Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Dec 1988

Vol. 385 No. 5

Supplementary Estimates, 1988. - Vote 28: First-Level Education.

Minister for Education (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,600,000 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 First-Level Education.

The total sum provided for the Education group of Votes in 1988 is £1,093.121 million. My Department are now projecting overall savings of £0.63 million which correspond to a saving of 0.06 per cent approximately. This fine tuning is clear evidence of the effective analyses undertaken during the preparation of the Estimates and subsequent effective monitoring and financial control procedures.

Supplementary Estimates are required, however, as savings on one Vote may not be used to meet a shortfall on another Vote. Since the overall education budget will not be exceeded these Supplementary Votes may be considered as technical adjustments within the Education group of Votes.

I am pleased that the various ameliorative measures adopted by consent in the House have meant that we were able to contain our expenditure within the overall Education Vote. It is a great credit to the officials of my Department that we were able to do that and return a correct Estimate at the end of the year. Three years ago a suggestion was made that the Education Votes should be combined under one Vote and an effort was made to do that but it appears that the idea did not find favour. However, I think that such a move would be a proper one because it would mean more flexibility within the system. That is for another day.

I am satisfied that the resources which the Government allocated to the education sector in 1988 have been used in the most efficient and effective way possible. During the year, by careful planning and control, I have ensured that there has been no unnecessary duplication of resources and have fostered and encouraged various educational, business and community groups to pool their resources and skills for the benefit of young people. For allocation purposes the main criteria used by my Department were equity, efficiency and effectiveness and particular attention was given to encouraging greater participation by the disadvantaged in all levels of the education system.

I am seeking the approval of the House for a Supplementary Estimate amounting to £2.6 million which is now required for the Vote for First-Level Education. When determining the provision for teachers' salaries in the 1988 Estimates, the implications of certain measures decided on by Government affecting the pupil-teacher ratio in national schools were taken into account.

Following discussions under the aegis of the Central Review Committee set up under the Programme for National Recovery, adjustments were made which reduced the number of teachers who were available for redeployment and who would be given an opportunity to retire early. A total of 374 teachers availed of the early retirement scheme and 445 teachers were redeployed. I gave that information to Deputy Quill yesterday. The amount already provided for the salaries of national school teachers is £324.9 million and an extra £5.6 million is required to meet the resulting additional pay costs.

Additional funds were provided in the Estimates for superannuation of primary teachers in anticipation of the additional pensioners under the voluntary redundancy-early retirement scheme. As a result of the adjustments made, savings of £2 million are now available to offset against the £5.6 million required for salaries. Receipts appropriated in aid of the Vote will exceed the estimates by £1 million. The bulk of these additional receipts are superannuation contributions payable from the gratuities of teachers retiring under the voluntary redundancy-early retirement scheme.

In the case of the Vote for Second Level and Further Education a Supplementary Estimate of £6.2 million is required.

The effect of demographic changes on the overall number of teaching posts was less than expected. An additional 25 posts were allocated for the disadvantaged as a result of discussions under the auspices of the Central Review Committee under the Programme for National Recovery. Fewer teachers than originally anticipated were redeployed or offered early retirement as it was not always possible to match the subject requirements of vacant posts to the qualifications of teachers available for redeployment and as the Department gave an understanding and sympathetic response to the many appeals made by school authorities about the particular difficulties they faced. A total of 74 teachers were redeployed and 179 accepted early retirement.

The provision for salaries and allowances of secondary teachers in the 1988 Estimates is £204.82 million. An additional £5.8 million is now required. An additional £1.7 million is being sought for the running costs of comprehensive and community schools. Savings were not as high as anticipated from the introduction of a common second-level pupil-teacher ratio of 20:1, from redeployment and from early retirement-voluntary redundancy. An additional 16 posts were allocated to meet the special needs of the disadvantaged and 21 posts for vocational preparation and training programme courses.

The provision for grants to vocational education committees is £119.926 million. An additional £2.6 million is now required. The main reason for this is that savings expected from the amalgamation of VECs will not be achieved until legislation is introduced later. In addition, following discussions between the various parties a significant number of additional teaching posts were allocated in this sector in order to ameliorate the effects of the change in the basic pupil-teacher ratio in vocational preparation and training programme courses in line with arrangements in secondary schools. A further 134 posts were allocated as concessionary posts for disadvantaged areas and some 30 posts to meet the special needs of smaller vocational schools which are the only post-primary schools in their catchment areas.

A sum of £5.02 million has already been provided for payments to local authorities in respect of the superannuation of VEC staff and an additional £300,000 is sought to meet the total amount of claims which are now expected to be received during the course of the year.

A number of savings are available to offset against these overruns. As fewer teachers were offered early retirement, the number of pensioners will be less than provided for and there will be a consequent saving of £1 million of the provision for the superannuation of secondary, community and comprehensive school teachers.

An estimated £1.3 million will be saved on the provision for examinations due to some overestimation of candidate numbers and to efficiencies in the administration of the examinations in my town of Athlone.

