Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 3

Estimates, 1988. - Vote 27: Office of the Minister for Education (Revised Estimate).

Minister for Education (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £50,295,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education, for certain services administered by that office, and for payment of certain grants and grants-in-aid.

I am seeking the formal approval of the House for the four Votes, Numbers 27 to 30, which now make up the group of Votes for which I am responsible as Minister for Education.

Deputies have already had an opportunity of considering the broad outline in the 1988 Estimates, initially during the course of a debate in October last following the publication of the abridged Estimates and subsequently during the budget debate.

The revised Estimates now before the House are essentially the same as those published in the abridged Estimates volume.

I would like to draw the attention of Deputies to two points, however. The first relates to the title and lay-out of the Votes. Deputies will note that the Vote lay-out differs in many respects from that in the abridged Estimates volume published in October. There are now four Votes instead of five Votes which we have become used to and the arrangement of the subheads within the Votes has also been changed. This is the result of a decision which was taken in consultation with the Committee of Public Accounts, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Department of Finance and which was aimed at presenting a better overview of the education services in a format which matches as closely as possible the main programmes into which the services naturally fall. The services formerly included in the Vote for special schools, from which many other services were transferred to the Vote for Health some years back, have now been incorporated in the Vote for first level education. The Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education has been retained and the former Votes for primary education, post-primary education and higher education have been replaced by Votes for first-level education, second-level and further education and third level and further education respectively. The distribution of the services within these Votes has also been rearranged. More precise details of the services which have been transferred to different Votes within the Education group are listed on an appendix which will be found on page 101 of the revised Estimates volume.

The second point relates to the actual provision. The net voted provision in the five Education Votes shown in the abridged Estimates volume was £1,101.362 million. The net voted provision now shown in the four revised Votes is £1,093.121 million. Some considerable misunderstanding appears to have arisen when the revised Estimate volume was published and claims were made at the time that the revised Estimates contained additional cuts. This is not so. The difference in the two amounts is readily explained.

An estimating reduction of £5.5 million has been included in these revised Estimates — £3.5 million in the case of the salaries and allowances of secondary teachers, £1.5 million in the case of the pay element of grants to vocational education committees and £0.5 million in the case of higher education grants. This is not a "cut" and does not involve any reduction in the level of services. It is merely an estimating revision reflecting the fact that the actual outturn for these services in 1987 was substantially less than that anticipated when the abridged Estimate volume was prepared.

Because of changes in the operation of the Local Loans Fund, a provision of £9.064 million included in the abridged Estimates is no longer required and has not been included in the revised Estimates. Since 1983, capital for vocational school building has been provided directly from the Exchequer through the post-primary Vote and no new loans from the Local Loans Fund were drawn down. The servicing of existing loans continued to be a charge on the post-primary Vote, however. As a result of the Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act, 1987, these loans are being written off and no provision to service them is required for 1988. This reduces the allocation required in the Vote for second level and further education by £9.064 million — £8.544 million in respect of VEC loans services from subhead F and £0.520 million in respect of loans raised by local authorities.

In the allocation of additional lottery funds, it was decided to transfer the provision for a number of services, amounting to £3.977 million from the Education Votes to the national lottery fund. Consequently, this £3.977 million has been removed from the revised Estimates. This, of course, does not in any way affect the level of services provided but merely represents an alternative source of funding. The services concerned and the amounts being provided in 1988 are as follows:

—The special provision for youth and sport activities hitherto included in the general provision for grants to vocational education committees — £1.7 million.

—The provision for grants in respect of Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann — £0.447 million.

—The provision for publications in Irish, excluding salary and overhead costs — £0.453 million.

—Grants to the Royal Irish Academy of Music — £0.635 million.

—Grant-in-aid of cultural organisations — £0.042 million.

—The provision for contributions to UNESCO and related scholarships and exchanges under cultural agreements previously included in the provision for international activities in the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education — £0.700 million.

Finally, as provided for in the budget, the allocation for the school transport service has been increased by £3.8 million and an additional £6.5 million has been included for primary and post-primary capital building work.

The total gross provision in these four Votes is £1,176 million. This includes appropriations-in-aid amounting to £82.7 million, giving a net Exchequer provision of £1,093 million. In addition, a further £30.3 million is being provided from the proceeds of the national lottery. Since 1982, funds have been provided for the education services from the employment and training levy through the Vote for Labour. A total of £30 million is being provided in 1988 from the employment and training levy but it is being included in the Education Votes — £22.239 million in the Vote for second level and further education and £7.761 million in the Vote for third level and further education.

The gross overall provision, including the funding from the national lottery, therefore, will come to £1,206.3 million.

