Deputy Hussey is in possession and the Deputy has 11 minutes left of the time alloted to her.
Private Members' Business. - Vocational Education Proposals: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy M. Higgins on 8 March 1988:
"That Dáil Éireann, conscious of the particular attack on the vocational sector represented by the cuts inflicted on the sector at second and third level by the Minister for Education and the Government; noting in particular the increase in the pupil/teacher ratio, from a band of 17 — 19-1 to 20-1 in the vocational sector, and an increase from 19-1 to 20-1 in the community and comprehensive sector, with a reduction of 10 per cent in the number of teachers; noting the threat to temporary teachers at second and third level; noting the suspension of the building programme, and the deferral of urgent extensions and refurbishment; noting further the proposals of the Minister and the Government to abolish or amalgamate some vocational education committees, calls for democratic and prior consultation before this specific proposal is published; conscious that the vocational sector is responsible for a disproportionate share of remedial teaching, special provision for the disadvantaged, and community related and second chance education; calls on the Minister and the Government to withdraw their proposals for cuts in the vocational sector so as to enable this sector of State education to survive and expand."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:
"conscious of the special role played by vocational, community and comprehensive schools in the education system particularly as it affects the disadvantaged young person, calls on the Government to convene a meeting of the Central Review Committee under theProgramme for National Recovery in order to examine the implications of the decision to increase the pupil teacher ratio in that sector in the context of the statement in the Programme at section IV, paragraph 15 `that the burden of adjustment does not fall on the disadvantaged' and that such examination should take place within the existing overall public expenditure provision for 1988.”
—(Deputy Hussey.)
I seek to use my time to mention some of the questions raised last night and to develop them somewhat further. Let me retrace how this issue began. On 9 October last the Programme for National Recovery and accompanying national pay agreement were published nationwide, amid great publicity and general brouhaha by one and all. In this programme there was a section on education and also a mechanism for checking on the implementation of the aspirations and undertakings in the programme. On 13 October, a few days later, the Government published their Estimates.
Several people, including myself, immediately identified the major connection between the two events — the coincidence of £70 million pay increases in the programme and the Estimates savings of £70 million by taking people out of the public service. On that point there were very many public statements and warnings by many others and myself that the consequences for education of taking such numbers out of the classroom, out of teaching, out of the education system would be disastrous and that it contravened the undertaking in the programme agreed to by the social partners that the burden of adjustment would not fall on the disadvantaged. That phrase is used in the Fine Gael amendment and it is used in the Programme for National Recovery at paragraph 15 in the education section.
Interestingly enough, on 15 February, I understand, a document was drawn up by Government Departments reporting on specific measures included in the Programme for National Recovery. I have a document here which is headed “Specific Measures included in the Programme for National Recovery — Summary of Position (as reported by Government Departments)”. I do not think it necessary for me to say how it came into my possession. It goes through each of the education items and undertakings in the Programme for National Recovery but not once does it mention the cut in the vocational teaching numbers or the cut in the primary teaching numbers. It goes on at great length about measures for the disadvantaged which were in place already, long before this programme was brought out and, in fact, most of which were put in place by the previous Government and in some of which the amount given by the previous Government in the allocations for the disadvantaged were cut.
At no point does it mention the conflict between the cut in the primary teaching numbers and in the vocational teaching numbers, which are the subject of this debate. It is an extraordinary document. I find it very depressing because the implications are that it was circulated to the social partners as a report by the Government on the implementation of the programme and that not one person involved in the social partners in that programme saw fit to point out the contradictions. I find that quite extraordinary.
Last evening, in this House we had representatives of the Labour Party, The Workers' Party, Deputy Kemmy and myself setting out the facts about the section of the population particularly catered for by the vocational sector. It was pointed out that some of these are also catered for in other sectors, but the vocational sector has a particular care for the disadvantaged among our young people. We set out facts about the practical and technical subjects. We repeated what everybody knows already about these schools. No matter what gloss is put on the situation, or what denials are put out by the Minister of State, or any other member of Government in an attempt to say otherwise, young people training in vocational schools who will be hurt most by this proposal are the least able to bear the "burden of financial adjustment".
Therefore, there is a great need immediately to rethink this decision. The parents, teachers and Opposition parties mounted a concentrated effort against the second unjustifiable cut in the primary class side proposed last autumn. That Circular 20/87 was suspended. The status remains uncertain. I understand from reading the latest edition of the INTO journal that they are convinced it is a dead duck. In fact, they warn us all against raising the matter at all in case we disturb the dust covering it.
There have been massive cuts at every level of education apart from the few attempts to change class sizes at primary and vocational levels. The education world since this Government came into office has generally been staggered by the education cuts, not only because of the size of the cuts themselves but more because of the promises and assurances given by Fianna Fáil in Opposition that there was a better way and that everything in education would be looked after. My party, because of their firm belief which has been consistent in Government and Opposition, that the financial stability of the country must come first have singled out two areas where the education cuts are unjustifiable. We believe that they will cause great hardship and problems to the weakest in our community. A Deputy from Dundalk told me even today about 800 youngsters in the Dundalk area who attend vocational education and the number of teachers that will be lost to them under this proposal. Dundalk very badly needs its vocational education sector. We read in this morning's papers and have heard tonight also that the vocational preparation and training course allowance is about to be axed. The Programme for National Recovery itself ——
Why does the Deputy not support our motion?
——says that the Government will focus on devising special measures to attract priority I pupils to vocational preparation and training courses. I cannot see how the social partners and the Government can square that with what has happened in the past few days. I call on the Government to recall the real wish of Dáil Éireann to see this cut removed. I call upon the social partners and the Government to convene immediately the mechanism under the Programme for National Recovery, the central review committee, which is already in place. I call on the social partners, and most particularly the Congress of Trade Unions who have such strong links with the Labour Party and The Workers' Party, who have among them ——
Why does the Deputy not support our motion and solve that problem?
——members of the Teachers' Union of Ireland who are part of the Congress of Trade Unions, to concern themselves with what they have always said they have made a central issue, to help the disadvantaged. I call upon them to take a stand on this.