Receipts appropriated in aid of the Vote will exceed the estimate by £1.9 million. The bulk of this represents additional receipts from the European Social Fund. Some represents additional superannuation contributions payable from the gratuities of teachers retiring under the voluntary redundancy-early retirement scheme.

In regard to the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education, I have already mentioned that there are compensatory savings. Savings of about £1.3 million will be made on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education. These savings are due mainly to unfilled vacancies on the staff of my Department and to economies achieved in the operation of the school transport service without any increase in the school transport charges in 1988 to the parents who are already paying them or, indeed, any cutback on eligibility.

Savings of £7.5 million approximately are anticipated on the Vote for third level and further education. It is expected that additional receipts from the European Social Fund will amount to £3 million approximately. When the 1988 Estimates were in the course of compilation precise information on the level of the 1987 final claims was not available and it was not possible to determine exactly the level of ESF approvals for 1988 programmes. That has been a continuing feature of the ESF-funded educational programmes since they started back in 1983-84. I remember when I was in Opposition this was constantly coming up. It is difficult to be precise about an appropriation-in-aid.

Savings of £5 million are now projected on the provision of £66.4 million for the running costs of VEC colleges. These savings are due to a number of factors.

Payments are not now expected to be made in 1988 on foot of a Labour Court award to part-time teachers. That will come later. Fee income in the colleges will be greater than expected. In addition, credit balances were carried over from 1987 and there was a measure of over-estimation in the original Estimate.

In 1988 within the overall education budget it has been possible through careful planing and with the full co-operation and support of the many committed teachers, school managers, educational administrators and parents, to maintain and indeed improve upon the quality of the education programmes in all our educational institutions. I wish to assure the House that I intend to continue to carefully plan, monitor and control educational expenditure and to ensure that voted moneys will be used in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

There was one point I made at the beginning which I want to go back on. It is this. I stated in my commitment to the House last March on the overall education budget that I would not be back looking for a supplementary budget in the fullest sense. Since the overall education budget will not be exceeded, these Supplementary Votes, within the overall education budget, may be considered as technical adjustments within the education group of Votes. I have to give the technical detail of moneys to the House and I know the House is interested in the running of the Department. There will be many other issues which members of the various Opposition parties will wish to raise and on which I hope to have an opportunity to comment at the end. Out of the moneys allocated to me — despite the strictures which lay upon every Government Department — there were some measures which I was enabled to carry out. It gave me great satisfaction that I was able to undertake initiatives of that sort. I will be leaving out some. The first one I would like to refer to is a small one in money terms but it is important. We were able to continue the mature women's grant and will be doing so for this year. Next week I will be meeting the recipients. We will be able to have a modest increase next year. It is a measure which we were able to keep even though we thought it would not be possible.

There was also the fact that the NCCA — the National Council for Curriculum Assessment — came out with their new syllabi. The introduction of the new junior certificate was greatly welcomed. I have just completed a programme for very intensive in-service courses involving the teachers' unions and the various course committees who will report to me by the end of January and we will then embark on that programme. We cannot introduce a new exam next September without having proper in-service courses. I am glad we are on the path to that.

Also in January I will be launching a special languages programme for second level schools to encourage a much greater take-up of European languages other than French. A large number of our students take French and a very small number take German, Spanish and Italian. I have had discussions over the months with the cultural institutes, with the professors of those languages, the subject associations, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the CII and I have been in Europe twice. In conjunction with the Lingua report, about which I will be in Europe next week and in January, I will be launching our programme of diversification of European languages which is intensifying as we approach 1992. These are just some of the measures. There were many more. There was a modest increase in school books for necessitous pupils. We have been enabled to keep school transport costs in 1988 at the same level as in 1987. They are all small matters and I am aware that Deputies will have their own particular interests on which they wish to dwell when they speak.

I would like, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to put on the record my appreciation of the lively interest in education which is expressed in this House. I am always conscious of it and I was conscious of it in Opposition. It is enormously supportive. I wish people would view it as that. To come in here for Question Time is one of the best one and a half hours one can spend because of the questions and the rapport which exists between people. It is aggressive but that is part of the system. It is enormously important that the views of all people be listened to. I have set myself to do that and from morning to night I meet with people——

Tomás Mac Giolla

They are not listened to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

They are listened to from time to time. The Deputy would be surprised. I commend the Estimate to the House.

Mr. Deenihan

I speak to this Supplementary Estimate with sorrow and foreboding. Sorrow because, as a teacher myself, I have seen the education service of which we are all justifiably proud, being decimated by mindless cuts in education expenditure. I speak with foreboding because I do not see the position improving in the immediate future. In fact, I believe the position will become steadily worse unless decisive and imaginative action by this Government is taken.

In 1988 the expenditure cuts in the national schools, the vocational schools, the community and comprehensive schools led to staffing reductions. The staffing reductions were to be achieved by voluntary redundancies. Those schemes have now been implemented by the Department of Education. The result has been unacceptably large classes, loss of subjects for students, shortening of the school week, lack of materials for essential subjects such as woodwork and metalwork, lack of remedial and guidance services because these staff are now being forced back into the classrooms and students have been denied their specialist expertise in those areas of remedial education and guidance counselling. On the capital side there are massive cuts both in last year's and this year's Estimates. There was a 45 per cent reduction last year and a further 21 per cent or £5 million this year. The outcome of this is that children will continue to have to go to school in inadequate dilapidated accommodation.