It is customary to compare the Estimates in any year with the outturn for the previous year. Normally this is useful and valid, but this method has its limitations. Capital expenditure by its nature does not have continuity and it is wrong to assume that a particular level of capital expenditure should be maintained year after year. In addition, a true comparison, even in the case of current expenditure, requires that account be taken of any significant factors which distort the relationship between one year and another. A number of such distorting factors are present this year. The main ones are as follows:

(i) A pay issue for national teachers, which normally would have been a charge on the 1988 account, had to be paid in 1987 due to the fact that January 1988 began with a bank holiday and a weekend. This resulted in one extra payday in 1987 and one fewer in 1988 and an imbalance between the two years of some £37.5 million.

(ii) As already mentioned, Local Loans Fund loans will not have to be serviced in 1988, a process begun in 1983. This saves £9.064 million.

(iii) Grants to Vocational Education Committees — subhead F. of the Vote for second level and further education — included a special non-recurring payment of £12.7 million in 1987 arising from ESF aid not received in 1986 and the Deputy opposite will know to what that refers. This was approved in a Supplementary Estimate in 1987.

(iv) Rates of pay and pensions have been increased with effect from 1 January 1988. Provision for this increase has not been included in individual Votes. Instead, a global provision has been made in Vote 46. The cost to the education services of pay increases not provided for in these Votes will be of the order of £24 million.

When these factors are taken into account, the overall 1988 allocation represents an increase of 2.5 per cent on the 1987 outturn of £1,258 million.

The provision for capital expenditure in the Education group of Votes for 1988 is now £61.175 million.

In addition to the capital provision in the Education Votes, a further capital provision of £10.5 million has been provided from the proceeds of the national lottery for the further development of youth and sport projects. The total capital provision, including the capital element of the national lottery funding, is £71.675 million.

The total non-capital provision in the Estimates is £1,115 million. When account is taken of national lottery funding, this rises to £1,135 million. When the special factors mentioned earlier are taken into consideration, the overall provision this year when compared with 1987 shows an increase of 4.7 per cent.

Staff constitute the main resources employed in education and not surprisingly, pay and pensions account for a total of £931 million. This does not include the cost of increases in remuneration and pensions which will be met from Vote 46. After adjustment for distorting factors, pay and pensions will cost 5.2 per cent more in 1988 than in 1987.

A total of £186 million is being made available for non-pay expenditure in these Votes and a further £18 million from the national lottery. The overall non-pay allocation thus comes to £204 million. After adjustment this represents an increase of 2.5 per cent on the 1987 outturn even though it appears to represent a decrease of £16 million.

Over 17 per cent of the total Exchequer spending continues to be devoted to education. The amount being provided for education in 1988 demonstrates once again the commitment of this Government to the best possible education service for our young people which can be made in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.

I will now refer briefly to each of the individual Votes. The net estimate for the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education is £50.2 million. This provision is required for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education and for miscellaneous educational and cultural services. A number of services hitherto included in this Vote have been transferred. The provision for higher education grants and university scholarships, research grants and fellowships have been included in the Vote for third-level and further education. The provision for grants for clerical assistance in national and secondary schools has been divided between the first-level and second level and further education Votes. Other services have been transferred to the national lottery.

The provision for consultancy services is £250,000. Portion of this has been allocated for the computerisation of the main process for the Examinations Branch. At present work is proceeding as quickly as possible on the analysis and design and on the preparation of documentation necessary before issuing a request for proposals to the market later this year. It is my intention to implement the computerisation of the examinations on a phased basis with the examination results being processed by computer from 1989. The services of consultants will also be used to carry out a data planning study. This study will provide the framework for ensuring that future computer systems in the Department are developed in a way that takes full count of overall requirements. I am very glad to be able to announce to the House today that the computerisation of the examination results is proceeding.

Mrs. Hussey

A death bed conversion.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I would have expected it to be welcomed.

Mrs. Hussey

It took a long time.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I would have thought that Deputy Hussey, after all the wailing and all the moaning she did, would have been entirely pleased.

Mrs. Hussey

Two years too late the Minister learns her mistake.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

One moment, Minister. This debate is on education. One would expect that we would show our interest in and be looked upon as being worthy of the discussion and that we could carry it on in a civilised fashion. I would ask Deputy Hussey to please refrain from interruption. Apart from everything else, in so doing you run the risk of inviting interruptions when you yourself are in possession presently. The Minister, without interruption, please.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Let me say I have no notion of going on my death bed.

The net amount sought for the Votes for first level education is £405.5 million. When allowance is made for the extra pay issue in 1987, this provision actually represents an increase of approximately £5 million on the 1987 outturn of £437.8 million.

