Private Members' Business. - Public Service Expenditure Allocations for 1988: Motion (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (25th Dáil) – Tuesday, 24 Nov 1987

Private Members' Business. - Public Service Expenditure Allocations for 1988: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Noonan(Limerick East) on Wednesday, 18 November 1987:

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 that context, requests the public service unions to suspend all further action on the current 1987 Draft Agreement on Pay in the Public Service.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and insert:

"affirms that theProgramme 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.”

—(Minister for Finance.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McCreevy has 28 minutes remaining.

Proinsias De Rossa

On a point of order, could you indicate when I can expect to be called upon to move my party's amendment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Ordinarily I think the Labour Party will be called next. The question of moving the amendment does not arise. All amendments are discussed without being formally moved, but I hope that Deputy De Rossa will have any opportunity to get in before the debate concludes. I cannot guarantee that at this stage. We will have to see what the position is as the debate advances.

Mr. McCreevy

Last Wednesday I said that the question of the pupil-teacher ratio must be taken in the context of the economic reality. If Ireland were a limited company we would have declared ourselves to be in liquidation a long time ago. The public finances have been deteriorating for a considerable time. At the end of last year we had a total national debt of £25 billion which represents about 150 per cent of GNP. If any company on this island were in that financial condition the liquidator would long since have been called in.

During the past 15 years politicians and the public have collaborated in an act of national suicide. We have indiscriminately put the country into an impossible situation. I have been consistent in saying over many years that extreme measures would have to be taken or we would reach this situation. At least there is now a general consensus abroad that we have come to the day of reality. In the past ten years we have had innumerable elections and, apart from the election earlier this year, most of them were conducted in an atmosphere of total unreality in regard to the real state of the country. I need not recall the famous Fianna Fáil manifesto of 1977 but I would add the famous Fine Gael manifesto of 1981 which promised £9.60 for working wives. During the most recent election campaign most of the parties conducted the debate in a realistic manner, except for one party who recognised the problem of the national finances but wanted to introduce overnight a tax rate of 25 per cent. Let us all take our full share of the blame.

This is the first Government in 15 years at least who have made any real effort. We have all talked about the crisis in the public finances but under the leadership of the Taoiseach, Deputy Charles Haughey, this Government have faced reality. The reality is that the public services we provide may all be very necessary and desirable but we cannot afford them. It might be very necessary and desirable for a lady in Kildare who has six children to have a tumble dryer but if her husband earns only £150 per week she cannot afford it and does not get it. We have behaved as if the State can afford everything over night and we have provided ourselves with a level of services whose cost we cannot afford when compared with the income of the State. It is a matter of facing up now to the state of public finances. If we do not do so, we will not need to worry about health, education or anything else in a few years time because we will not have any services at all.

I recognise the new consensus in this House on the question of public finances and I should like to comment on the position of the present leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Dukes. There is a great Irish tradition of always speaking well of the dead. A particular person who has passed on may have been the greatest bowsie in the locality but when he has gone it will be said that he was not the worst of them. A friend of mine usually replies to such a remark by agreeing that this individual was not the worst but adding that he was one of the worst. In politics it is not usual to compliment anybody until he has passed on in the political sense. As a student in the sixties I do not remember any of the political parties at the time praising the then Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, but when he passed on people recognised the worth of what he did for Ireland. What I am about to say will not be of any benefit to the object of my remarks or to myself in the political sense. I wish publicly to congratulate Deputy Alan Dukes, the Leader of Fine Gael, on his radical new approach to Opposition politics. Knowing the realities of Irish politics, I am aware that he will not be able to continue this approach ad infinitum.

Many times during my career I have spoken about our ridiculous adversarial style of politics. What makes it even more ridiculous is the fact that it is impossible to discern any ideological difference between the main conservative parties. In the past those parties were Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael but now they are Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats. This view has been shared by many people in Ireland and in this House, particularly Deputy John Kelly, Deputy Michael D. Higgins and others of the left and myself. I am not sure where I would classify the Progressive Democrats in this new scenario. The approach of Deputy Dukes is a radical new departure which I wholeheartedly welcome.

I have never envied the task of any Minister for Education. My remarks on the topic of education will be made in the context of the overall economic realities. If I had a choice of ministry, which probably will never happen, education would be at the bottom of my list. It has been consistently the most difficult ministry during any five-year period. The headaches of any Minister for Education can be classified under a number of headings. I will confine myself to two, but these can be subdivided many times.