The committee can be convened next week. The issue can be dealt with before it goes any further. No circular has been sent out to the schools. They have not been told yet that they are going to lose these teachers. I call on the Minister to withdraw any proposal to disimprove the teacher-pupil ratio in the vocational system. I call upon the social partners and the Government to go back to the table and look again at the undertakings they solemnly made in the Programme for National Recovery and to withdraw this cut so that the vocational sector — and I would add the primary sector — will be relieved of this threat hanging over them.
First, like my colleague last night, I thank those who have so far contributed to this debate: Deputy Higgins who moved the original motion, followed by Deputy Mac Giolla of The Workers' Party, Deputy Kemmy, Deputy Hussey and my own colleague and fellow Minister, Deputy Fahey. I wish to express my appreciation of the very sincerely held views of the various people who spoke here. The speakers put their views extremely concisely and clearly and I am also glad of this opportunity to speak on the matter.
Deputy Hussey said that her party recognised our financial situation at present and most people also very clearly recognise it. People who wish to see the country developing for their own sons and daughters — or for young people in general — are conscious that we can only develop it if we rid ourselves of the burden of debt. We cannot build jobs if we are in debt, that is a clear factor and one which we have all learned to face up to in the last while. Everyone accepts that it is essential that the economic and financial problems which continue to beset this country must be resolutely tackled. Due to the determination of the Government and the measures taken in the 1987 budget, we have witnessed a spate of competitiveness, a restoration of confidence and a realisation that good and firm foundations for national economic recovery have been built.
Our competitiveness in the international marketplace has been strengthened in 1987 and a marked improvement was made against our EC partners. There was a most impressive growth in 1987 in our exports with an increase of some 16 per cent in the volume of exports compared with only 4 per cent in 1986.
One must maintain the thrust and the drive to overcome our economic difficulties and to maintain continued improvement in our economic performance. This can and will be done by the continuation of the policies, strategies and measures which the Government have adopted for 1988. Already in 1988 there are indications of positive results deriving from such policies. Ireland's exports continue to thrive — in January 1988 exports rose to an all-time record for the month to £799 million. With imports for the month at £698 million this gave a surplus of £101 million — a new January record which augurs well for the future.
However, in order to build on the favourable outcomes achieved in 1987, it is essential to continue to reduce our dependency as a nation on borrowing and thereby reduce the extremely large interest bill which must be paid on bor-rowings.
The strategy adopted in the 1988 budget is designed to lower the current budget deficit from 6.8 per cent of GNP in 1987 to 6.3 per cent of GNP in 1988. These targets are realistic and necessary to ensure that this country's financial and economic difficulties are resolved.
The great majority of the Irish people have clearly indicated that sacrifices must be made in the short term and that a level of services in line with our resources and which we can afford should be provided.
It is the policy of this Government to ensure that our limited resources are allocated and utilised in the most effective and efficient way possible and that they be linked with measures which will promote and encourage economic growth and development.
Despite the financial difficulties which face this country, the Government recognise the important contribution which an efficient and cost effective education system can make to the economic and social development of our country. In 1988 over 18 per cent of net expenditure went on non-capital services, whereas in 1986 the corresponding figure was 16.5 per cent.
The total gross cost of education in 1988 is £1,206 million approximately and this represents 6.8 per cent of GNP while the total net cost is £1,123 million and corresponds to 6.3 per cent of GNP. These figures compare more than favourably with expenditures on education in other EC countries. The 1987Statistical Year Book published by UNESCO, shows that Ireland spent a greater percentage of GNP on education than most other countries. The latest relevant figures in the year book refer to 1984 and in that year, while we spent 6.7 per cent of GNP on education, the United Kingdom spent 5.3 per cent while the corresponding figure for Germany was 6.5 per cent. Indeed, only the Netherlands at 6.9 per cent spent a greater percentage of GNP than Ireland. We should reflect on the fact that we spent well over £1,200 million on education. We can only spend what we have, which is our GNP, and out of that we are second highest in Europe in our spending on education.
It is an earnest of the Government's commitment to education, in line with the record of achievement in education by Fianna Fáil Governments down the years, that in spite of the restraint on public spending which the country's financial situation demands, the Government are allocating over £1,200 million to education in 1988. That represents an expenditure of over £300 for every man, woman and child in the country. At a time when all public spending has to be critically examined in the interests of setting the economy back on an even keel, it is a matter for congratulation that the Government have given such a priority to education.
The Labour motion mentions various issues which I will address. The third level VEC sector was mentioned last night by Deputy Higgins. I intend to introduce legislation which will give greater autonomy to the regional technical colleges and to the colleges of technology. It is worth pointing out — and I do not do so in an acrimonious sense — that the Green Paper produced when Deputy Higgins's party were in Government proposed taking regional colleges and colleges of technology from under the aegis of the VECs.
These colleges will be encouraged and provided with the opportunity to place greater emphasis on applied research and development activities. They will also be in a better position to form new links and to strengthen existing ones with local industrial and commercial interests so that they may play a more active role in shaping the industrial and economic development of the regions in which they are located. In this context I should mention the COMETT programme. This is a European Community action programme for education and training for technology and was adopted in July 1986 —during the term of office of the previous Government — for an initial three-year period with a funding of approximately £35 million from the European Community. The programme involves co-operation and the forging of closer links between the world of business and industry on the one hand and higher education on the other. Those closer links will make a significant contribution to the economic and industrial development of individual member states and will improve the technological capacity and competitiveness of the Community as a whole.
The need to bring the worlds of business and higher education into a closer relationship is well recognised. Each can learn from the other and in this COMETT are playing a very large part. I am happy to say that the third level VEC educational institutions have responded very well to the COMETT programme. We should indeed pay tribute to all the staff in those colleges — not just the lecturers — but also the ancillary staff for the way the colleges have coped so remarkably with the changing circumstances and how they have adapted to the needs, not just of their own region which was their original remit, but also to national standards and the production of graduates. Almost all those institutions, including the RTCs, are involved in the three university enterprise training partnerships. In the first and second round of applications in 1987, we have been allocated a total of almost £380,000 under the programme.