In times of financial difficulty all reasonable people accept that measures must be taken to put the position right. My question and my concern, and the concern of my party, is that adjustments should not fall on the weak, the defenceless and the disadvantaged. Who are more defenceless in this situation than our children? Our children, the very lifeblood of our nation, are facing another year in which the quality of their education will be impaired. They will be asked to pay more fees for school buses because of an 18 per cent reduction in the transport allocation. They will be asked to pay more for school books——

Mrs. O'Rourke

On a point of order, I stated in my Estimate and at Question Time yesterday that there is no increase in school transport charges for the next academic year. I want to be clear on that. It is a matter of record.

Mr. Deenihan

I looked at the Minister's two replies and one said "at present" and the other said it was being looked at or being examined.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The question was asked in the House yesterday — I think it was by Deputy Noonan — and it was answered.

Mr. Deenihan

The reply stated it was being examined.

Mrs. O'Rourke

An untruth cannot be allowed.

Mr. Deenihan

The two cannot be right.

Mr. M. Higgins

I will explain all this in my own contribution.

Mr. Deenihan

They will be asked to pay more for school books because of the introduction of the new junior cycle curriculum. The children who suffer disadvantage will not get the teachers allocated for the disadvantaged because of the scandalous decision of the Minister and her Department to allocate, or should I say, misallocate those posts to areas for which they were never intended. I ask the Minister how it was that approximately 20 or 25 of the posts specifically allocated for disadvantaged students in vocational, community and comprehensive schools came to be allocated to secondary schools. I ask the Minister how such a decision can be justified when the terms of reference of the motion passed in this House, proposed by the Labour Party and amended by Fine Gael, specifically confined the discussions, under which the proposals were formulated, to vocational, community and comprehensive schools. I suggest that the Minister is acting outside of and in defiance of that motion. I believe that she must now justify her actions in this regard to the House.

On Wednesday night, in the context of a debate on Tallaght, the Minister gave a half hearted commitment to building the proposed new RTC in Tallaght. The assurance was contingent on European financing and a multiplicity of other conditions. Nevertheless, the commitment is welcome. Even if the Minister were to build a new RTC in Tallaght, in Castlebar and in Thurles — and they are all vitally necessary due to increasing demand for places— I wonder how the institutions could be run. This year's Estimates saw a cut in the running costs of RTCs by 3 per cent in the moneys allocated for staffing and 5 per cent for non-staffing, for example, materials, equipment and maintenance. How can these colleges function with less staff when there is a greater student enrolment? How can these colleges function with less materials when there is an increasing number of students demanding materials?

In effect, they cannot, particularly if the quality of service is to be maintained. During the week, we saw Professor Clancy, in his excellent report on participation rates in third level institutions, show that children of working class people were not getting their fair share of the places at third level. I say, and I challenge the Minister to deny, that her estimates for the regional technical colleges will make that inequality worse. It is clear that fees will increase, thus ensuring that those who go to these colleges will be those who can afford to pay as opposed to those who have the ability to benefit.

I now wish to refer to the Department of Education and the manner in which they are conducting the business of education in this State. This is a very important matter. In County Kerry, the principalship of the vocational school in Killarney became vacant due to a voluntary redundancy. I am aware of other similar vacancies throughout the country. The Department are now proposing to fill the job by confining the position to the teachers employed in County Kerry. Of course I would like to see a Kerry person get the job. In fact, I believe that, given the ability of Kerry people, one of them will get the job but I want the job competed for openly by all eligible candidates as is required under an agreement drawn up between the Minister, the Teachers' Union of Ireland and the Irish Vocational Education Association. I understand that the Minister has issued instructions to advertise the job only within County Kerry. In the event of that happening, I further understand that the post will be blacked by the TUI. The Minister is wrong.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy is wrong.

Mr. Deenihan

She is in breach of an existing agreement and, more important, she is not seeking the best person for the job but rather seeking to cut staff still further by appointing an existing member of the County Kerry VEC and, in the event of that appointment, not replacing the person.

Adult education and second chance education, a relatively new and developing area of our education service, is suffering under the cuts. There are at present, five adult education organiser positions vacant and, as I understand it, they are not to be filled. Adult education is an area where people who did not get an opportunity to continue their education may now have a second chance. If there is one area in education which should not suffer under the financial cuts, it is adult education. I ask the Minister to authorise the replacement of the adult education organisers as a matter of urgency and in accordance with the Programme for National Recovery which the Government entered into with the social partners.

Because of the cuts in expenditure, I understand that three months into the academic year the Department of Education are insisting that teachers in VECs throughout the country must be transferred between schools. I accept that teachers employed by vocational education committees may be transferred but I believe that it is wrong, unjust and inequitable that such transfers take place so late in the school year. What are students to do after three months with one teacher when they suddenly find a change of teacher, or indeed, no teacher at all? This position has only arisen because of mismanagement on the part of the Department and shows a callous disregard for students and their teachers.