The main difference between the new Vote for first-level education and the former Vote for primary education is that this Vote now includes, as subhead H, the services which formerly comprised the separate Vote for special schools and the provision for grants in respect of the primary teacher training colleges is now included in the Vote for third-level and further education.

The gross pay and pensions of national teachers, included under subheads A and J, amount to £379 million or 93 per cent of the total net allocation for first level education.

The net allocation sought for the Vote for second-level and further education is £422.862 million. When account is taken of the distorting factors already mentioned, that is, the change affecting the Local Loans Fund which will result in £9.064 million less being required in 1988, the special payment of £12.7 million in 1987 and the provision for pay increases, this allocation represents a real increase on the 1987 outturn.

The main difference between this Vote and the former Vote for post-primary education is that the provisions in respect of colleges administered by vocational education committees and of training colleges for teachers of home economics have been transferred to the new Vote for third-level and further education. The provision for related scholarships and grants to students which hitherto were included in the general grants to vocational education committees have also been transferred to that Vote.

The gross pay and pensions allocation is £379.156 million and amounts to 82 per cent of the overall allocation for this Vote and 87 per cent of the non-capital allocation.

The secondary teachers incremental salary grant will cost £204.82 million in 1988.

Due to falling enrolment numbers in individual schools and changes in the arrangement for determining staffing levels in the past few years, a substantial number of secondary teachers, who hold permanent appointments, continue to be employed in schools over and above the numbers indicated by current staff quota arrangements. There have been two significant developments in response to this.

A redeployment scheme for lay teachers in secondary schools under Catholic management has been agreed on and will be in operation in the 1988-89 school year. Discussions are currently taking place regarding a similar scheme in secondary schools under Protestant management.

In addition, a voluntary redundancy scheme for secondary teachers will be implemented in 1988. A total of 980 applications has been received and these are currently being processed.

The provision for current costs of Vocational Education Committees and of community and comprehensive schools was made in the context of a number of cost-reducing measures decided on by the Government. A pupil-teacher ratio of 20:1 has been used in secondary schools since 1983 to determine staffing levels. It was decided that this ratio should operate in all post-primary schools.

Ex-quota posts for principals, and in special cases remedial, guidance and special resource teachers would continue to be additional to the basic staffing determined by this ratio. Negotiations took place under the aegis of the Central Review Committee under the Programme for National Recovery and settlement terms agreed by the executives of both the post-primary unions in relation to the implementation of revised staffing arrangements to be operational for the 1988-89 school year. There will be more about that during Question Time. In accordance with the Programme for National Recovery my Department will be introducing measures to cater for the specific needs of disadvantaged pupils to ensure that they are not adversely affected by new staffing arrangements.

As in the case of secondary schools, teachers with permanent wholetime posts continue to be employed in vocational schools and in community-comprehensive schools in excess of the numbers now warranted by pupil numbers. Schemes of voluntary redundancy in line with the general public service schemes are planned to be implemented in both sectors in 1988.

The provision for post-primary schools assumes that all excess posts will be eliminated in 1988 through the operation of the various schemes of redeployment, voluntary redundancy, career breaks and job-sharing.

The net amount sought for the Vote for third-level and further education is £214.44 million, a reduction of 1 per cent on the 1987 outturn. This Vote differs substantially from the former Vote for Higher Education as it brings together the provision in respect of all courses in third-level institutions.

Subheads A1 to A6 contain the various schemes of assistance to students attending courses in the general third-level area. Almost 17,000 students benefited from these schemes during the 1987-88 academic year. The cost to the Exchequer in 1988 will be a massive £46 million.

The statutory higher education grants scheme is the most important of these schemes and will cost £23.250 million in 1988. Eligibility for grants under this scheme is determined by academic attainment and by means testing. There has been considerable public unease about the operation of this scheme for some time. The perception is that the conditions of award allow people with substantial resources to receive grants while others with less resources but in different circumstances are refused. The main problem lies in the exclusive use of income as defined for income tax purposes. This issue has been under examination for some time by a committee representing the Department of Education, the Departments of Finance, Social Welfare and the Environment and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. I have recently received a copy of their report and am at present considering their recommendations.

I would now like to refer to a number of issues which have been of particular concern and interest to me as Minister for Education. Action of a very positive nature has taken place in relation to most of these issues and action is being planned for others.

In introducing to this Dáil last June the Education Estimates for 1987, I mentioned that the principal educational objective which I hoped to achieve was the undertaking and completion of the review of the primary curriculum. Since then much progress in this regard can be recorded. The Primary School Curriculum Review Body, established in October 1987, have been given the task of undertaking a comprehensive review of the primary curriculum. The review body are in the process of analysing the aims and objectives of the present curriculum and of assessing the degree to which these are being met. They are also considering possible initiatives and innovations and examining possible evaluation/assessment structures.

