, as the House knows, is being done through two measures, the increase from 35 to 38 in the number of pupils required per teacher and with withdrawal of specific provision in the schedule of average enrolments in respect of non-teaching principals. The increase from 35 to 38 does not necessarily mean an extra three pupils in every primary school class, nor does it mean that the pupil/teacher ratio goes from 35 to 38. Average class size is approximately 30.5 at present. When the measures proposed have gone into effect, average class size will rise to approximately 33.
Overall, it is estimated that the measures will result in 1,800 posts becoming surplus. The teachers holding these posts may, in the general case, opt to have their names placed on panels for redeployment. It is expected that some 500 teachers will be redeployed through vacancies arising in the normal way through leaving the service other than through redundancy and so on. This will leave an estimated 1,300 teachers, who it is envisaged, will apply and be accepted on the basis of the voluntary redundancy scheme.
The reason we hear of very large classes is in fact the choices schools make for organisational reasons. Through organising class groups in a more flexible manner, a change advocated by my colleague the Minister for Education, over large classes could be avoided. The new schedule need not lead to the over large classes that have been alleged if schools are willing to give due consideration to matters of organisation.
Finally, we have been told that the changes which Government have been forced to adopt will cause severe damage to the education system and to the children going through it. This is a proposition that needs to be looked at critically. The House may not be aware that the pupil-teacher ratios which will obtain when the changes are in place will be virtually identical to those that obtained as recently as 1978. Contrary to what many people would have us believe, the Government are not proposing to reintroduce the Dark Ages.
We are also told that the changes we are now making will make it impossible for teachers to teach the new curriculum. However, the House should know that the new curriculum was introduced in 1971 and was taught until 1974 under pupil-teacher ratios that were less favourable than those we have now decided on. I think these points should be made to ensure that Members of this House are fully informed of all the relevant facts and that consideration of the issues involved is not clouded by emotive arguments.
Our concern with reducing public expenditure has not been limited to cutting schemes and programmes. The streamlining and reorganisation of the public service administrative machinery to ensure a cost effective provision of essential services was a response to a clear need to rationalise State agencies and services.
Cumbersome and overlapping structures have grown up over the years in the State agency sector. It appeared to us that some of the functions being carried out by the State sector could be more economically and efficiently performed as normal functions of the parent Department. Similarly in other instances the task for which specific State bodies were set up had been accomplished. In other areas there was basic duplication of effort. The elimination of duplication, overlap, waste and non-essential activity in the State sector was therefore a serious objective in the formulation of the Estimates for 1988.
To this end the 1988 Estimates allow for the continuation of the general ban on recruitment to the public service, thus improving the efficiency of the central administration and include measures to reduce allocations for travel expenditure by Government Departments and State agencies, the merger of various State agencies to eliminate duplication, and reduced grants to other State agencies, to ensure that only priority activities are funded. Redundancies are an unavoidable and necessary consequence of this objective and to cope with this the voluntary redundancy scheme has been introduced.
Reference is made in the motion to difficulties for public service employees arising from the operation of the early retirement-redundancy package. I am not aware of such difficulties. In fact, the widespread interest being shown by so many public servants in the options on offer confirms that the Government's approach has been a reasonable one in the prevailing circumstances. Given the absolute necessity to curtail public expenditure programmes and the consequent need to reduce public sector staff numbers, the Government are endeavouring to secure this reduction in the fairest way possible. In the first place, the package is a voluntary one. Secondly, it contains a number of elements — redeployment, career breaks, job-sharing and financial terms for early retirement — and thus provides a range of methods for reducing numbers in a constructive manner. Natural wastage will, of course, also contribute to this process.
As regards the financial terms, the various options on offer reflect existing distinctions between categories of public sector staff as regards Social Welfare and Redundancy Payments Acts entitlements. While it would not be feasible, because of these distinctions, to offer precisely the same terms to each group concerned, the terms on offer are designed to ensure that broadly equal benefits are conferred on each group. In this way inequities are avoided as much as possible.