The actual size of the Department of Education, with so many different sections, makes it exceptionally difficult. During my experience as a Dáil Deputy I have found the Department of Education under Ministers of various political parties the most frustrating to deal with at any level. The civil service of that Department is the monolith of all monoliths. I extend my sincerest sympathy to any Minister dealing with such a bureaucratic monster. The foregoing comments probably mean that I will end up being purposely frustrated by the bureaucrats in that Department.

The other problem facing the Minister in that Department is the major interest groups concerned in education — parents, churches, the multiplicity of unions and pupils. These add to any Minister's problems and all must be dealt with at primary, secondary and third level. Under these headings there are many subdivisions. For example, at second level we have vocational schools, community colleges and religious secondary schools. In any small town in Ireland one can find a vocational school, a day boys' secondary school, a day girls' secondary school and probably a boarding school.

We have triplication, often quadruplication, of resources at second level in most towns. The State would need an oil well in every county to fund such an outmoded and crazy system. There are historical reasons for the growth of the foregoing and I must put on record my appreciation of the sterling work done by those sections of education in the past. However, is it not time to look at what I consider to be a waste of scarce resources at second level? My views may be somewhat controversial but in my view they are only commonsense.

I have ideas about the funding of third level education which may not be universally popular. Why should the State, mostly through the taxes of the ordinary working class, provide resources which in the main will benefit those of a higher class who as a result of such third level education will be in a position to generate incomes for themselves to provide a lifestyle for the rest of their lives to which the ordinary working class can never aspire? Increasingly third level graduates are emigrating, either forced or voluntarily. Whether emigration of the graduate is long or short term, the Irish taxpayer loses out. If the graduate never returns, some other country benefits from the investment by the Irish State and its taxpayers. If he or she returns some years later the earning power of that person has increased dramatically to the benefit of that person alone. Is it not time to at least consider the major funding of third level education by a system of loans instead of grants? The exact details of such a scheme would take detailed preparation but it should at least be considered.

The time span of this debate does not allow me to develop that and other arguments but I have made my points to illustrate the following: 1, the problems faced by any Minister for Education; 2, to emphasise the need for radical restructuring that is so obviously well overdue; 3, the waste of resources is endemic to the system and by some restructuring those scarce resources could be better utilised and, 4, to draw a direct link between my comments earlier and the debate tonight.

Can Members envisage the uproar that would ensue from the vested interests if any of the changes I have suggested were even spoken of by a Minister for Education? The Minister would have the teachers' unions, churches, pupils, parents and all interest groups up in arms, each jealously guarding their own sphere of influence. Therefore, I wish to emphasise that I have every sympathy for the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke. She must try to live within her budget at the time of the greatest financial crisis in the history of the State. She has put forward her proposals for the pupil-teacher ratio as a way of living within her overall budget. I know her proposals are genuine and are put forward in what she considers to be the least disruptive way. However, I believe the Minister has taken the wrong option in her proposals. She has made a serious mistake, one that should be corrected.

The Constitution refers to education in one sphere only, that is, primary education. Therefore, if overall education must take its share of the cutbacks the least affected area should be the primary sector. The figure we are talking about to reverse the changes is quite small in an overall budget for the Department of £1,100 million. It is an even smaller percentage of total Government spending proposals for 1988. If I could not find that amount of money in such a huge sum I would throw my hat at it.

The Education Estimate for 1988 at more than £1,100 million is equivalent to 18 per cent of Government expenditure next year and salaries and pensions represent more than 82 per cent of that Estimate. In the primary education sector of that Estimate salaries and pensions comprise 90 per cent approximately of the sum provided. Therefore, if savings are to be made in the education budget it is self-evident they must come from the salaries area. I agree with the Minister for Finance that it is not feasible to agree with the proposal in the Fine Gael motion which advocates an adjustment to the national wage agreement. However, I welcome the Fine Gael approach because it is not the usual blanket Opposition politics that has bedevilled this House and this country for too long. It is in line with the new Alan Dukes' strategy which I heartily welcome.