I should also like to mention the Erasmus Programme, a European action scheme for the mobility of third level students. I was lucky in that the programme had been prepared before I attended my first meeting of the Council of Education Ministers. I accept that initially there were teething problems in regard to the allocation of money for the programme. However, I understand that VEC third level institutions have produced applications to run courses under that programme and are determined to make the most they can of the assistance. I was pleased to be able to attend a seminar last week organised by German and Irish chambers of commerce where the RTC and DIT programmes for language teaching were launched. I accept that those institutions have language programmes but there will now be an intensification of them. The Erasmus Programme will be reviewed at the end of the three-year period and I will certainly be pressing for an increased level of Community funding as well as seeking a mechanism which will reflect, in an increased financial allocation, the difficulties presented by student mobility to states on the periphery of the Community.
The achievement of the single internal market in 1992 will see the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. The free movement of people and the rights of establishment guaranteed by the Treaties can only become a reality with improved foreign language competence. I would safely say that all European Education Ministers share the view that a major initiative needs to be taken at Community level in the teaching of foreign languages. I understand that the Commission of the European Communities is preparing what I should hope will be a major initiative in the field of language teaching which they expect to present to Education Ministers in May. I hope that a programme like the Erasmus one can be applied to second level so that our students can gain a competence in foreign languages.
The Green Paper, Partners in Education: Serving Community Needs, which was published in November 1985, in considering the position of regional technical colleges and other colleges under the aegis of VECs stated that provision ought to be made to allow RTCs to operate with considerably more autonomy than heretofore. It was also proposed that the DIT be constituted as an independent institution by legislation. Consultation and discussion were then held with all the major interests.
Broadly in relation to the RTCs the views fell into two camps. There was the firm view that the RTCs should remain within the VEC system while getting more autonomy. There was, however, strong pressure from the principals and staff of the colleges for complete independence.
On 9 March, 1987 the then Minister for Education, Deputy Cooney, announced that the Government had authorised the drafting of a Bill along the lines of a scheme giving greater autonomy to the RTCs. The effect would be to constitute each of the RTCs as independent institutions and take them from under the aegis of the VECs.
Legislation is currently being prepared in order to make the college boards of management larger and more representative, to afford them a greater degree of autonomy than at present, while operating within the VEC structures and whereby the colleges can in accordance with agreed policies and guidelines become involved in research and development work consonant with their teaching functions and in support of enterprise within their regions. I hope they will prove to be far reaching in the area of research and development.
Pending the introduction of formal guidelines in this area a range of activities in the research and development area has already been put in place. We have had the appointment of industrial liaison officers in a number of the RTCs and the establishment of business incubator units.
The question of the amalgamation of VECs was referred to in the motion and dealt with last night by Deputy Michael D. Higgins. He alleged that we would be taking undemocratic decisions in regard to them.
I spoke of the necessity for prior consultations.
The question of the amalgamation of VECs was also referred to in the amendment tabled by the Progressive Democrats. It is highly appropriate in my opinion that this question should be addressed and I have already outlined that it is the Government's intention to reduce the number of VECs from 38 to approximately 20. The Vocational Education Act, 1930 has served this country well. It proved a flexible, adaptable and imaginative basis by which local, education, industrial and social requirements have been met. I do not propose, therefore, to abolish the VECs as was proposed by the previous Government. I propose to merge, to amalgamate but not to abolish. Each committee already in existence will have their representatives on the proposed amalgamated committees.
When?
That is a very logical question. I hope that the legislation will be ready for the term after Easter. In this regard it is quite disingenuous of the Labour Party to be framing motions critical of the Government's approach to the VEC sector when, in Government, that same party supported proposals which would have meant the abolition of VECs as we know them.
That is not so.
The Government's proposal for the vocational education sector will be aimed at consolidating the achievements of the past half century and introducing reforms which recognise the needs and realities of the year 2000 and beyond.
The amalgamation, therefore, of a number of VECs is designed to create a more efficient and cost-effective system and to enable the new VECs to provide a better service to the public in their areas. It can hardly be argued that it is in the best interests either of providing a coordinating service or of making the best possible use of resources to have the work of VECs divided over 38 committees as is now the case. It would appear a more appropriate number of committees given the size of the country, the population spread, and the changes proposed would be about half of what it is now. In fact, at 20 to 21 committees it will be slightly more than half.
Deputy Higgins raised the question of consultation and I should like to tell him that I was involved in an intense process of consultation. On many occasions I met with representatives of the TUI. In fact, whenever that body requested a meeting I willingly met them despite any difficulties there might be on policy matters. I have always maintained that a Minister should have close personal relations with organisations with whom he or she deals. I will continue to meet representatives of that body whenever requested. I have met with the Association of Chief Executive Officers on several occasions and I met with representatives of the IVEA on many occasions. I am about to meet representatives of AVEC and of the Association of Principals of Regional and Third Level Colleges. It is my intention to meet representatives of the student bodies in the different regional colleges. I have signalled my intention to the student bodies that in a VEC area, be it amalgamated or in its present state, a student representative of a local third level college will be appointed to the VEC board.
The Minister has said that she is meeting representatives of the VECs but she is abolishing the VECs.
I should like to tell the Deputy that it is not my intention to abolish any VECs, unlike the proposal of the Labour Party when in Government.
What about the town of Wexford VEC?
There will be representatives of the town of Wexford VEC on the County Wexford VEC.
Will there be a town of Wexford VEC?
Yes, there will be a town of Wexford VEC and a County Wexford VEC, unlike the previous proposal of the Deputy's party.
The Minister should not be interrupted.
I would like the Deputy to see reports of the consultations that took place. However, the previous Government proposed to go ahead with their programme.
I expect to be shortly in a position to indicate firm proposals on the amalgamations and in making my decision I shall have full regard to the many representations that have been made on this issue. I have of course already had discussions and consultations with the various interest groups and I shall continue to have dialogue with those groups on the implementation of my proposals. I am convinced that the proposals will in no way diminish the valuable contribution by VECs to education; on the contrary I consider that they will enhance it. They will lead to a more efficient organisation which will preserve all that is best in the vocational education system and enable it to give the best possible service to the public.
In consultation with the Minister for Labour I have been considering the position of those young people, numbering about 6,000 annually, who leave the school system without qualifications. There is a clearly defined cohort of disaffected young people who do not want to stay within the regular school system because they feel it does not serve their needs.