Last August the Department caused chaos by not informing schools of their teacher allocations until approximately three weeks before reopening. Schools were not able to plan timetables or allocate manpower to specific areas as a result. Furthermore, many temporary wholetime teachers were left in a state of limbo as they had no idea if they would be reappointed in September. This led to grave concern and anguish among this group. I believe that this showed a scandalous disregard for people who have given Trojan service to education. I urge that this unprofessional approach should not be repeated in 1989 and that all schools have their teacher allocations before Easter at the latest.

As a former physical education teacher I have a particular interest in physical education and I believe that physical education should form an integral part of the curriculum of schools at both primary and secondary level. Because of the education cuts I have noticed that physical education has been marginalised in many of our schools. Despite the fact that in many of our schools there is no qualified physical education teacher, I understand that recruitment of physical education teachers is severely restricted. Indeed, there has been a cut of 150 per cent in the intake of trainees in Limerick this year, from 50 to 20. Surely this sounds ominous for the future of physical education in this country.

I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the Irish Independent on Saturday, 29 October — and I acknowledge the honesty of the Minister of State — in which it is reported that he accused his own Department of gross negligence in regard to the teaching of physical education in our schools. He admitted that physical education was an also ran on the school curriculum and yesterday in reply to a question the Minister said that the Minister of State at her Department did not make the statements attributed to him by Deputies. Either the reporter is misleading the public or, I hate to say, the Minister is misleading the House.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I have a copy of the Minister's speech for the Deputy.

Mr. Deenihan

This was a very damaging article and it should have been denied by somebody.

Mrs. O'Rourke

How can one deny everything? One would be worn out.

Mr. Deenihan

I refer to an article which appeared in the Irish Press this week in which a leading physical educationist pointed out that on average our students in second level schools receive 35 minutes per week of physical education whereas on the Continent this figure amounts to 150 minutes per week. Let me add that physical education is now almost non-existent at primary level despite the windfall from the national lottery. We are not spending the money where it would have most effect. Indeed, we are providing facilities which people will not be able to use as they have not been educated on how to use them.

Physical education is almost non-existent at primary level through no fault of the teachers, as first, in most cases they are not qualified to teach it and, secondly, they are afraid of vast insurance claims being made against them. Sixty per cent of our students in the senior cycle do not have any physical education classes and pupils at primary level receive only 35 minutes of physical education each week. This is a disgrace and no Minister of State or Minister can come into this House and say physical education needs are being catered for. I appeal to the Minister and her Minister of State to ensure that physical education is put back on a proper plane. I also suggest to the Minister that in drawing up the new junior curriculum, physical education should be given its rightful place. We look mainly at the development of the three Rs but I believe that physical education should be added to them.

In conclusion, I have tried to indicate that all is not well with our education service by giving specific examples to highlight some of the areas in which the difficulties lie. I accept that funds are short but I believe that those funds which are available could be used to better effect. In times of financial difficulty a real effort should be made to assist the disadvantaged to break free from the vicious cycle of the poverty of deprivation. Education is the key to breaking free from that cycle and I ask the Minister to review her policies in the light of this. I look forward to the Minister's response to the points I have raised.

Miss Quill

The amount of money being sought by the Minister today in the Supplementary Estimate is so minimal as hardly to merit mention except, of course, to say that the Minister must be complimented on living within her means — and I suppose that is no mean virtue. The essential questions we ought to be asking in terms of the vast amount of money voted in the annual budget are: first, does the taxpayer, who is our paymaster, feel he or she gets good value for the money invested in education? Second, do the consumers — and the consumers in this case are the pupils or students and their parents — feel they get good value in all instances? Third, and more fundamentally, have we in the Ireland of 1988 in place a system of education which gives every child a fair and equal start in life? If we examine those three questions, I think the answer in each case has to be no.

There is little time within the scope of this debate to argue all or any of these issues and that brings me to the point where I must say it is high time we had a comprehensive debate on education and the Minister ought to be the instigator of that debate. The Minister said very graciously a moment ago that she felt the monthly Question Time constituted a very good debate on educational issues but I do not think that is entirely true. We have a one sided debate where a number of questions are asked but few questions are answered. One way or the other that does not constitute the kind of comprehensive debate education merits at this time in the development of our country. I appeal to the Minister to be the instigator of an overall comprehensive debate on education because it needs to be debated at this time above all times.

I would argue here this afternoon that the whole system of education needs to be recast but, since it is not practical to re-invent the wheel, it is imperative to identify priorities. If I could be so bold I should like to mention a few areas which I regard as being of urgent priority. The most salient single feature of our system of education as it now stands is that while it works pre-eminently well for our top graduates, many of whom are now outshining their peers on the world stage, it works disastrously badly for others. The gap between the two extremes is far too great and must be bridged. A system which tolerates that gap can only be seen to breed injustice, to reinforce poverty and reinforce underprivilege in our society.