In order to achieve the necessary impact, the voluntary early retirement-redundancy package is designed to apply over the entire public sector, excluding the Defence Forces and Garda Síochána. At first the measures were implemented in areas where staff surplus to requirements had been identified. While this process will continue, the Government have recently decided to give added impetus to the programme by extending the arrangements to staff aged 50 and over in the Civil Service, health boards and non-commercial State bodies. Acceptance of the financial terms by such staff will, of course, make it possible to provide the necessary public services with a reduced staffing complement. Redeployment will naturally be employed to this end. I am satisfied that no loss of efficiency will be entailed in this rationalisation process, especially as management will retain the right to refuse the terms to key personnel.
An argument underpinning the Fine Gael motion appears to be that if there is no public service pay increase in 1988 there will be no need for the shedding of any public service jobs. This argument appears to be based on the assertion that the pay savings achieved by shedding jobs in 1988 amount to £70 million. I must assume that this estimate is based on a simple comparison of the figures for the 1987 and 1988 Exchequer pay and pensions bill contained in the abridged 1988 Estimates volume. However, such a comparison fails to take account of the fact that the £70 million saving is a net figure, consisting of the savings arising from job losses offset by a range of factors such as increments and instalments of approved special pay increases. The net effect, therefore, is that the Exchequer pay and pensions bill would be increased by much more than £70 million if no jobs were shed and, therefore, the simplistic argument that the absence of a public service agreement would fully fund the retention of public service jobs does not stand up.
Since this is a voluntary redundancy scheme, it is not possible at this stage to predict precisely how many public servants will avail of the scheme and from what categories, organisations and grades they will come. Similarly, it would be futile to attempt to give a precise figure as to the eventual cost of lump sums and additional pensions, as these depend on the salary levels and length of service of the people who apply for the scheme.
The amendment in the name of The Workers' Party suggests that better tax collection procedures would remove the necessity for expenditure cuts. As was made clear by a Minister for Finance in the previous Government there is no crock of gold in uncollected taxes which can solve our public finance problems. The Government are nevertheless committed under the Programme for National Recovery to ensure prompt payment of taxes and measures to improve the situation are under consideration. Already in the 1987 budget the Government have introduced a task force on tax collection and a withholding tax on certain professional fees. Both of these measures are making a significant contribution to improving compliance with tax obligations.
The Government are already committed in the Programme for National Recovery to reviewing capital taxation and investigating the scope for increasing the yield from capital taxes in the context of the 1988 and subsequent budgets.
The Government have decided and are supported by a massive weight of economic opinion that controlling and curtailing public expenditure is the best way to balance the budget rather than increased taxation or borrowing.
I trust the House will endorse the Government's action to date and acclaim the outstanding achievement of the social partners in the formulation of the Programme for National Recovery. For my own part I would like to pay tribute again to the responsible and realistic approach of the social partners in achieving a comprehensive programme which will constitute a milestone on the country's path to economic recovery. I would hope that the Opposition, when replying to this debate, would acknowledge the significance of the programme and the importance of its contribution to tackling the country's social and economic problems.
At the outset I wish to say how exceptionally disappointed I am that the Minister for Education has not thought it necessary to come to the House this evening to listen to this debate in its totality because, for all its faults, to date some very fine educational points have been made in the debate. It will be education's overall loss that the Minister is not here to hear what is being said.
She is listening, and she will be here.
So, too, is holy God, I hope.
She who listens.
And must be obeyed.
How disappointed I am that the Minister for Finance has taken it upon himself to come in and make the kind of speech he has made here this evening. It is adequate confirmation, if that confirmation were needed, that the Department of Education is being run in its totality by the Department of Finance and that we have no policy on education. That is very sad for the young people of this country and indeed for all the people. The belief has been abroad for some time, and it is finally confirmed for us this evening by the Minister's presence, by the absence of the Minister for Education and by the tone and content of the speech made by the Minister for Finance, that there is no education policy.