The review body have received a large number of submissions from individuals and organisations. I expect to obtain an interim report later this year and a final report early in 1989.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I wish to remind you, Minister, in so far as you only have less than one minute remaining.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That will be fine. I have made reference on many occasions to the changing demographic trends which have great consequences for the education system. In 1987 the population of our schools and colleges reached an all time high when some 975,000 were receiving full time education. Due to falling birth rates, however, it is projected that over the next 12 years we will experience a drastic fall in school enrolments. Enrolments in primary schools will fall by some 100,000.

To ensure that the Irish primary education system continues to serve the needs of pupils and parents I have initiated a major review and appraisal of the entire primary school system.

Last autumn, when I reconstituted the Interim Curriculum and Examinations Board as the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), I requested the council as a matter of urgency to complete an examination of the post-primary school curriculum.

As a specific task I requested them to submit to me a unified junior cycle programme for all post-primary pupils as I had taken the formal decision to merge the group and intermediate certificate programmes into a new junior certificate programme. I required that this programme be introduced into schools in September of 1989 and be examined for the first time in June of 1992. I am indeed pleased to be able to say that these target dates will be met.

It has been a constant source of concern to me that our involvement in Europe has not resulted in a greater number of students studying modern continental languages, other than French, at second and third level. It is necessary now to place more emphasis in our schools on the need for diversification in this area — for both cultural and economic reasons.

Mrs. Hussey

I am anxious to listen to the Minister. I presume that we will all be given an extended time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not so. That is why I interrupted the Minister.

Mrs. Hussey

The Minister has had 25 minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No, the Minister has had 21½ minutes precisely. When I interrupted her earlier on, I was going to ask the House if it was in agreement in allowing the Minister to complete what is before us.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I have just one page of script left. Bhfuil cead agam?

Mrs. Hussey

I am sure that we shall all be given a little grace.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. O'Rourke

We will give the Deputy another minute, too. Recently, at my request the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment organised a seminar to discuss this issue at which educational, commercial and industrial interests were represented. At present, I am considering the report of the proceedings which contain a number of recommendations and plan to take a number of measures which will foster and promote the teaching of modern languages in our schools.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment also organised a seminar on technology and its implications for the school curriculum. I am considering measures and strategies which could be implemented to incorporate more technology into junior cycle post-primary programmes.

About 6,000 young people leave the education system every year without qualifications. It is a matter for concern that only about 400 of these participate in the vocational preparation and training programme, the education system's main response to the social guarantee. It is clear that the vast majority of these young people have limited prospects of securing stable employment and, indeed, that they are very vulnerable. Accordingly, I have decided to make a joint proposal with the Minister for Labour for a special training initiative in their regard.

Due to the difficult financial situation which still faces our country, it has been more necessary than ever before to examine and review in detail the objectives of our educational system and the conflicting demands of its various sectors on limited resources, with a view to using them with optimum effectiveness.

I have ensured by careful planning that, with the co-operation and support of the many committed persons in the education system, we can continue to maintain and even to improve the quality of the education programmes in our schools, colleges and third level institutes.

I now commend these Estimates to the House and I thank you for your for-bearance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I now call Deputy Hussey, but before she commences I might advise the House that the Chair would wish to be as popular as possible with everybody but, unfortunately, time constraints in the orders do not allow that. The Chair can only dispense grace in accordance with the agreement of the House. I must remind you that speakers are now confined to 15 minutes.

Mrs. Hussey

The grace was dispensed to the Minister. She got more than her allotted time of 20 minutes. I presume that the rest of us will get a little grace. This is only fair. Without further ado, I had better begin my speech and not waste any more time. I listened most carefully to the Minister and I am afraid that Deputy McGinley and I have been remarking to each other that it did not at all seem to be a speech on the same area about which we were concerned.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Is the Deputy disputing the figures, on a point of order?

Mrs. Hussey

No, I am not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Hussey

It did not bear any relation to what was going on in education today.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Hussey, without interruption.

Mrs. Hussey

The long preamble on what had happened to the different Votes and how the Department had changed the figures that appeared there could have been delivered in a letter which would have saved the House considerable time. I was very glad to see that at last the Minister has understood that there must be computerisation in the certificate examinations. The present Government cut out £500,000 from this programme when they came into office but have restored some of that money now. It is very late in the day to be doing this, but I am glad that good sense has at last prevailed in that small area. I am glad that the new junior certificate examination, which was designed and recommended by the Curriculum Examinations Board before the Minister came into office, will be introduced in 1992. That is very important. The schools will be very glad to hear that that is happening. It is a pity that in the whole speech there was not one single original statement or suggestion, except a veiled threat to disturb in some way third level grants, with no indication of what might happen and no indication——

Mrs. O'Rourke

No, to give the grant to those who deserve.