In this respect I would argue as my first priority that the problem of the chronic under-achiever must be tackled as a matter of urgency and at source, right down to primary school level, and in some cases even further back then primary school level to the level of the home. I know that would be a matter perhaps for the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health in conjunction with the Department of Education and that it is not a problem specifically for the Department of Education. That is where the problem of the chronic under-achiever must be tackled. In terms of schooling this can only be done when more specialised resources are put into the primary school system — resources, for example, like the provision of a proper school psychological service to assist in the early identification of learning disability and also to provide adequate remedial teaching to remedy that disability.

I read with great interest the most recent report by Dr. Patrick Clancy in which he points to the low level of participation at third level by children of the working classes. From my experience I have to say there is equally a very low level of effective participation at second level by numbers of children, the kind of children who achieve very badly at primary school level, who do not get the kind of assistance they need at that stage in their lives, who come onto the second level system without adequate preparation for what that system has to offer, who in many cases never make a successful transition from first level to second level, who are side-lined and remain on the slow lane in the classes of second level schools awaiting the time when they are 15 years of age and can slip out of the system unnoticed and unmarked. They are the children on whose behalf I would argue that resources will have to be put in place because the truth is that participation at third level is very often determined at primary level. I appeal to the Minister to address herself, her energy and her resources to rooting out the sources of under-achievement and inequality which exist in primary schools as a matter of urgency.

With regard to children who have learning disabilities, I compliment the Minister on the introduction of the Youthreach programme. It is an initiative which was long overdue. I believe some good will come from the introduction of this programme but I have to say that a programme such as this tacked on at the tail end of an unsatisfactory school experience is a poor substitute for a solid graded grounding in basic educational skills which should happen during the course of the seven years children spend in primary schools and which is every child's right. If that does not happen at the right time anything which is tacked on later on is merely a palliative and does not really solve the problem. I say to the Minister that there have to be preventative measures as well as rehabilitative measures at the end of the time when the damage is done and these two measures will have to happen in parallel.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the Articles in the Constitution which deal with education, and specifically Article 42.3. Article 42 acknowledges the place of parents in education and Article 42.3.2º states:

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

I have to say to the Minister that I am afraid we have reneged on our constitutional obligations. The time has come when we must put that right, call a halt and identify what constitutes a certain minimum of education in terms of the actual conditions of the declining years of the 20th century and then we must make provision to enable every child in the country to attain that minimum. That must be a primary objective of any Minister for Education.

At the other end of the scale to which I have referred already, a monstrous injustice is being visited upon students because of the gruelling demands of the points system as a mechanism for rationing out scarce third level places. The pressure which is now being put on students, their teachers and parents as the race for points intensifies year after year has now reached the stage when all true educational objectives stand to be subverted. The growth of the £1 million grind industry is only one of the many visible manifestations of that phenomenon.

I say to the Minister that this madness must be halted. I know it is a subject which has plagued the minds of many people but it ought to become the subject of a wider educational debate. We ought to put our heads together to see in what way we can play down and minimise this scourge on second level students. This needs to be done as a matter of urgency and, when the debate is over and done with, the decision will then lie with the Minister. I believe the decision to do this will have to be taken sooner rather than later before our whole system cracks with the pressure which is now being put upon it.

Thirdly, I want to place priority on the manner in which we deal with our teaching bodies, the greatest single resources we have. The Minister referred to provision for in-service courses, but the amount will not be enough to provide adequately for the degree of in-service training needed. If the legitimate demands of the times are to be met, a substantial investment will have to be made in the further provision of in-service training. That would be money very well spent. In relation to the introduction of new syllabi and additional languages, as well as the whole state of our schools, it is imperative that we have a teaching force which is not allowed to become stale or sour.

We must admit that principals and teachers have been subject to intense pressure from all sources in recent years. Every social problem which arises in the community has a spokesperson who relates it back to the schools. If the problem is AIDS, the schools should be providing more education to prevent the spread of AIDS; if it is teenage drinking, the responsibility is very often off-loaded on the teachers. There has been a great growth in the number of social evils in society in the past few years, but no matter what it is the remedy seems to be located within the schools. At a time when resources are being cut back at every level of education, our teachers are being asked to deliver more and more. That is not possible. It has put inordinate pressure on teachers, numbers of whom are beginning to lose morale and to give up the ghost. If that were allowed to happen it would be a singular disaster without parallel.

The Minister must take that into account and make more provision for in-service training and create some kind of mechanism to enable numbers of unemployed young graduates to be brought into the teaching service. I mentioned this point at Question Time yesterday. Staleness is inevitable unless new blood can be brought into the teaching profession. It is a great waste that our well-qualified young graduates with their expertise, idealism and energy are unemployed or using their talents to benefit other countries. The Minister will have to think of ways and means of getting young graduates into the teaching force. I suggested yesterday that it might be done by the introduction of job sharing. I think it would work to the benefit of the teachers and to the benefit of the educational system as a whole. It is not impossible to do it. This is a time of tough challenges and we have to become tough.

It is also important to create panels of teachers who would act as replacements for those out of school doing in-service training. If we are serious about the introduction of new syllabi and modern languages we must release a certain number of teachers and make provision for them to be absent from the classroom. Replacements would have to be provided and it is important that the Minister should assemble a panel of teachers who would replace those doing this very necessary work. That is one of many ways in which new blood, new ideas and new techniques could be brought into the teaching force.