Was that the reason the Minister abolished the VPTP maintenance grant?
We have established a liaison group representative of both our Departments to consider how best the educational and training needs of this group of students might be met.
We have decided to make proposals to Government for a special training initiative to be taken within both the educational and training systems to cater for their special needs. The new programme will differ substantially in context and methodology from the well-established vocational preparation and training programme. It will probably be delivered mainly in out-of-school locations. This problem is largely an urban one and I have raised the matter initially with the VECs which cater for predominantly urban populations.
The Minister is saying they are not good enough for schools.
It is a funny thing that the humane Labour Party do not want to cater for disadvantaged young people. It is extraordinary.
The Minister says they are not good enough for schools.
Deputy Higgins is in the unique position of having the right to reply to this debate. He must restrain himself in the meantime.
On a point of order, Deputy Higgins has imputed to me the remark that these children are not good enough for schools. I wish the record to be correct in this respect. I did not say that.
Out of school.
The record will show what I said.
Perhaps the Minister would address the motion.
I am not allowed to address it because of Deputy Higgins, the great social reformer. I am happy to say that the response to date has been very positive. I hope soon to be in a position to enter into detailed discussions with the VECs in relation to the funding and delivery of these special programmes which we hope will cater in the next session for an initial intake of 600 early school leavers.
My colleague, Deputy Frank Fahey, has referred to the various measures in place to help disadvantaged groups, but I believe the needs of the disadvantaged and what is being done for them bear repeating. My colleague has already had extensive talks with various people in the urban areas who are serving young people affected by drug abuse or who are drop-outs and sleeping rough. We are allocating lottery funds for special initiatives to help these people. That programme will be launched within the next four weeks. I do not care precisely where the money comes from, as long as it helps young people who have suffered the effects of deprivation from which they cannot recover of their own accord. It would be very wrong of any party to denigrate any help for those young people.
The policy of the Government in regard to the educational needs of disadvantaged groups is described in the Programme for National Recovery, section IV, paragraphs 15-19. I should mention that even though it has been necessary to limit expenditure we have not curtailed provision for disadvantaged groups. The current VEC allocations will enable us to keep the community and literacy programmes in place at the same high level which was reached by the last portion of special funding given under the previous Government's programme. We have been enabled to keep it at that level. We are making it a feature of the allocations that the VECs should fund those programmes as a priority, as well as programmes for travellers' centres and various initiatives taken by groups representing travellers' interests.
Of the 200 or so posts for remedial education in the post-primary sector, about 100 have been allocated to the vocational education sector and this provision has been preserved, as has the provision of 41 ex-quota posts which take account of the needs of the disadvantaged. We have also provided 26 special resource teacher posts to VECs in order to assist them to make special provision for the handicapped. We also have in place a number of curriculum projects. Initiatives have been taken in dealing with disadvantaged groups, travellers' children, and curriculum needs and development. These matters have been gone into very willingly and very early on by the VEC system. The Vocational Education Act of 1930 has proved to be a most flexible piece of legislation. The amendments we will be proposing to the Act will greatly help it but it is my wish that the thrust and direction of the original Act should remain.
I thank the Labour Party for putting down this motion and giving us the opportunity to contribute. I do not doubt the integrity and sincerity of the Labour speakers and the signatories to the motion but it is extraordinary that the motion contains no suggestion as to where the money should come from.
Regarding amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Máirín Quill of the Progressive Democrats, there is much of interest in the way the amendment is framed and presented and the points it contains. I find myself unable, because of the general thrust of where the money is to come from, to support one particular aspect. However, I recognise very clearly the objective way in which the subject has been approached, particularly with regard to the rationalisation and amalgamation of VECs. The redundancy package is already on offer. The amendment in the name of the Fine Gael spokesperson on Education, Deputy Hussey, is interesting and practical and I feel sure we will be able to support it.
When will the Minister have the meeting?
A date is not asked for in the amendment.
But can the Minister tell me the date?
That is not in the terms of the amendment.
Amendment No. 2, which is in my name, reads:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:
"conscious of the need to rationalise all resources in the post-primary sector of education, calls on the Minister to reduce the number of Vocational Education Committees, to suspend the present redundancy package on offer to post-primary teachers pending the outcome of a Review of Post-Primary Education by the Central Review Committee, and to refrain from the introduction of a rigid 20-1 pupil/teacher ratio in the second level sector which would discriminate against vocational, community and comprehensive schools operating in disadvantaged areas and would place an enormous financial burden on the Social Guarantee Programmes operated by FÁS and further erode the efforts already made to discourage students leaving school at an early age to participate in these schemes."
In support of our amendment let me say this: in times of severe economic stringency when all targets cannot be met at once, it is imperative that we agree on absolute priorities within any sector of our public service. In relation to education we argue that the retention of an adequate number of properly qualified and well motivated teachers is an absolute precondition to maintaining of standards in education and that to do otherwise will lead inevitably to a deterioration in standards. That is our priority and that is why we as a party have concentrated consistently on the question of the pupil/teacher ratio. We did so in relation to Circular 20/87 and we do so again here this evening.
The main plank in our amendment is this: we call upon the Minister to suspend the redundancy package on offer to post-primary teachers pending the findings of the review of post-primary education by the Central Review Committee. We further ask the Minister to make these findings known to this House so that this House can then make an informed judgment on the matter and that no action in relation to a reduction in the pupil/teacher ratio should take place until that is done. That in effect, means putting a time limit on the deliberations of the review body. It is only right and sensible that the Minister should proceed along these lines, otherwise she is asking this House to make decisions blindfolded, decisions which could have severe educational and financial implications later on.
I am exceptionally concerned about what is already happening in the primary sector and I do not want to see the same beginning to happen in the post-primary sector. At present we have the spectacle of experienced teachers being wasted out of the system, being let go with a generous enough golden handshake while, at the same time, calls are being made for replacement teachers to fill the vacancies caused by those who are being officially enticed out of the service. These calls make very good sense on the educational front but the financial implications are very serious indeed.