Mrs. Hussey

——if people were going to lose or to gain grants. That is the second time that I have heard that threat in this House. We are rather tired of waiting to see what the threat actually means.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy was four years in Government and did not touch it.

Mrs. Hussey

I do wish parents would be informed and not threatened every time the Minister makes a speech of that kind. It has been a year of——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputy Roche and Deputy Browne allow Deputy Hussey to continue with her own contribution.

Miss Quill

Exactly, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I appeal to the Deputy. She is not entitled to interrupt.

Mrs. Hussey

This has been a year of the worst mismanagement in education in the history of this State. The Estimates that the Minister has called out mask a picture of confusion and dismay. Everybody in this House has spent a year going to mass meetings, looking at marches, trying to deal with distressed parents, anxious teachers, while the Government twisted and turned and changed decisions, announced threats and withdrew them. The Taoiseach intervened; the Minister withdrew. It has been an extraordinary attempt at bringing in an Education Estimate. When that Estimate was announced on 13 October 1987, it followed a summer of rumours and scare-mongering, initiated, of course, by the Minister. The Estimates were then brought out on 13 October. They have been very much changed since then but the Minister has not told us how the various areas in which they have cut back have changed them. She has completely ignored that and her speech was one of the most useless the House has ever heard.

Unfortunately, at the same time that there have been changes, hesitation, confrontation and debacles in the House — I particularly remember 24 November — climbdowns, U-turns and confusion, there has been a complete dead hand on any kind of reform or renewal, most spectacularly at the beginning of the year by the abolition of the Curriculum and Examinations Board. That was one of the most retrograde steps the Government took and it was followed by many more. It set the pattern for the Government's fear of independent contribution to the kind of work that needs to be done in education. I have been saddened to see all the reforms being set aside or turned back by the Minister and the Government.

It is quite clear that the decisions which lay behind the Estimates we are discussing today were made without any thought, consideration or the vaguest common good sense. That is why so many of them have to be changed, either as a result of public agitation, mass marches, political motions in the Dáil, relentless pressing by parliamentary questions and debates and, of course, the disarray and dismay among Fianna Fáil backbenchers who were terribly embarrassed by the actions of the Minister and the Government.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy must be joking.

Mrs. Hussey

There was a major decision to disimprove the pupil-teacher ratio at primary level. The major decision to reduce vocational, community and comprehensive schools to a new pupil-teacher ratio has been dramatically changed. The idea of keeping those new PTRs in perpetuum has been changed with a promise to return to the original PTRs in 1990. There has been a restoration of the massive cut in school transport and the announcement that schools would lose their six year cycles was also changed. Even at this point, in mid-June, schools have no idea of where they will stand in September. Youngsters have gone on holidays without knowing what subjects will be available to them next year. School principals are at their wits end as parents press them for information which they cannot give.

The legacy which Fianna Fáil left as a result of the school year 1987-88 is one of threats, disruption, confusion, marches, mass meetings and general mismanagement. It is quite clear that no member of the Cabinet understands education and that the Minister, who is entrusted with the portfolio, has been either unwilling or unable to educate her colleagues in Government. The pattern of blunder, second guessing and sheer contempt for education has been the most disgraceful of the actions in any ministry in the Government. The confusion, unfortunately, continues to this day and, as I said, school principals are still unaware of what their position will be in September. Teachers applying for the voluntary redundancy package have no idea if they will get it and schools do not know how many teachers they will have or what subjects they will be able to provide. It is extraordinary that there should be such confusion in education.

Fianna Fáil have been forced to change the worst elements of the 1988 Estimates. The Estimates are in tatters but we do not know the changes which all result from reversed decisions. Not only are the 1988 Estimates in tatters, so is the reputation of the Government regarding education.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Hussey

The Minister is now embarking on her second summer in Marlborough Street and she will be discussing Estimates for the following year. Last summer the Government embarked on a series of decisions which were impossible to implement. They were wrong in the first place but they refused to listen to people who told them so. Finally, after Dáil motions, marches and protests, they agreed to change their wrong decisions.

It is important that the Minister in her discussion of the next Estimates which, presumably, will be based on the Estimates for this year, should understand very clearly that education has taken enough punishment and urgently needs confidence restored. She must immediately meet the management and principals of schools and establish the allocations for next year. Let them explain to parents and young people what they will be able to study next year. Let them know what teachers they will have in their schools next year. It is important that the Cabinet should not go into these Estimates discussions contemplating any other decisions which will further disimprove the quality of education.