I appeal to the Minister not to allow the teaching body, which is as good, as fine and as well motivated a teaching body as one would find anywhere in the world, to become disillusioned, soured or stale. The Minister has it within her remit to take steps to ensure that it does not happen. That is the single most important thing that needs to be done.

My fourth priority would be the involvement of parents. They are a powerful resource which has scarcely been tapped. This is a great pity. I appeal to the Minister to make provision to involve parents in a much more formal way at every level of education. It is time to initiate a much broader and more comprehensive debate on education.

Mr. M. Higgins

I want to say how sad I am that we have only 15 minutes to discuss so many issues of interest in education. All I can do in such a brief period is sketch out some of the major issues that have been left with us at the end of this term. It will appear inevitably more like a check list for action than an extended discussion.

I will begin by addressing one human problem in education. The Estimate for the Department of Defence contained an unfortunate line which referred to those who had left the Defence Forces as "natural wastage", a terminology which does not recommend itself to me on humanitarian grounds.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not like it myself.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is a credit to the Minister for Education that such language never appears in her speeches. A great number of qualified primary teachers are unemployed. I have discussed their situation with them. A new syllabus is being introduced at primary level. Will the unemployed teachers be entitled to attend courses which will enable them to function should they ever get a job? As I understand it, the in-course training in the new syllabus is reserved for teachers in employment. This is a very human problem.

From time to time at primary level other issues arise. There are schools where the numbers of pupils do not qualify them under the new criteria for additional posts. When such posts are being examined by the Department I have detected a trend towards approving the appointments on a temporary rather than a permanent basis. This seems to be a breach of the agreement entered into in goodwill between the teaching unions, the Department of Education and the Minister.

I want also to endorse a point which was made earlier. I have become weary of making the case for the implementation of the Benson report in relation to the inclusion of the arts in education. This is a matter about which the Taoiseach has expressed some sympathy. Deputy Deenihan spoke about physical education. Visual and aural education, dance, theatre and movement are all being purchased as private commodities of child improvement from the increments which are left from a person's income rather than being part of the core curriculum. Where is there any progress in this area?

I turn to the unresolved question in relation to school transport. In the Book of Estimates the provision for transport services for the year 1989 was reduced by £5.8 million or 18 per cent. I raised in this House with an inevitable amount of discomfort for some people, the issue of school transport, the suggested privatisation and the pilot schemes. The Minister reconsidered the position and CIE have been hired again as a principal contractor. It is rather like the tendency not to do the hanging yourself but to get someone else to act as the hangman. Here are the questions that arise. Have CIE been told that they are to run the transport scheme for 1989 for £5.8 million less than in 1988? A very interesting point is that CIE have already been contributing to headings under which the Department of Education might have traditionally contributed. They have, for example, been involved in a massive number of fleet replacements. For example, they reduced the cost of the service they executed for the Department of Education in 1989 by almost £3 million. They set about replacing the buses from their own resources. They replaced 130 of the older Bedford buses with 95 former service buses and 35 second-hand buses bought and adapted for school transport. By next year they will have provided 182 replacement bus services from their own resources. The gratitude they are getting is that they are being told to provide the service for £5.89 million less.

Questions arise in that regard. Will it not be suggested that CIE will be asked to carry the can? What is the basis for reducing the funding? If CIE are to operate at a reduction of £5.89 million will there not be a reduction in the quality of service provided in relation to school transport? Has there been any consultation with CIE in this regard? Has there been consultation with that component of the school transport system that includes the private operators? CIE provide an enormous number of services not only for themselves but also for private contractors. In terms of the general administration of the scheme they have a very advanced computer system. It appears that there was confirmation that the pilot projects were suspended and that the privatisation of school transport was not being proceeded with. It is very clear that CIE are being killed by stealth. These are issues for which clear answers can be given.

I want to turn to another aspect of primary education which goes beyond the reference in the Minister's speech to the Central Review Committee. It is worth bearing in mind that in the Programme for National Recovery there was reference specifically to making available additional resources for dealing with the disadvantaged. It seems, from my computation of the figures, that what we have had is a relocation of what is left after the redundancy scheme has been provided for rather than the provision of net new additional resources. I fail to see the spirit of the Programme for National Recovery being implemented in this regard, particularly in relation to the question of disadvantage.

I want to refer to an issue which I have tried to raise in this House. Tomorrow marks the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, a major document of this century. My good friend, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, is attending celebrations in Paris in that connection. The French hold great ceremonies in regard to human rights. There is no celebration here of a public kind but that is a matter for another day. In 1959 a document on the rights of the child was published and adopted by the United Nations, specifying in its objectives that every child has the right to a full education, to know what decisions are taken in his regard and to know and fully understand the world in which he lives. I have raised again and again the question of when are we to have political and social studies included in the curriculum? Why did a sub-committee of a curriculum committee work for two years to design a curriculum when two years later it has not been implemented?