The amendment which has already been tabled will be moved later and its purpose is to unite all the Opposition parties in the hope that we will succeed in our object, the retention of the pupil/teacher ratio at its existing level and the withdrawal of the infamous circular 20/87. Unless we in our position take a unified stand on this issue we stand to be defeated and all the fine sentiments spoken here this evening will be little more than window dressing for the folks back home. We saw what happened to the motion on the Curriculum and Examinations Bill voted on in this House last evening. I listened attentively to every word spoken in the debate. I have not heard finer educationally-motivated contributions to any Bill since I came to the House. But in the heel of the hunt, despite the fact that we in the Progressive Democrats took the whole issue so seriously, even to bringing back our Deputy Ann Colley who was in the Old Bailey to hear the trial of the Birmingham Six to ensure that we would have our full voting complement in the House in the hope that that Bill would be passed, the Bill failed and the score this morning for this House was Deputy O'Rourke: 1; Deputy Hussey: Nil. That is a sad experience on top of all the other experiences that I have had since I came to this House where time and time again on a series of serious issues I have heard fine speeches coming from the Opposition benches but when the time comes to vote on the issues there has not been a united front, a common approach where issues matter. Everyone went their separate ways. Many times I have asked myself why this was so or when it is going to stop. The punter has been tempted to say that when the time comes we will never get all the Opposition in Leinster House to combine because they are scared stiff of having an election. It was my hope and the hope of my party when we put down this amendment that we could call upon the support of every Opposition Deputy in this House, that we could combine on this issue above all issues because we were prepared to take this issue of primary education very seriously. I am not so sure from what I heard during the day outside the House that I have the same confidence now as I had. However, I hope it is not too late yet. I hope that our amendment when put will have support. Otherwise we are set to be as we have been since the Dáil met last March, a bit like Lanigan's ball, stepping in and stepping out again but never stepping out as Opposition people in unison. I hope that is not going to happen this time.
Deputy Hussey has been accusing me of casting around to find the money with which to compensate the additional teachers who need to be put back onto the pay-roll if we are to maintain the pupil/teacher ratio that was there before the circular 20/87 was issued. If we had had a united front on the Ministerial Pensions Bill and if people who were in receipt of ministerial pensions in this House had been generous enough to give up their pensions and put that money into the Exchequer we could go a long way to funding the additional teachers needed to maintain our pupil/teacher ratio. But we did not unite on that either and I can only hope that we will unite on this.
My suspicion is that the Minister for Education will have the last laugh. Long before Deputy Hussey's Bill was put on the Order Paper the 14 members of the Progressive Democrats put it on public record that they were quite prepared to forego their 2½ per cent in the hope of retaining the pupil/teacher ratio and they were going to do that in the same spirit and in the same manner as their leader and chairman gave up their pensions voluntarily some months ago. That is on public record and I am glad to put it on the record of the House here this evening.
Having said that, let me refer to the fact that we have before this House three different motions tabled by the three main Opposition parties. They all have one element in common, that is the retention of the pupil/teacher ratio. After that they go their separate ways in regard to how the money is to be provided. But they have that in common and that is the common ground from which we can go forward and on which we can work. From that we can draw strength as an Opposition if we can agree. If we do not agree, the fine words said here this evening will be lost up there again at the point where we all vote.
Where is the £10 million coming from?
Most assuredly the motions which we have taken one by one as they have been submitted will be defeated one by one by one. That is why we have to put in this one simple amendment, an amendment that can command the support of every member of the Opposition, asking the Minister to withdraw circular 20/87. This is an essential prerequisite to solving this serious problem. Unless the Government agree, all the fine stuff said during the debate will be little more than academic. On the other hand, if we succeed in forcing the Government to withdraw that circular then we can sit down and, in a constructive and positive spirit, tease out fully how best the moneys can be found to enable us to retain the pupil/teacher ratio and avoid the inevitable consequences that will follow unless the circular is withdrawn. If we do not do that, all the other motions will be lost.