Since I have said I believe the Minister has taken the wrong option it is important that I should put forward my cost saving measures. I do so in the absolute knowledge that they will not be universally popular and will incur the wrath of other interests and pressure groups. I should like to assure the Minister that irrespective of the savings she tries to implement she will incur the wrath of other pressure groups. My first proposal is that the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools should remain unchanged, left at the old ratio before the changes were announced by the Minister. My second proposal is that the school entry age be increased to five years of age and the third is that the voluntary redundancy and redeployment packages should proceed as planned. My fourth proposal is that there should be no intake into teacher training colleges in 1988 at least and the fifth is that if the required savings in the primary budget for 1988 are not attainable under the other proposals the budgets for second level and, in particular, third level education for 1988 should be proportionately reduced. I recommend to the Minister that if the suggestions I have put forward do not produce sufficient savings she should look to the third level sector. I make that suggestion in the knowledge that we will have more marches on our streets and more groups putting pressure on the Minister.

The most controversial aspect of my proposals relate to the school entry age and the cessation of the intake into teacher training in 1988. Apart from cost savings there are sound education reasons for raising the school entry age to five years. The time span of the debate does not permit me to develop my argument in greater detail but I am aware that a number of educationalists agree with me. I expect that my good friend, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, whose views I greatly respect, will object strongly to that suggestion and point out the many disadvantages to the underprivileged if such a proposal was introduced. The argument can rightly be made that Ireland has no formal pre-school system and only the well-off can afford pre-schooling. Such arguments would be totally consistent with Deputy Higgins' views, a Member who has genuine socialist principles and whose whole raison d'être for entering politics stems from that very solid foundation. I happen to believe in the capitalist system and I make no bones about saying it.

My proposals are based on our current financial position. My capitalist argument, if that is what people wish to call it, is that we cannot keep providing ourselves with a level of public services the cost of which we cannot afford in relation to our income. Is it not better educationally to give children in primary schools a good sound education as is just possible under the present pupil-teacher ratio rather than increasing the ratio in class sizes to such a level that all children lose out? For a large segment of our children primary education will be the only formal education they will receive. I will not accept the other standard objection, that some children will be almost six before they go to school. That problem is not insurmountable. A very simple solution, and a way out that is used in other countries, is to start all children at school on the day they reach five years of age.

I should like to refer to the Irish National Teachers' Organisation who must bear some responsibility for the mess they find themselves in. Last summer it was leaked, rightly or wrongly, that the Government were considering making some changes in regard to the school entry age and the INTO were up in arms. Any proposal is unacceptable to the INTO. As a trade union it is their job to protect the interests of their members and future members. Any Minister for Education should be alive to the fact that all proposals for change will be resisted by the teachers' unions. Any Minister who would think otherwise is not living in the realms of political reality.

There is undoubtedly an orchestrated campaign at the moment led by the teachers, but I would not like to over-emphasise it. In any country when people have a good and just cause it is extremely easy to motivate them. The people of Ireland are not fools. When the INTO in the last couple of years mounted a campaign about the 15 per cent, the public were not behind them but parents and the public are behind them in this matter because the parents have a very just cause.

Regarding my proposal on teacher training, what is the point in taking more people into teacher training in September 1988 when we are trying to get teachers out of the system by offering voluntary redundancies? It just does not add up. Any Minister for Education can rest assured that, irrespective of what is done, it will cause difficulties and there is no doubt she will bring the unions down on top of her. There are also many other pressure groups.

I had some misgivings about speaking in this debate this evening and outlining my proposals. It was not, as some people might assume, because I was coming into conflict with my own Minister for Education — those considerations have never bothered me in my political career in the past, do not now and hopefully will not for as long as I remain in politics — but my misgivings related to the fact that I urged governments over many years, first, to take a strong line on public finances and, secondly, to resist the policies of the pressure groups. My constituents are aware of that. Whether my party are in power or in Opposition, I do not succumb to any form of pressure from any interest group. I can assure the House that I would be saying the same things tonight if there were only ten people in the country against these proposals. I do so because I believe the impact of the present proposals on the primary education system is disproportionate.

At long last, there is an understanding among all sections of the community that cutbacks need to be made in all areas of Government expenditure. Parents, teachers and all sections of Irish society are willing to face up to this fact. However, the present proposals smack too much of the slide rule approach. The economists, dream of a perfect economic Ireland would have the whole population spread evenly around the country. All parishes would have about 30 children born each year and the panel system would not operate as it does but on a national basis. However, this is not the case. If the perfect economic argument could be found, these proposals might not hit so hard. However, the areas of burgeoning population will be hit the hardest by the Minister's proposals. Undoubtedly many schools in rural Ireland will not be affected at all.