In the University of Ontario, for example, an entire department specialise in producing political education documents. The one I hold in my hand, Politics and You is the one suitable for 11 years olds. It is published by the Canada Studies Foundation, Bloor Street West, Toronto. This document deals with politics, taking decisions, working through consensus, how minorities should be treated by majorities and so on. All that work could have been applied in Ireland. I suspect that the reason it was not done here might be because of some of the traditionalists' attitudes within sections of the Minister's Department in relation to the question of rights and duties.

There is a tendency at this time — I am not including in this the Minister who replied to another matter I asked her about yesterday — in Irish education whereby new reactionary forces would like to see at primary level the child-centred curriculum damaged, would like to see at second and third level education a utilitarian ethos and would like to see us abandon a number of other principles. It is these bodies who have fed their influence into thinking, suggesting that duties are more important than rights. We are unique among the European signatories to the universal declaration on the rights of the child in allowing no space on our curriculum to discuss human rights at home or abroad. This problem is not solved by saying that civics can accommodate it; it does not. Any teacher who has ever examined the civics practice knows this is not the case. The National Youth Council of Ireland, the Union of Students in Ireland, parents' associations, trade unionists and others have all asked for this subject. It is time it was included to allow for effective citizen participation.

I was pleased yesterday by the Minister's assurance to me that applications for future multi-denominational or nondenominational schools would not be sunk by the fact that there might be falling rates of attendance in nearby denominational schools. There is another anomaly in relation to Irish education. There is no basic education Act that might express what our philosophy in education is. This has been studied by Dr. Kathleen O'Higgins, among others, who points out that Irish educational philosophy has limped along from a kind of elitism to a meritocratic individualism.

The one thing you can say about its administrative practice is that it has never been egalitarian. There is no clear commitment to egalitarianism now. If there was, would there be such a difference as was seen in the Clancy report from which everyone is quoting and which — in the first report — showed that the participation in third level education of the managerial and owning classes was 19.5 per cent whereas it was 1.2 per cent for the sons and daughters of the unskilled? Those people are abused in relation to tax and they have only one-twentieth of the chance of sending their children to third level education.

The National Economic and Social Council document, No. 85, published in June 1988, states on page 100 that spending on primary education is the most progressive educational expenditure in terms of reducing inequality. I have not the time to go into that now. That document warns us that second and third level education is so inegalitarian in participation, with the demographic shift from primary to second and third level education, that all the progressive achievements at primary level will be wiped out by an inegalitarian second and third level. On page 158 it points out that the proportion of State grants to third level education is declining by comparison with the rising fees. It points out in three separate references that the support for second and third level education has not been such as to be able to retain any momentum of an increased participation.

When the second Clancy report was published this week it showed that the only group who had increased their participation in third level education were larger farmers and people in the agricultural areas surrounding the universities. I showed that in the universities the gaps were all wider in 1986 than they were in 1980.

I will conclude by referring to the frequently expressed desire in this House that people would acquire a greater competence in relation to languages. Languages should be learned as part of the curricula for their own benefit. It is quite a scandal that the case for languages in education at first, second and third level is being made within a singularly limited utilitarian ethos. One should learn a language to participate in the symbolic system of the world, not simply to be able to sell to Germany. That is why there were not at second level last year, half a dozen people who took Spanish to final level, as if the whole Latin world, as if all the places where Spanish is spoken, did not exist. I have listened to one speaker after another more or less saying that, as good hucksters, we should learn German. German is a fine language with a fine tradition but there are other languages. The learning and absorption of languages should be acquired for sound pedagogic and cultural reasons.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is now exhausted.

Mr. M. Higgins

I was expecting a warning, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry I did not forewarn the Deputy.

Mr. M. Higgins

I must conclude on the question of the Act itself. I would welcome an education Act. People know my views on education. They are in favour of pluralist education, in favour of access, control and a broader curriculum, an open, critical approach towards education. But I gurantee this House that if any Minister across there stands up and says it is his or her intention to introduce an education Act the reactionary forces will be out of the woodwork again, trying to say: our children and the children who come after them have no right to think in a freer way than we did. That is why we are today again debating education, knowing that our education is denominationally controlled, that no Minister, since the foundation of this State, has justified on civic grounds such denominational control.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must now conclude.

Mr. M. Higgins

Rather is it the Irish implementation of Divini Illius Magistri and that is supposed to do us until the end of the eighties.

Tomás Mac Giolla

In my 15 minutes I had hoped to make calm and reasoned comments on the education system. Having heard what the Minister had to say I have got into a state of confusion because there are so many things she said to which I want to reply.

Before I lose my calm I must say I have a high regard for the Minister. She is a person of great charm, having a pleasant manner in dealing with people whether they be parents, teachers or whoever. Like her brother, she is well liked. However, she is Minister for Education and, in that capacity, what she is doing is monstrous. The Minister has been dismantling our system of education — particularly over the past year — when everybody has been talking about emigration, and praising our education system, contending how well our young people can look after themselves and so on. These are people who have come through our education system in the past four to six years. Yet, that is the education system which is systematically being dismantled and destroyed by the Minister at primary, secondary and third levels. Of course she is subject to the Minister for Finance whose position she has defended. She has operated within the confines of her budgetary allocation from Finance. However, the fact is that that is what is happening, that the free education system is being eaten up and destroyed.