A central policy issue in teacher employment is that if teachers take up the State offer of redundancy in significant numbers and if in a short period it transpires that we have to recruit more teachers to remedy shortages, the net result will be that each new post will cost the taxpayer one and a half times the teacher's salary — that is, the salary of the teacher who is being wasted out of the system — together with the cost of the redundant teacher's lump sum. The very concept of redundancy is based on there being an excessive number of employees in relation to the tasks for which the employees have been employed in the first instance. I remain to be convinced that such is the case in relation either to first or second level schools.
The large number of teacher applicants for redundancy does not in any way reflect an excessive number of teachers relative to the needs of education but it may very well reflect the attractiveness of the package as offered or perhaps it tells us something about the stress and the pressures that have to be endured by teachers in our first and second level schools at present. For the point of this argument let me say this. Each teacher who leaves education will take with him or her a considerable amount of valuable resources, not least of which is experience, experience which is very badly needed at present. He or she will be paid not to teach and if in time that teacher has to be replaced, as will inevitably happen, the cost of the replacement will be close to twice the cost of paying the original teacher in the first instance.
Unless it can be demonstrated objectively that there are too many teachers in the service at present, redundancy is not an appropriate means of rationalisation or an appropriate means of cutting back on budgets. That is why we are asking for the findings of the review to be made available so as to allow us to make a judgment as to whether there are too many teachers in the service. That is why we reject any efforts made to ask us to make that judgment when we are not in full possession of all the facts. If, on the other hand, it can be proved to us that there are too many teachers and that there is a surplus of teachers, we will be delighted to find ourselves in that position because we can then proceed to provide within the system the very badly needed in-service training for teachers which has been called for consistently by everybody who is concerned about curriculum development and the direction which education should be taking at present.
We are all agreed that there is a great demand at present for more in-service training for our existing batch of teachers. If it can be proved to us in this House that we have a surplus of teachers, it would be an ideal opportunity to form a cadre of teachers who would stand by and fill in for the teachers who could then be pulled out of the system and sent or encouraged to go away to do in-service training. That needs to be done and unless it is done now I can see no hope at all for the introduction of more modern languages, for example. How can we properly provide for the teaching of German or Spanish or for the more effective teaching of modern European languages unless we have a sufficiency of qualified teachers? The reality is that we do not have a sufficiency of teachers at present. Our immediate challenge is to take teachers from our existing teaching stock and provide in-service training for them which would enable them to go back into the service and teach those subjects.
The need is not alone in the field of languages. We heard to our delight last week that the Minister is proposing to introduce technology into second level schools, and not before its time, but how can that be done effectively unless there is a sufficiency of teachers who are adequately qualified to devise, produce and teach the programmes? This can only be done in the context of in-service training.
I say to the Minister that if as a result of this review she finds there is a surplus of teachers she should grab that opportunity and avail of it to enable her to provide this much needed in-service training. When the time comes when there is a sufficiency of trained or retrained teachers in the service and, perhaps at the same time, when the fall in the population begins to work its way into the system then the Minister will be in a position to offer redundancy to a certain number of teachers. I am very worried about any offers of that kind being made before that time comes.
I am delighted Deputy Higgins put down this motion as it gives us an opportunity to reflect, discuss and stop before too much damage is done to the system. My main difficulty with the motion is that at one level it is too narrow and asks for too little while at another level it can be said to be too wide and asks for more than we can reasonably be expected to provide at this time of economic stringency. When I say it is too narrow, let me immediately say that it is entirely simplistic to postulate that all children from economically deprived areas are bundled into State schools.
I did not say that.
It is implied.
It is not. My speech last night made it very clear that there are ordinary second level schools carrying disadvantaged pupils.
I agree with that and I am glad that fact is not ignored in the context of this debate as it is absolutely true. As I have said it is foolish to assume that all voluntary secondary schools cater only for privileged children of wealthy parents. That is not so and I know that from first hand experience. I spent more than 20 years teaching in a convent school and increasingly I dealt with children coming from homes where there was severe unemployment due to closures, redundancies and so on because of the general breakdown of the traditional industries in the city of Cork. Parents whose elder children could call on them for money for anything and everything, but now afflicted by unemployment, were sending their younger children to school on a vastly reduced income and on a vastly reduced attitude to education and to life. That is only one school but it is one of many schools. What Deputy Higgins asks for in relation to pupil teacher ratios must be extended to schools like that around the country.
Considerable numbers of voluntary schools in common with VECs have begun to offer VPTP courses and have begun to move in the direction of a comprehensive curriculum in the manner of vocational schools. In that sense the gap has already been narrowed. I am told that there are 157 voluntary secondary schools now providing VPTP courses. I hope they will continue to provide those courses.
The maintenance grant has gone since yesterday, courtesy of the Minister.
You are having a cosy chat over there.
(Interruptions.)
The maintenance grant has gone since yesterday and that is an appalling reversal of the aspiration of those schools to move in the direction of comprehensive education and to gear children away from the stifling atmosphere of an over-academic programme that was in schools until quite recently.
Do you think that will convince you to vote for our motion?
I will come to that in a moment. I am dealing with the part of the motion where it asks for too little. I will come in a moment to the part where the party are spreading their wings too wide.
As was said in the main thrust of Deputy Higgins's speech last night, it is foolish to think we can apply a common ratio to all schools. It is foolish to think that every school contends with the same conditions. That is the implied supposition in what the Minister has done and it cannot be supported in any way. Any introduction of a common pupil-teacher ratio completely ignores the socio-economic position of the catchment area where so many of our schools are located. These are not alone vocational, comprehensive and community schools but voluntary secondary schools as well. The proposition fails to take account of the standard of attainment of pupils at entry point. Statistics from some schools in my own area show that students are coming to second level with a very low level attained. It can be argued in the long term that that is something that should be remedied at first level. Until we get around to doing that we cannot write off a generation of children who come to second level schools in that condition. We must seek to put at that point adequate remedial services to enable those children to catch up if we have any ambition at all to work in the direction of equality of educational opportunities. What we are talking about here is nothing that the Minister has not addressed in many of her speeches.