The Minister skated over the topic of language learning and there is no mention of new technology. Two key words — imagination and urgency — are missing in the attitude of the Minister and the Government to those important areas. Question Time is coming up and we will be able to find out why the Minister does not seem to be a member of the 1992 committee which the Government set up——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am a member.

Mrs. Hussey

I hope so. We have been waiting for a whole academic year for the establishment of two new technological universities, one in Limerick and the other in Glasnevin. Their establishment was recommended by the report of an international task force set up by the previous Government and which was given to the Minister last autumn. Why has there been no discussion or decision on this? I call on the Minister to establish these universities. Why do we not have a unified common central applications system for all third level colleges? It should be in place for the 1989 leaving certificate candidates. That has not been mentioned in the Minister's speech and I hope that this new idea of computerisation, even though it seems to be very half-hearted, will mean that all students will be able to fill up one single, common applications system form instead of going through the hoops as they do at present.

New legislation has been promised for a very long time to give new life and potential to the RTCs as industrial powerhouses in the areas in which they are located. We have been promised the legislation since the Minister came to office and it was ready in the Department when I left. There is no action or urgency in regard to these areas.

I am particularly disappointed that there has been no effort to eliminate sexism and sex stereotyping in education. The Minister will bear with me when I point out one single fact. I choose my words with some care. There has not been a male Minister for Education who has taken any initiatives in this area.

Mr. Roche

What about Deputy Cooney?

Mrs. Hussey

I include all male Ministers for Education who did not take any initiatives in this area. There is not the same interest in this area among the people who have been — or are likely to be — male Ministers for Education. I should like the Minister to put that question higher on her agenda and I am sorry that the amount given for this area is so small. I am also sorry that the primary and post-primary inspectorate, who spend their time talking to teachers, designing courses in schools and advising them have not, since the Minister came to office, had one single half hour's talk on the elimination of sexism or sex stereotyping. That was revealed to me in a parliamentary question yesterday and it is a sad feature of the Estimates. I know the Minister deals with a very constrained budget but she must take an initiative in this area, where it is uniquely possible for her to do so, and where she will have my wholehearted co-operation and support and that of other spokespeople for education. I am asking the Minister to place it higher on her agenda, to do something strong and positive in that area.

If the Minister and her Department cannot pull themselves together this summer to undo the damage inflicted on education the system may never recover from this year of mistakes and confusion. We have a fine educational system. It deserves better than the treatment it has received from this Government. It is time we saw a completely different approach on the part of the Minister as she enters the new Estimates debates with her Cabinet colleagues.

Miss Quill

When I was young there was an old saying in politics which ran, if you cannot convince them, then confuse them.

Mr. Roche

It still exists.

Miss Quill

It was resurrected in the course of the Minister's introductory remarks on this Estimate this afternoon. My first reaction is that, with the inclusion of moneys from the national lottery, those from the Department of Labour, the juggling about of figures from one subhead to another it is extremely difficult to make any kind of coherent response. I find it extremely difficult to make any sense at all of what she has said.

For example, the Minister has told us that an extra £5 million is being provided for primary education; undoubtedly that figure has been written into a book somewhere in her Department. But, in the classroom, the reality is that this year there has been, and next year there will be, larger classes in every primary school. In the post-primary sector there will be larger classes and a narrower choice of subjects. It is very difficult for the average person to respond to the contention that there is 2.5 per cent more money being put into education this year when, at every level, there is the apparent reduction of service to the consumer, the student, or parent. I have enormous difficulty reconciling those varying facts and in making any coherent response. In any event, in the time available to us, it is hardly possible to do so.

It has to be said that it is a sad and sorry time for education because of the cutbacks implemented over the past five years. Since 1983 our educational system has been the victim of annual cutbacks. This has been the most difficult single year in education. It has been a year of decision, indecision and revision of those decisions. Never was there a time in the course of this school year when school principals and administrators were in a position to plan coherently for a new school year. They never knew with certainty what would be their teacher allocation or budget for a new school year. The least that could be done in a time of cutbacks is to inform, in time, principals, those who shape school programmes and timetables, of their reduced allocations, so that they could formulate some kind of school programme and plan to provide essential elements of education within those reduced budgets. That has not been the case. That practice should not be allowed to continue. The salient feature of Irish education today is the level of anxiety built up in schools, homes and on our streets in the past year. This anxiety hangs over our schools like a shroud. That cannot be conducive to proper planning for education in future years. Nor is it conducive to a proper learning environment for young people whose futures are at stake, for whom so much is dependent on the kind of educational environment created at any given time, whether it be a time of recession or affluence.