I made my views knows to the Minister before tonight. I think she has taken the wrong options in dealing with this matter. I put forward what I considered constructive proposals to solve the impasse. My ideas will not meet with universal approval; neither will anybody else's. They will not meet with approval either inside or outside this House. Indeed, there may be many better ways. I am not saying my ideas are sacrosanct but at least they should be considered.

I recognise the financial and budgetary constraints and I am happy that the overall spending on education and the Government's proposals for 1988 are sufficient, given the state of the nation's finances. There is no disgrace in owning up to mistakes. I speak as somebody who has had more practice in making mistakes that anybody else and it is probably easier for me to say this.

I hope the Minister's mind is not closed on this issue. I know it does not make it easier for her when she has to listen to contradictory statements on the public finances from the mould-breakers on one side of the House who at the same time not alone will oppose this measure but any other measure she may introduce. The overriding consideration must be to take the correct policy option. I do not believe the current proposals are the best available.

I recognise that there will be hardship in other areas of education if the Minister adopts a different approach, but in all honesty I have concluded that her present primary education proposals regarding the pupil-teacher ratio should be changed to a more advantageous one.

I sympathise with the Minister in her predicament but I would be failing in my duty as an elected representative if I did not point out to her the folly of her present proposals. Furthermore, I know I speak for a large majority of my Fianna Fáil backbench colleagues. I urge her to reconsider her proposals on the lines I have suggested. If there are better and more effective suggestions than mine, I would gladly accept them.

Mr. M. Higgins

One could be forgiven, listening to the opening of the debate, for being confused as to whether we were discussing the economy or a very specific proposal on education. Of course, the economy is inextricably linked with making provision for education. When the Estimates for the Department of Education were published and showed a cut of £44 million in the provision for primary education, the Labour Party voted against that Estimate. It was clear to us then that because of the known salary content of the provision that is normally made for primary education, there would have to be an adjustment in the number of teachers who would be allowed to survive in primary education. We later tabled a number of motions dealing with the implications of the different cuts in education. I cannot go into all of them this evening in the limited time available to me, and in that regard, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I should like to share some of the time available to me with Deputy Spring.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I formally put that questions to the House and anticipate their agreement. Is it agreed? Agreed.

Mr. M. Higgins

The general cuts in education which have been announced fall on the educational sector in a way that deepens the existing social inequalities in our society. I would like to tell the Minister that whatever the results of our votes this evening, she can look forward to a campaign continuing and widening to include, for example, the most inequitable cuts which have been announced for the vocational sector which is carrying more than its share of remedial education and the provision of education for the disadvantaged. But the entire country is watching this evening because they are considering the effect of the Minister's Circular 20/87 on the primary sector of education.

The Labour Party amendment on the Order Paper to the Fine Gael motion is as follows:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and insert:

"aware that the Minister for Education and the Government has made one of the most profoundly erroneous and damaging policy decisions in the development of first level education in the history of our country in relation to the pupil/teacher ratio at primary school level; and conscious that the Minister has seriously underestimated the amount of hardship and disadvantage that her Circular letter 20/87 will cause; and mindful of the impact on social justice and future economic, social, and cultural development of such a severe attack on primary education instructs the Minister to cause the Circular to be withdrawn."

That is what parents, teachers and the public who are interested in primary education want. They want the circular withdrawn. We worded our amendment deliberately and we sought earlier today to be more formal on the implications of our amendment. We have no objection to talks between all the parties to see what our proposals would be for making good the amount of funding required to restore the position of primary education.

The Labour Party amendment is worded in such a way that it could reasonably expect support from those who may differ in their approach to the economy but who share the conviction that this circular is profoundly damaging for primary education. The message that has come from public meetings of parents, managers of schools, pupils themselves and the concerned public is a simple one — withdraw the circular and then let us discuss the matter of provision in education and let us have a debate on it. This does not represent any derogation of responsibility in relation to the economy of the Labour Party. I could very easily list a number of ways in which the Labour Party favour the provision of sufficient funds for education. I could begin by noting that capital taxation as a proportion of total taxation is 4 per cent whereas in 1977 it was 12 per cent.