I must remind the House of a sad experience we had in this party during the course of our Private Members' motion on health when we argued logically for the reduction of the number of health boards and of the amount of money spent on the administration of health and for the putting of this money into patient care. When the time came to put that issue to the vote, what kind of support did we get from Fine Gael? Out of 51 members of Fine Gael, 23 thought seriously enough of that voting to come in and support us. That has been my experience as an Opposition Deputy in this House. It is a sad experience. It becomes sadder when I hear hollow statements made in every constituency in this country from members of the main Opposition party about where they stand on health and what they will do about health. When they had an opportunity to signal with strength to the Government and to combine behind us, what do they do? They sat in their offices and they sat in the Library and they sat everywhere, but they did not come in to support us. One might well ask why. Because whatever else is happening they are absolutely terrified that we might force any serious issue to the point of an election. That is the bottom line for every voting intention in Fine Gael and it is the bottom line in this motion as well. We see it for what it is and we will not be fooled on that one.
We are not afraid of the consequences if this motion is defeated. We have the freedom in our party to put the welfare of our children first. We have a totally united party firm in its leadership with a membership that is quite prepared to do battle. That is why we say to the Government, with all the strength that we command on these benches, that we are testing them on this issue. We are quite prepared to put this issue to the Government. If we fail, so seriously do we take it that we will take the issue to the people.
Our whole approach to this debate is totally consistent with everything we have said on education since our party was formed. At our annual party conference last October we devoted all our debate on education to primary education, so important do we think primary education is. During the course of that debate we called for more teachers, not fewer. We called for more remedial teaching, we called for the provision of a schools psychological and guidance service because we saw these things as being absolute essentials if we were to maintain and develop our standards in primary education.
And you still vote in favour of the Estimates?
Deputy Howlin inadvertently has interrupted. Deputy Quill, without interruption.
I am dumbfounded at anybody who thinks honestly that we can raise more money by taxation or by borrowing. I am dumbfounded that people at this stage are not prepared to come behind us and say it is possible to maintain primary education within the parameters of the budget of 1988 if we get down and do our homework and our sums. I am dumbfounded at anybody who thinks that we can do otherwise and that is my only reason for being dumbfounded.
A Deputy
Why did the Deputy oppose our motion?
Is the Deputy afraid to say where?
We are not afraid to say where.
The teachers' pay deal.
The teachers' pay deal.
We were the first to say——
Not £4 million, £70 million.
We were the first people to point——
The TDs' pay deal as well.
We were the first people to point to the pay element in the national plan. The ink was not dry on that plan when our leader, Desmond O'Malley, spoke of it in his address to the party conference on 10 October with grave suspicion. He pointed out there that he was absolutely disgusted at the fact that any Government at this time could decide to pay all their public servants from the Taoiseach down, all their Ministers, Ministers of State, highly paid senior civil servants, county and city managers, an increase of 2½ per cent and on an incremental basis while at the same time young teachers, young nurses and council workers were being driven out of their jobs. He was the very first person to say that. I heard nobody else saying it.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
If it has been repeated and long after by people who went out and heard what parents had to say and are now coming back and doing a rethink and a rejig, I say well done. I prefer a slow learner to no learner at all.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Why did the Deputy's party not support our motion?
In any event, what we are saying here in this amendment and what we shall be saying in our motion when it comes up is entirely consistent with what we have said about primary education and about standards in education since our party was founded. We did not have to go out to hear what parents had to say and if anybody is in any doubt about that, let me read for the House and write into the record an extract from a speech made by our spokesperson on Finance, Deputy McDowell, on 20 October, 1987. It is already in the record of the House but we shall put it in again because there is strength in truth and those of us who talk about education should aim to tell the truth at all times. That is part of education, too. I quote from the Official Report, 20 October 1987, Volume 374, column 689, when in the course of his reply to the Estimate for 1988 Deputy McDowell had this to say:
There are individual features of the Estimates which have caused considerable concern to us. Without going through all the Votes or through all the Estimates one which stares us in the face as legislators is the balance that has been struck in education cutbacks. The fact that primary education is to bear the brunt of the cutbacks in education is something which is hard to understand, particularly in view of the fact that for those who are least advantaged in our society and those who are likely to suffer most from cutbacks, it is the only education they will ever receive. I stated, as a matter of conviction, that no-one can see a series of educational cuts which focus more heavily on primary education than elsewhere as being socially progressive, or as caring for those most disadvantaged in society. It seems that the balance has been struck wrongly in relation to education and this party will more and more forcefully get across to the Government and to the people the injustice being done by attacking primary education in particular in the context of cutbacks in education.