I will not engage in a long descriptive talk about the conditions that have to be surmounted by children coming from certain areas. I do not want to label children, for the purposes of making my argument, as coming from disadvantged areas. Heaven knows that children coming from disadvantaged areas have enough difficulties to surmount without us officially labelling them as coming from disadvantaged areas and by definition as somewhat disadvantaged themselves. I would prefer to believe that everybody here knows what I am talking about when I say that it is unrealistic to expect schools in an area like Tallaght or Knocknaheeny in Cork to be able to provide a service with the same ratio as schools like Mount Anville or Christians College. That is utterly unrealistic and must not be allowed to happen. The Minister knows exactly what I am talking about as was evidenced when she spoke on the 1987 Estimates in this House and said in relation to the proposed reduction in population that this new situation would present us with opportunities, that she intended to ensure that full advantage is taken of them and that she hoped to use the opportunities presented by falling numbers to identify and examine areas of special need and to divert towards these areas some of the resources which will be released. In a sense, all we are asking is that the Minister keep her word and extend to those areas which are clearly identifiable what the Minister promised to do in her speech in this House in November.
Much of what I had planned to say about the potential of schools that have already embarked upon the vocational preparation courses has been made redundant. I talked about redundancy earlier in my speech and much of my speech has been made redundant by what was said by the Minister, that her intention is to take the VPTP courses out of the schools.
Not at all.
What did she say?
We have created a new priority, priority one which I made very clear and on which we have already entered into discussions with the VECs. It is a special programme. It has nothing to do with the existing VPTP programmes. It is a special measure to help a particular section. I do not want to offend the Deputy because she does not want me to say the terms ——
Thank you, Minister. I had hoped to argue that these courses are courses that are taking us in the right direction. I have the utmost faith in the principals and teachers who have designed and devised those courses and who have put them in place in their schools. I see great hope in those courses. I thought I could ask the Minister with confidence here tonight for an extension of those courses into other schools that would like to and have a need to embark on those courses if they are to move away from the over-academic emphasis in education and towards an education that gears children for life and for work after school. I hope that any additional resources that might come our way from ERASMUS or any other source would be stitched into the schools and not taken out of the schools or put to use in other agencies. We do not know what other agencies are in question at this stage. The Minister's speech is very vague. She merely says it will probably be delivered mainly out of school. We have to wait until we get more specific information on that.
I am worried about any efforts being made to take a section of our children and not try to actively encourage them to stay in mainstream education in our schools for as long as possible. Inevitably children who drop out early and get any kind of educational attention outside of school, carry with them through life the brand of being early school-leavers and they carry out of the system a great handicap. I would be much happier to keep those children in the schools. If that meant setting up certain sections in classrooms within school buildings, it is worth the effort to do that and not have them as outcasts of the educational system so early in life because that has serious repercussions later. I am worried about that and I hope the Minister will spell out more about that very soon. That is a road down which I would not like the Minister to go. There is valuable experience in teaching staffs in our vocational schools and in some voluntary secondary schools. I hope that experience will benefit other people who plan to devise more of these courses.
I welcome the proposal to rationalise the number of VECs and to work for a reduction from 30 to approximately 20. That is a good, positive move which gets my total support as does any measure that takes more money away from administration and puts it directly into classrooms. I hope the Minister does that sooner rather than later. I believe she mentioned next term and that is fine with me.
Having decided to bite the bullet I hope the Minister will now go further down the road of rationalisation. In some areas, especially areas of declining population, we have sometimes a duplication or often triplication of schools in the same area. In the spirit of the rationalisation that has begun and continuing down that road, it seems the time is ripe for the Minister to make her move and rationalise schools in that situation. She can begin almost immediately by working towards the provision of specialised teachers on an area basis rather than a school basis. I refer specifically to teachers of German or the new teachers of technology whom we hope to put in place shortly. If we listen to everything said to us day after day by the CII, people involved in marketing and people who look to where the jobs are going to be in the future we realise that we do not have time on our side in relation to the introduction of more modern European languages, but it is unrealistic to expect we will be able to provide a teacher of German or a teacher of the new technological courses in every school at this time. I hope the Minister will use her initiative to ensure that teachers of that nature, specialised teachers, are provided in certain areas on an area basis to make sure we do not have children perhaps in large urban areas or going to certain schools who will fairly quickly have access to teaching of those subjects while children in provincial towns and remote areas in smaller schools with small enrolments are totally denied access to these modern subjects and modern teaching. I see the Minister going quickly down the road I have suggested and if that leads to more rationalisation that is good.
Regarding the motion before us, I agree entirely with the section of it that relates to the pupil/teacher ratio. I have no quarrel with that. Certain other parts of the motion ask for more than we can reasonably expect to be provided in this economic climate and that is why I cannot give total support to the total content of the motion. In the amendment proposed by Fine Gael I see little, if any, merit. It is much too vague. All it is asking is that a meeting be held to examine the implications of the decision to increase the pupil/teacher ratio. It does not ask in any clear or definite way when that meeting will be held. Deputy Hussey said a meeting could be convened next week, but really we got no response on that from the Minister. It could equally be argued that that meeting could be convened the week after the new pupil/teacher ratio was put in place, then we would be closing the stable door after the horse had gone.
The filly had gone.
That would not meet the aspirations of this motion or the very real needs of second level education. Therefore, I think that is a weakness in the amendment.
Secondly, Deputy Hussey has asked for certain information. Assuming that information is forthcoming in time, we have no clear indication of what Deputy Hussey would do with it herself or what she would ask the Minister to do with it. On those two grounds mainly I see no merit in that amendment. It is far too weak. In no way does it address itself to the serious issues involved here.
I would direct attention to our amendment which is quite specific on two areas.
It talks about a review concluding when? What kind of review?
I have asked already that the report of the findings would be made known to this House before any action would be taken on the reduction of the pupil/teacher ratio. That is sufficient to meet the needs of this motion.
(Interruptions.)
I do not have to put a date on it. It could be next week if necessary but all I ask is that that vital, crucial information be made available to this House which, I hope, makes decisions before any adjustment of any kind is made to the pupil/teacher ratio. If that is done that will meet what I am asking for. That is the only time limit I put on that. Our amendment is sensible. It addresses itself to the priority need within second level education at this time. If we have a sufficiency of well qualified, well motivated teachers many things are possible — it could be said even that all things are possible.
Tá an t-am caite beagnach.
If we do not have that nothing at all is possible and we are back to the bad old days. We cannot afford that.