I could refer to the amount of interest paid by State and semi-State bodies, health boards and others to the commercial banking sector last year which yielded a figure of over £500 million. I could refer to wealth tax and so on but many people in Opposition would have proposals to make as to where funds would be provided. The public are of one mind, they are concerned as to the effect of this circular in the classroom on their children. The circular is sinister in its effect in a number of ways. No political party in this House have sought or received any mandate to effect a turning around of our debt to GNP ratio on the backs of small children who rely on primary education for their main, constitutionally guaranteed source of education.

Education has always been one of the great institutional mechanisms by which a class divided, unequal society reproduces itself. This is revealed in the expenditure on education. On the basis of income, the top fifth consume over 30 per cent of the total expenditure on education and the bottom fifth consume 9 per cent. From primary level through to third level the differences in entry go by socio-economic groups. The differences in participation grow and the differences in qualification at the end grow. In many ways, we have facilitated the reproduction of a class divided society.

There are those in this House who do not like concepts like class and there is a good reason for that. In a kind of illiterate and semi-ignorant politics, it is not very useful to speak about well known concepts in political and social differences in the civilised world. Thus, people come out with the notion that we are a small country with very little real differences between us. The figures are there in income, wealth and access to the resources of the State that clearly show a divided society in many respects, in the amount of wealth it holds, in income, debts and in participation in society. As unemployment bites, there is an emerging two-tier citizenship in which people who are below certain levels of income find themselves disqualified from forms of participation in society. It does not seem to bother many people that they are given an equal right to participation in taxation if they are PAYE workers. However, when you compare the unskilled worker on the PAYE scale with the professional person on the same scale, the professional person's family have eight times the chance of their child entering a third level institution.

This is relevant in so far as perhaps the only area of education where there might have been equality to which parents had looked for what they saw as a constitutional guarantee of at least primary education is being attacked by the Minister's circular. The Minister is well aware at this stage of the rage as a result of Circular 20/87. It has uniquely united teachers, parents, children, educationalists and the public in its rejection as a badly thought out ploy circulated to schools without its consequences being clearly thought out. If there is need for evidence of that assertion, it is in the Minister's own statement. She first said that 1,300 teachers would be unemployed as a result, she then raised the figure to 1,800 and then she shifted her ground again when she said that affected schools would be brought into her review committee to work out their difficulties.

Was the responsibility not on the Minister to know what she was doing in education before the circular was issued? When a circular is issued changing the ratio of pupils and teachers it can be judged very clearly if you know the enrolment in different schools. It was very easy to see that the large urban schools carrying a heavy component of disadvantaged children would suffer most. If you take "disadvantaged" in its broadest term, including the particular needs of the very highly talented child to the child who might be having reading difficulties, and if you lose these children in larger classes and delay the possibility of their difficulties being recognised, you are preventing them from future participation in education. If we accepted a figure of 5 per cent or 6 per cent of all children having some kind of special needs, the number of children affected by the circular would be over 120,000.

If you increase the class size it is not only the child with special difficulties who will suffer; all children in the class are affected. Indeed, when the INTO began their survey of the effects of the circular it was very interesting to note that the preliminary results for parts of Dublin city showed that 21,350 pupils in the greater Dublin area would have to be redistributed around classes in different schools, accepting the average class size of 30.5 given by the Department of Education.

There is a worse side to this. Ignoring the position of disadvantaged children, unwilling to acknowledge the effects by increasing class sizes, the Minister goes very much further and argues that the teachers and the parents put up with it in the past and that they could do so again. This pathetic Minister for Education is moving backwards at a rate of knots. She wants to tell the teachers who were willing to comply with a request in 1971 to teach the child-centred curriculum that they should do the same in 1987. No doubt, by the end of next year she will be back to the class sizes of the sixties and we may look forward to class sizes which obtained in the fifties.

I am a parent with three children at primary level and I had been looking forward to a time when there would be less pressure on teachers. It was to be a time for innovation and for expanding the child-centred core of the curriculum. However, that is now an aspiration. How can you have child-centred education in classes that move upwards from 40, 45 and, in some cases, over 50? What can you say to a teacher who has been trained in the new curriculum? Is he or she to be told that they must now try to keep control and discipline? No doubt there will be the odd hack who will tell the Minister that the old way was good and that it worked. If we want that old version of education, we accept that we must have Circular 20/87.

Anybody who believes in child centred education and anybody who had the aspiration to think that all those old days of heavy discipline might have gone and that the teacher might have been able to address the needs of each individual pupil, that the child centred curriculum would be extended beyond the tested measures that have been used in the introduction of drama, art, music and other things that would have incorporated a centre of creativity in education, is concerned about Circular 20/87. It represents a savage unplanned backward proposal for a level of education at a time perhaps 50 years ago when there was an aspiration to some kind of equality of access even in the Constitution.