We must guarantee some degree of security for our schools, pupils and teachers. That necessitates informing school principals and administrators in advance of their allocations so that they can plan for the years ahead. Deputy Hussey was quite right when she said that in September next there will be thousands of students returning to school who do not know, as of now, what subjects will be on offer. Equally, thousands of young people have left school for the long summer holiday without having been given their books list — always given to pupils before they leave — to enable them buy their books so that, when they resume, they will be able to settle down immediately into learning and benefit from their school programmes. I predict that in September next there will be long queues at the bookshops, students turning up in classrooms daily without their books and a delay in getting down to work.

It should be remembered that already we have the shortest school year in Europe. That school year will be considerably foreshortened because no real learning or study can commence until pupils have all their requisite books. Having had one disastrous and chaotic year in education it appears that the new school year commencing in September next will commence under equally chaotic conditions. That should not be allowed to continue. That is occasioned by the basic failure to plan properly in advance, to communicate proper and comprehensive information to the school authorities in good time.

In order to be gracious about something, I should say I am very glad the Minister has at last decided to provide for the computerisation of examinations results. I thank her for that. It was long overdue. It will make an enormous difference to students who have finished their second level education, who want to plan their place either in third level education or in the workplace.

Since I came into this House I have noticed that we have been tied up constantly on issues relating to the financing of education with very little time, if any, being devoted to a discussion of any kind of philosophy of education. That vacuum has left its mark on our educational system. Whether we intend spending a great deal, or a reduced amount of money on education the single most important thing for all of us is to work out some kind of philosophy of education for future years.

I would contend that the saddest feature of education today is the pressure being brought to bear on young people, especially those attending second level schools. That pressure has never been worse than in recent weeks — and still obtains — with a number of students still struggling to complete their leaving certificate examination, many about to undertake their matriculation examination in order to achieve sufficient points for entry to third level education. This pressure is having a devastating effect on all education. Any teacher, parent or outside observer will confirm that this type of pressure — brought about because of the demands of third level education, because of the few places there are at that level in relation to the enormous and growing demands on those scarce places——

Mr. Roche

This is the most astonishing hypocrisy. The Progressive Democrats' spokesperson, Deputy Kennedy, said——

Miss Quill

Am I to be allowed to continue?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When somebody is speaking within a limited——

Miss Quill

Am I to be precluded from raising the issue? Is Deputy Roche afraid of what I might say?

Mr. Roche

Your party said they supported no cuts in second level education.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies——

Mr. Roche

You said that all the cuts should fall on third level. You are now arguing for a cut at second level.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Quill, Deputy Roche——

Mr. Roche

I am sorry a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am finding this very difficult.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Quill is entitled to present her case in whatever way she regards as suitable. Deputy Quill now, without interruption.

Miss Quill

The pressure under which pupils are put is distorting all education in this country at the moment. The pressure that my case has raised in Deputy Roche is quite alarming. I am very glad Deputy Roche did not go to Stuttgart or any of the places where our football matches are being played, because I do not think you could be trusted to behave yourself.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Quill.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Excuse me, Deputy Quill——

Miss Quill

As I wanted to say——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Quill, you will appreciate that if you select to address your remarks directly to Deputy Roche, you cannot complain when he responds. Please address the Chair.

Mr. McGinley

He is being provocative.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Quill, address the Chair. You have four minutes left.

Miss Quill

I responded to him, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. In any event, as I was saying, this pressure is taking a severe stranglehold on the whole second level system and is now beginning to reach down even to first level. As the hectic battle for points grows in intensity, hundreds of students are, not alone compelled to spend long hours in intense study at school and after school, but thousands of students are now taking part in grinds and cramming sessions outside of school. This cannot be good. I would impress on the Minister and on everybody who is shaping our educational system that this growth of the grind industry is anti-social and it is inevitably having negative effects on the educational system. I appeal to the Minister to apply all her energies to doing something to relieve second level education from the pressure being put upon it by the demands of the third level entry requirements, and to do something to liberate second level schools and to enable them to design the kind of courses and programmes that will benefit all our children including the less academic among our children going to second level schools and that will enable second level schools to meet the legitimate requirements of students who do not want to go on to third level education but who have every right to get the most that can be got out of the educational system. That cannot and is not being done. The situation has got out of hand.

I would ask the Minister to look at this matter as one of extreme urgency. This pressure is doing no good for anybody, even for those who succeed in getting places. The intense competition among individual students means that we now have a system of education that breeds greed among the next generation. We have a system where the highest number of points leads to the most highly paid profession and that has become the net ethic in education. All emphasis on vocation and on aptitude is slowly being strangled and the inevitable result is that the only moral imperative we will soon have in our educational system is the race for results and points. If that is the sort of education system we are offering to the next generation, I maintain that it is too dear at any price.