That was what was said by our party spokesperson on 20 October. I am not just mystified, I am completely paralysed that it has now been suggested that we had to wait to go out and meet the parents and see what they had to say before we made up our minds on what steps we were going to take on primary education. There are many people who are not listening, I am afraid. I have already spoken of what Deputy O'Malley had to say at our conference in October. Time and time again during the course of a number of contributions I have made to this House on education, I have pointed out the damage that is being done to our children by our already high pupil-teacher ratio. Prior to the issuing of this circular, we had the third worst pupil-teacher ratio in Europe. There were only two countries with a less favourable ratio, Spain and Portugal. Surely they are countries on which we have never sought to model our educational system? Our education tradition is such that we have looked to other countries for standards but, equally, it can be said that other countries have looked to us because whatever our failing in the past we never fell down when it came to funding primary education. The old national schools stood by the people well and that is very well known.
In recent years and prior to the issuing of this circular that ratio has gone wrong, wrong in terms of the needs of the modern child because children coming to school nowadays are bringing with them problems that were never there when we went to school. They are bringing with them a demand for attention and an education that was not there when I was at school. Society is changing and changing rapidly, family life is changing fundamentally and all these changes are impacting on the children who now come to our schools. At this time it is more teachers that we need, not fewer. If we are going to attain to any kind of personal development, oral confidence, or any of the finer objectives that we preach in this House, we must have more teachers in our schools. There is no getting away from that. If we are going to set out to eliminate the problems that are already emanating from our schools, that manifest themselves in the large number of people who leave school every year who cannot cope with the ordinary skills of reading and writing, we must act. The figures on illiteracy are quite well known and on record. If that is not going to get much worse, we will now have to tackle our primary schools and the single most important key element in any school is the teacher. If we cut down on the number of our teachers anything else that we will seek to do — and indeed I see no evidence of seeking to do anything else — will be set at naught. That is the single most important element of our education. We must get the balance right between teacher and pupil.
I listened last night to a very modest and very short contribution by Deputy Batt O'Keeffe from Cork South-Central on the issue of the National Board for Curriculum and Assessment Bill. His speech did not prove anything one way or the other. I could not make out at the finish whether he was for or against, but I found out when he voted what side he was on. During the course of his speech he pointed out to the House that he was a teacher at third level and mentioned in detail the problems he encountered with pupils who go into third level, problems that stem from lack of oral competency, from a low standard in reading and writing. He wrote those problems into the record of the House last night. If these problems exist among those who attain entry to third level education, and if they are there already in advance of the issuing of this circular, what will they be like when a new and worse pupil-teacher ratio is put in place? That is one end of the scale. What about those poor children, the early school leavers, who will never even sniff at third level education and many of whose futures have been determined even before they leave first level, those who embark on second level but who only mark time until they reach the age of 15 years when they can escape from that awful place called school? Nothing in school has any real meaning for such children. What is to happen to them when this new pupil teacher ratio is put in place? How much worse off will they be?
The case has been made and we could argue the educational aspects of it forever. That is what we ought to do but in regard to our amendment let me say that we have adopted a deliberate strategy which we think will unite all of the Opposition parties and which we hope will unite all the Members of the Opposition with a view to signalling quite clearly and very strongly to the Minister and the Government that this kind of cutback is not acceptable to those of us who are in Opposition, that we will not tolerate it and are prepared to go to the ultimate if need be.
What we are saying to the Government is that they go back to the drawing board and think the matter out again because this decision could hardly have been made with any thought for the quality of education. We are pleading with the Minister to think about the implications of this cutback and to think of the overall and long term cost if this cut were to be implemented. We are asking the Minister to listen to what we are all saying. There has never been so much national consensus as there has been on this issue. We are asking the Minister to have the good sense and the courage to rescind this circular and do so now. In the three weeks available to her, she ought to come up with some kind of economic strategy which would enable us to retain the pupil teacher ratio at the level at which it was prior to the publication of the Estimates for 1988.