It is easy for Deputies who hold no responsibility in this House to call for the removal of cuts in every quarter because there are no consequences for them. Each and every one of us would like to pander to those who call for their own areas to be left unscathed. It is important in dealing with this motion that we take cognisance of the agreed Estimates, and I would like to compliment those on the Opposition side who have indicated that whatever changes will have to take place will take place within the budget allocation.
Because of the time constraints I would like to share what is left of my time with my colleague, Deputy Dick Roche, with your permission, Sir.
I have to ask the House to agree to that. You have not much time to share. Deputy hUigín must be brought in at 8.15 p.m. That apart, the House agrees about sharing the time.
I will be very brief anyway. I would like, with your permission, to concentrate on the college areas. It is important when we are talking about cuts that we recognise success in particular areas. The college sector must be seen as one that has shown tremendous success for years. For instance, student enrolment has gone from 10,000 in 1981 to 20,000 in the school year 1986-87. The number of lecturers and teachers in that sector shows a dramatic increase to 2,152 in the 1987-88 period.
I was very pleased here tonight that the Minister mentioned the college authorities and staff who have been asked to ensure a greater linkage with industry. They have responded brilliantly. Let me be parochial for a minute to prove that point. In the Cork regional college a few short years ago there was absolutely no contact with industry. Now they have generated in this year in excess of £300,000 by way of contracts through research and development, specialised courses for industry and industry-related student projects, thereby bringing the college an element of self-financing that is an absolute necessity at a time of financial constraints.
The Minister also mentioned the ERASMUS and COMETT programmes. It is important to emphasise the impact of COMETT in relation to the third level institutions in Cork. Already 20 firms in that area have been linked into that programme. One could go further down the road and ask oneself how many jobs have been created in the Cork area since Fianna Fáil came into power. Approvals have now surpassed 2,000 and the vast majority of those are high technology linked.
(Interruptions.)
I would like the Deputy to let me know where the jobs are.
Give us the time. In four and a half years we know what the Coalition Government did to Cork.
(Interruptions.)
I would hope that Deputies O'Keeffe and O'Sullivan would continue the very high standard of debate that obtained in the beginning, and I would ask Deputy O'Keeffe not to provoke Deputy O'Sullivan. You should address the Chair.
I apologise. It is also important to state that State grants in 1988 that sector have been increased in 1988 from £61.75 million to £66 million, that is, a 7½ per cent increase. That is further proof that this sector has fared extremely well.
An increase in what?
An increase in funding to that sector.
(Interruptions.)
The VEC are complaining about what you are doing.
Deputy Stagg, are you at this stage, introducing a discordant note to guarantee that your colleague who will be replying will not get the attention he deserves? Would you desist and behave yourself, Deputy Stagg?
There is merit in the Fine Gael amendment.
(Interruptions.)
I am glad that the Minister has agreed with the suggestion of a review. In Deputy Quill's contribution there were words like "reflect", "review", "fallible", "experience", "rationalisation", "duplication" and "triplication". This makes the case for the type of review that is suggested in that motion.
Do you know what they mean?
The Minister is to be complimented on agreeing to that. In terms of a review it is also important to acknowledge that there is a major change in the concept of education. There are major technological changes and the changing face of industry itself makes it absolutely necessary for us to carry out such a review. I see the time is passing and I know my colleague wants an opportunity to compliment his colleague, Deputy Hussey, so I will give him that opportunity.
Your good intentions have faded away with your eloquence. It is not possible now to do as you would have wished earlier on. Tá mé anois ag glaoch ar an Teachta Ó hUigín cun deireadh a chur leis an díospóireacht.
I should like initially to thank all those who have contributed to the debate on this Labour Party motion. I want to immediately, once again, thank representatives of The Workers' Party, the Democratic Socialist Party and the Independents who are supporting this motion without amendment.
Let me say immediately that the Labour Party, as I mentioned last night are not accepting the Fine Gael amendment to this motion. We are not doing so because, as I stated last evening, we are being invited to accept the bringing into existence of talks within a committee while at the same time deleting all those words from our own motion which call for the withdrawal of the threat to vocational education, the cuts that I said are clearly implied in the three sources that I mentioned: the changed ratios, the circular which the Minister has circulated in relation to gross pay savings, and the badly thought out redundancy scheme which she has circulated.
Neither are we accepting the amendment in the name of the Progressive Democrats. Time does not allow me to go into more detail. Last night I made reference to the fact that that amendment accepts, for example, some things that are simply not acceptable to us. For example, it does not grant the principle of prior consultation in relation to the proposed amalgamation of vocational education committees with all its connotations of reduced democratic participation and control. Neither does it specify what it means by "rationalisation" and it seems to beg the question as to whether the Progressive Democrats are living within the so-called "budgetary constraints." I believe that their motion is more clever, perhaps more devious, in so far as it appears to differ from the Fine Gael motion but it operates within the same logic.
Let me conclude by simply saying about that amendment that it offers nothing in response to those parents, to those teachers and to those who are involved in the vocational education sector who have asked us very explicitly to oppose the cuts in the vocational sector for reasons that I developed last night. In response to that request different members of vocational education committees all over the country have met parents and teachers and have met those who work in the system at administrative and teaching levels and have entered into commitments. In failing to support the Labour Party motion, people here who were party to those commitments given locally are now welching on them. It is not possible, in the honourable democracy, to say something locally and to vote the other way in the Parliament. This is the Dáil; it is here the decisions are taken. It is here tonight that the cuts in vocational education could be stopped. I have said publicly — I said it last night — that if a guarantee was given even at this stage by the Minister for Education that she would withdraw the threat to the sector, I would, at that stage, be perfectly willing to have all the kind of meetings of committees dealing with inequality, to have all the discussions and so forth that we wished. But to leave the threat there, to allow the people to leave the set, and at the same time participate in a committee would, in my view, be an exercise in cynicism.
Very important points have been made in this debate by the Deputies who contributed. Deputy Mac Giolla correctly addressed the point that I did not have time today to deal with myself, the important principle of non-selectivity within the vocational sector which has been one of its great achievements and one of its great contributions since the Vocational Education Act of 1930.