Another by-product of this emphasis is the inevitable neglect of students who have no interest in going on to third level education, students for whom we ought to develop some alternative courses. I talk about students who have a less academic bent. In this respect the ideal formula is in the VPTP programme. I regret that there seems to be a movement afoot by the Minister to cut down on the number of students who will find places in those programmes. The impression I get is that the intention is to take some of these programmes out of schools altogether and to give to people who are not within the educational system, who are in training courses, and whose qualifications are not always evident to me, a bigger and bigger role to play in designing and providing VPTP courses. If that is allowed to happen, it will be a backward step for a number of young people especially children who are educationally disadvantaged and children who have no real academic bent but who have the right to get a high standard of basic education in fields of literacy and numeracy. That can only be given in schools. That will not be given in any programme out of schools. My fear is that if there is any cutting back in the £300 grant which was an essential part of the vocational preparation and training courses, inevitably the demand for these courses will drop off and the children will suffer. As a matter of urgency the Minister should try to see her way to restoring that £300 grant to our students to enable more of them to benefit from the VPTP programmes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would now bring her speech to a close.

Miss Quill

I have only one other point. An area that worries me deeply is the very small provision we have made in the Estimates of this year, last year and the previous year for in-service training for teachers. We are being told that the Minister has great plans to introduce more learning of modern continental languages. The Minister has plans for the introduction of technology to schools and so on. I cannot see how that is at all possible unless we have a sufficient number of teachers who are qualified in these subjects to bring these subjects to our students in the schools. I see no evidence at all that there are sufficient numbers at the moment nor do I see any way to make that happen, unless the Minister is prepared to make adequate provision for in-service training for teachers to enable them to go away and become competent and proficient in these courses and then bring them back to the schools to enable principals of schools to make a timetable for these new subjects which are so relevant and so badly needed. On top of what I have said about the VPTP programmes, will the Minister find her way next year to provide more money for in-service training? That is the key to providing new subjects.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must now call another speaker.

Miss Quill

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I am sorry if I garbled my speech a little, but in any event I hope next year will be a better year for education and, as Deputy Hussey said, that a little more confidence will be instilled in our schools.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Labour Party will oppose this Estimate on the basis of the consequences for education in terms of pupils, parents and teachers and all of those interested in education in the country. We will do so particularly because of the forcing out of the system of teachers who are well trained, who want to teach pupils, in crowded classrooms, and who are being forced into redundancy by the Minister's proposals.

Mrs. O'Rourke

There are no compulsory redundancies.

Mr. M. Higgins

Wait a minute——

Mrs. O'Rourke

On a point of order, there are no compulsory redundancies.

An Ceann Comhairle

We shall be going on to another matter in two and a half minutes' time. Deputy Higgins.

Mr. M. Higgins

I did not interrupt a single speaker in this debate so far, and I listened with more than extraordinary patience to the Minister's garbled, arid, barren, hopeless speech on education, with which I will deal in detail, in a moment. I have time only to deal with a minor but fundamental omission from the Minister's speech. Níor chuir sé iontas orm nár dúradh focal amháin i nGaeilge san ráiteas a chuir an tAire os comhair na Dála. Chomh maith leis sin ní dhearnadh tagairt, fiú amháin, do cheist múineadh na Gaeilge, na coinníollacha taobh istigh de na scoileanna Gaelacha agus mar sin de, agus tá mé lán-chinnte anois, nuair a thógtar é sin chomh maith leis an rud nach bhfuil díospóireacht faoi Mheastachán Roinn na Gaeltachta againn, go bhfuil an Rialtas seo in aghaidh na Gaeilge, in aghaidh na nGaelscoileanna, in aghaidh mhuintir na tíre seo a bhfuil suim acu sa teanga, agus ní chuireann sé iontas orm ach an oiread nach bhfuil suim fiú amháin ag an Aire fós san Teach seo éisteacht leis an méid atá mé á rá.

I have described this speech as not being confusing for me. It is, in fact, something that would merit an accountancy footnote in a normal speech on the Estimates. From my days of teaching commerce it is something on which a student of commerce would fail because of the kind of illiteracy that is contained in some pages. Indeed, in one page there is a paragraph that speaks about estimating cuts and about changes in Votes which is totally incomprehensible. It is almost a paragraph without a verb. It states that an estimated reduction of £5.5 million has been included in these revised Estimates and it goes on to say, "This is not a cut and does not involve any reduction in the level of services. It is merely an estimating revision reflecting the fact that the actual out-turn for these services in 1987 was substantially less than anticipated when the abridged Estimate volume was prepared." It is a meaningless, badly written, badly prepared, semi-literate, accountancy memo that might on a bad day for the Minister for Education merit the status of a footnote in a bad speech.

Debate adjourned.