We have clearly and consistently put our option on the table and our preferred option is now as it was before we tabled our amendment which derives directly from what our Leader said in his address to the national conference. That option is that the moneys to enable her to do this should be taken out of the public pay element in the national plan. We say that everybody, except perhaps the very lowest paid workers, such as the low paid council workers, should accept a pay pause. Some of these low paid council workers are paid little more than those on the dole. We would not grudge paying them the 2.5 per cent. In fact we would insist that they would receive the 2.5 per cent but from there on up every responsible person, given the option, would accept this pay pause — that is what we are asking for — rather than preside in silence over the destruction of our education system.
You cannot destroy primary education which is the cornerstone of all education and say that you are going to maintain the other elements and maintain them upwards. That is not possible because if you decimate the foundation, the edifice will crumble. That is what is going to happen if this new pupil/teacher ratio is put in place and the ordinary people can relate——
The Deputy has two-and-a-half minutes left.
Mar sin, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, níl le rá agam ach an méid seo. I want to sincerely thank a number of Opposition Members of this House for being prepared to put aside their own ideology, for being prepared to forego any previous plans they had and for being prepared to give support to this very simple amendment. They do so in the belief that our children and their future are more important than any of us in this House and are infinitely more important than any divide which might exist between Opposition Deputies. I want to sincerely thank those Deputies who have indicated quite strongly to me that they are prepared to support this amendment.
That is the kind of leadership we do not often see in this House but when it does happen it is the kind of leadership which draws a blessing down on the Members of this House because for too long the electorate have seen us divide on very cultural issues. The expectations of Members have been built up during the course of very fine debates in this House in which sentiments which appeared to be very sincerely held were put forward but when the time came to vote, by some strange kind of manoeuvring or headcounting the issue fell and nothing was achieved. That has happened all too often since I came into this House and it has happened on issues which fundamentally affect the welfare of our people and the future of this country. I do not want it to happen where our children and the maintenance and development of primary education are concerned.
Therefore, I appeal to everybody to forget about the election and not to be afraid. I appeal to all the other Opposition Members to talk to their Leaders and to ask them to look at the kind of courageous and firm leadership which is being given by Deputy Desmond O'Malley, to take a leaf out of his book, to look at what he was prepared to do on the pensions Bill and to ask whether they are prepared to do the same. Put your children first and act now. If you do, not alone will the children of this generation and future generations thank you but you will have done something which will stand to your own eternal credit as legislators in this House in very bad times. There has hardly been a worse time——
I am sorry, Deputy, but you are exceeding your 30 minutes.
I compliment Deputy Quill for an excellent speech on education and on what should be done for the betterment of education. We have spoken here over the past number of years about the public debt and the awfulness of the public finances. I am in no doubt that what the Minister is proposing in her circular is not an educational measure but purely an economic measure. The Minister for Finance in speaking tonight did not describe it as an education measure but rather described it as an economic measure.
Do we not know it?
To call a spade a spade, that is what it is. It must be discussed in the overall context of the financial situation in which we find ourselves.
Deputy McCreevy is being very honest as he is always.
The question is, will he vote against it?
I have not come to the education part of the motion yet. If we could all live in the cloud cuckooland which has been referred to tonight and which is the same cloud cuckooland we have all lived in for the past 15 years or so, I would certainly agree with Deputy Quill when she says that we need more teachers and more remedial teachers. If talk could have solved this problem of the national debt it would have been solved a long time ago.
Courage would have solved it.
It is akin to the problem of the Six Counties, if talk could have solved that problem, it would have been solved a long time ago, too.
You have as much chance of taxing wealth as you have of taxing cuckoos.
They are scarce too.
I always enjoy listening to Deputy Higgins as he is most interesting. Yes, we are all against sin but not just yet. I agree with Deputy Quill that it would be lovely to be able to decrease the pupil-teacher ratio, that we would like more teachers, but where is the money to come from?
Are we to punish our children for the Government party's squandermania since 1977?
The leader of the Deputy's party was a very prominent member of the Government that led us down into the morass.
(Interruptions.)
Debate adjourned.