Deputy Kemmy mentioned the importance of maintaining courses and of not cutting them in an atmosphere of unemployment. This brings me to a point which was made, and which I find very distasteful, by one Minister after another, speaking in an area other than the financial area. They began their speeches, as did the Minister this evening, with the now tedious repetition that there is a consensus nationally about the state of the country's economy. What they failed to say is that there is an agreement among 90 per cent of the people in this House on putting the debt problem before the unemployment problem and putting the debt — GNP ratio, the investment employment ratio — before the failure to create jobs.
Unemployment has sunk lower and lower within this consensus of the Right. Investment hardly surfaces at all. I will give an indication of this from the Minister's speech because I like to deal with the world of the real and the world of the accurate. The Minister gave a figure in her speech for total expenditure on education. She stated that the total gross cost of education in 1988 was £1,206 million approximately. A great deal of attention has been addressed to this educational cost at this time in the life of the economy. Would that as much attention had been given to a figure that is greater — the cost of our total amount of transfers to promote industrial policy, which is about £300 million more. If we paid as much attention to that we might not perhaps have the present position in relation to unemployment. We are now being asked to sink into the sordid kind of economics to give priority to a kind of climatological theory of economics. I challenge those who question the economic view of those of us on the Left and those who say that we are the economic illiterates. Over there there is a pragmatic view of the economy. How pragmatic is it to go on and on, week after week, talking about climatology like a demented weatherman from a television station who has wandered into an economic seminar? The climate is improving; now we are going to get investment and if we wait the moisture level will go up and we will get the jobs.
Let us deal with some real economic figures. We have in this country no wealth tax at present. It existed briefly for a period in the eighties. At that time an assessment of about 1,200 individuals showed they had assets of £1,850 million in this country. More importantly, we abolished even that meaningless attack on the wealthy. If today that wealth tax existed at the same level as in the eighties it would be yielding £20 million. Where are the 90 per cent who gave the £20 million back to the wealthy and are now taking it from disadvantaged children? I have listened with more than my share of patience to people who, in that dangerous phrase, thanked me for putting down the motion so that they could have a fine debate, which meant that they could indulge in irrelevances that avoided the terms of the motion altogether.
The motion is very specific. It deals very firmly with a number of fundamentals in relation to the vocational sector. I stated last night that I did not say that all the disadvantaged and the deprived are exclusively within this sector. I referred to the recent publication by the ASTI. This motion calls for no change in the ratios; it calls for the protection of jobs within the sector; it draws attention to the appalling level of buildings and the implications of freezing projects at different stages within the Department of Education; it mentions the threat to democracy that is involved by going ahead with proposals for amalgamation without prior consultation.
That is not true.
One has listened a great deal this evening to people indulging their pet hobby-horses in relation to education. The motion before the House is one that Fine Gael want to amend in favour of some kind of committee meeting and that the Progressive Democrats want to amend in favour of some form of rationalisation. I cannot accept those amendments because it would be wrong of the Labour Party to go back on a commitment that we have given to this sector over many years.
I want to refer to both the Minister of State's speech and that of the Minister. The latter will not give me much difficulty because apart from addressing the issue of amalgamation of VECs, the Minister ignored the motion altogether. There was not a line in her speech about the changed ratios, not a line about the building programme, not a line about temporary teachers being under threat or about the story in the Irish Independent about the recent appalling decision to remove the maintenance grant from the VPTP programmes which will affect the poorest and most disadvantaged families in the country.
Deputy Fahey sat over there talking about what Fianna Fáil had always done for Galway. I was entertained to a point. He said there was no school in this country that I could give as an example in which the woodwork teacher had no wood and using cardboard, as I had stated in my speech. I challenge Deputy Fahey to go to the County Cork VEC and he will find a school or two in which this position prevails. When speaking about this to a teacher afterwards she asked me if the Minister, when distributing the money from the national lottery, would distribute some funds to purchase flour for home economic teachers in some schools in the Dublin area, one of them quite close to the Taoiseach's constituency. Those schools have not been able to buy flour for the home economics courses because they have no funds.
At the end of the day this motion is about egalitarianism and equality. I have listened with more than my share of patience to the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, and her colleagues drone and moan about the national debt. I have listened to other people here in the past divide the national debt by every member of the population. It was as meaningful as if they divided it by the number of dogs in the country. It is as good a statistic. Are they saying that the children will not now come to the schools because they have lost £300 a year? Are they saying that the people who will not have a teacher available to them created the national debt? What an immoral suggestion that is. We are being lured into accepting a philosophy, that even the most weak, disadvantaged and deprived must be driven further into an atmosphere without hope and told that they will not have courses in schools. The maintenance grant will be taken away but the courses will be left. Other things outside the school will be left for those who want them provided they are separate from the educational system. This is a very regressive step and is not in the interest of any kind of equality.
Let us be clear about the direction in which we are going. The Minister talked very clearly in terms of her review and in terms of the courses that she is going to provide outside of education. The Minister for Education and I will take up the implications of that again. I want to make one point very clear. As we spoke in this debate the situation got worse with the removal of the maintenance grant. As we speak in this debate there are counties without adult education officers. As we speak in this debate there are people who need remedial teaching. There are people for whom the proper ratios are necessary if there is to be some kind of progress in relation to remedial care. There are people who know their children will now be sent to buildings and rooms which the Department themselves have acknowledged are neither of the size nor have conditions of safety in which they can be taught practical subjects.
This is not an argument to set the formal secondary level sector, the traditional sector, against vocational education.
A Theachta, caithfidh mé cur isteach ort. Tá sé in am anois an cheist a chur.
If I might conclude my sentence — it is not a time for dividing one sector or one level of education from another. It is a time for those who believe in equality to defend equality in education and to oppose what has been correctly called the Right-wing politics of ignorance.
In passing — lest they feel they might be invited here again — I would remind the people in the Gallery it is considered most disorderly that they should indicate in any way how they feel at the end of a debate. I am putting the question: "That amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Hussey be made."
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 124; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ellis, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Smith, Michael.
- Swift, Brian.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Pattison
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 124; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ellis, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Smith, Michael.
- Swift, Brian.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Pattison.
Question declared carried.
|
Walsh, Seán.Wilson, John P.Woods, Michael. |
Wright, G. V.Yates, Ivan. |