There is a side to this which is tragic. If we take the cost of producing an average primary teacher we could ask what has the State invested wisely. In terms of producing a young teacher the State invests many thousands of pounds. At the moment there are over 2,000 teachers who are not in full time, permanent employment. For the next three years 500 per year will leave the training colleges, that is 3,500. To that the Minister proposes to add 2,000. This means that even under the old curriculum there has been many millions of pounds of State investment in preparing teachers who could be available for children, but that is not what is happening. Teachers are being told that they will not be employed and parents are told that they must be happy with the old curriculum and that children must be happy in larger classes.

There is always a danger, because of the Irish schizophrenic condition in principal matters that in speaking in strong terms in favour of the adequate funding of education one is disqualifying oneself somehow from the realms of reason and economy. How wise and rational is it, in economic terms, to squander £70 million or £80 million worth of human resources from unemployed teachers in a country like ours that has so many children? How wise is it to say that the children must carry their share of the national debt? I have listened for years to people taking the national debt and dividing it by every person. It is an meaningful as dividing it by all the dogs and cats in the country. Listening to that, one would think that one was a cat walking around with a piece of the national debt hanging from one's neck.

We know how the national debt was amassed. I know better than many people about one figure that the Minister might bear in mind. Last year the figure given for industrial promotion purposes for an industrial policy exceeded the education budget. It was £1.245 billion approximately. Can we turn around and ask the question, having spent all this money in achieving industrialisation that has not emerged, looking at unemployment rising, is that not a failure? Instead, we are invited to look at the total cost of education. Any person interested in trying to establish some moral absolutes would have to accept that whether we succeed in economic planning, because of our hostility to planning, whether we succeed in creating employment, let us at least provide education and even if we are going to say that we will not provide adequately for second or third level, let us not go back beyond the famous statement of Mr. de Valera, that most would have to do with primary education. The Minister has gone beyond that point. She is simply saying that people cannot look forward to primary education in classes that can be managed with a sensible and flexible programme. She is saying "let the classes get bigger". I need not add on what she has also said, that classrooms will not be improved unless it is an emergency repair. What is an emergency repair? It does not include condemned buildings. It does not include windows being missing. The Minister's recipe for primary education is to cut back on repairs, and abandon any new extensions on buildings. The Minister did not cry halt at that; her idea was to have four teachers so that the classes can grow bigger and then she added piously, as did many of her colleagues: "let us all hope that when this miracle worker who now heads the Government has finished his course, we will be able to get back to civilised levels of classes again". May the Lord indeed help us. There is here at present——

Mr. N. Treacy

You lost your vocation, father.

Mr. M. Higgins

——a sense of outrage at what has been proposed. The public are telling us something very simple. They are saying to us in explicit terms "get the circular withdrawn". That is the duty of Opposition. I and my party, The Workers' Party, the Independents and the Progressive Democrats can give views on how we would fund the withdrawal of the circular. We can come to that but in the first instance we must achieve the withdrawal of the circular that has such damaging effects on education.

Mr. Roche

We are all waiting with bated breath.

Mr. M. Higgins

Deputy Roche, you have not waited too long and you will in your time get much opportunity of listening to economics and to what might be the case for planning.

This circular will be of major consequence to people who may find themselves on the emigrant boat within the next decade or two. Can we not say that despite all our economic difficulties, despite all the measures we need to take on the economy, we will leave education alone, particularly primary education, which every child in the country aspires to finish, so that there will be one place where every child can consume equally the benefits of a child centred programme? Could we not leave that alone at least?

Many people who have listened to politicians for a long time have been sending a special message to this House asking us to leave the quality of primary education alone, to look elsewhere for whatever draconian measures we may wish to achieve. We are in this House to represent this point of view. This is, I hope, a point of view that will prevail this evening with the withdrawal of the circular. As well as this, it is absolutely scandalous for a Minister to be backed by a party that did not campaign on cuts in primary education. There is no mandate for this circular. It should be withdrawn and my party will oppose it.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 24 Nov 1987

Private Members' Business. - Public Service Expenditure Allocations for 1988: Motion (Resumed).

Deputies

Deputies

Deputies

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Nov 1987