A two-tier education system is devolving just as is a two-tier health system. Indeed, we are gradually reaching the stage enunciated by the head of the National Institute of Higher Education in Limerick, Professor Walsh, who has appeared on television a lot recently. He said in 1987 that education is a commodity which should be available to those wishing to purchase it. Remember, that is the ethos of a public servant, paid by the taxpayer to run that college of education. Yet he makes that monstrous suggestion, that education is only for those who can afford it, a commodity available to those who can purchase it.

The Minister appears to have accepted that view because gradually that is the system of education that is developing. It had been my intention to draw attention to the sentiments expressed in the Programme for National Recovery with regard to education but the Minister beat me to it when she said, in the course of her remarks:

For allocation purposes the main criteria used by my Department were equity, efficiency and effectiveness and particular attention was given to encouraging greater participation by the disadvantaged in all levels of the education system.

I regard that as a false and hypocritical statement. Of course, it is an endeavour to say: we are implementing the Programme for National Recovery, which document contained three of four short paragraphs on education, paragraph 15 of which had this to say:

The Government recognise the importance of the educational system in the promotion of equity in society and will ensure, in implementing whatever adjustments are necessary in that sector because of financial considerations, that the burden of adjustment does not fall on the disadvantaged.

Paragraph 17 of the same document says:

The Government will continue to encourage and foster the participation of the disadvantaged at all levels of education. A particular area of focus will be to encourage more second-level pupils to complete the senior cycle. It is considered that this will be a key factor in encouraging more working class children to advance to third-level education.

Not one whit of that policy is being implemented; in fact, the very reverse has been the case, that the disadvantaged are becoming more disadvantaged in all levels of education beginning at primary level. Let nobody tell me that the change from 40 pupils per teacher to 39 pupils per teacher will make a significant difference. That was a major victory on the part of the Minister in her battle with the INTO and parents on that famous circular when she finished up gaining acceptance for a pupil-teacher ratio of 39:1 as against 40:1. That has seriously affected all pupils in education but particularly those in disadvantaged areas where more teacher time and attention is required per pupil than is the case in the posh, well-off areas. This means that the disadvantaged are more disadvantaged at primary level.

The Minister, in explaining why a Supplementary Estimate was required, had this to say:

Savings were not as high as anticipated from the introduction of a common second-level pupil/teacher ratio of 20:1, from redeployment and from early retirement/voluntary redundancy.

That very reference to that second-level pupil/teacher ratio of 20:1 made my blood boil because, obviously, the Minister accepted the Department's policy in this respect which had the effect of smashing down the VEC schools, the public sector second level schools, giving advantage to the private secondary schools system. The Minister and anybody remotely connected with the VEC system — and here I speak as a member of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee — know that the VEC system is, first, nonselective, accepts all pupils no matter how good or bad, whether they be disabled, mildly mentally handicapped or whatever; they accept them all. They see it as their job to give every child an education that every child is entitled to such. The other secondary schools are selective and decide whom they will or will not accept. It will be readily appreciated that, from the outset, the VEC schools need many more remedial teachers than do their ordinary second level counterparts. In addition, 85 per cent of pupils attending VEC schools are given practical training which may amount to 25 per cent only in the other second level schools. Again, everybody knows that in practical subjects, such as metalwork, woodwork and so on there must be a much lower pupil/teacher ratio than for other subjects; for safety reasons and others that are self-evident.

The whole policy of increasing the pupil-teacher ratio in VEC schools has hit the disadvantaged again, the very people the Minister and the Programme for National Recovery contend they are helping. They are the people who are supposed to be helped by the Programme for National Recovery, the people whom the Minister in her speech said they were carefully watching and helping. They are not helping them. The effects are so bad that the Minister said:

In addition, following discussions between the various parties a significant number of additional teaching posts were allocated in this sector in order to ameliorate the effects of the change in the basic pupil-teacher ratio in vocational...schools.

The outflow was so great that in certain places the Minister had to make further allocations. It should never have happened in any school. This was one of the causes of a further loss, leading to the Supplementary Estimate. Because I know what is happening in the city of Dublin in the Vocational Education Committees I really got riled when the Minister also said in her speech:

Savings of £5 million are now projected on the provision of £66.4 million for the running costs of VEC colleges.

The Estimate of £66 million had already been cut back and now the Minister has discovered that she can make savings of £5 million on that. One of the reasons the Minister can make a further cut on the VEC colleges in that fee income in the colleges will be greater than expected. Because of the cuts, fees were increased amid protests from Bolton Street, Kevin Street and many other colleges in the city of Dublin which are the third level colleges in which working class children have a hope of getting a third level education. Now when there is to be a higher than expected income from fees in the colleges, the Minister claws it back as a saving, rather than reducing the fees and ensuring that more working class children can get third level education.

Everybody is talking about the Patrick Clancy report "Who Goes to College". In that report he makes it very clear that the universities are the worst when it comes to the attendance of children from working class backgrounds. The best colleges for these children are the RTCs and the third level colleges in Dublin under the Institute of Technology. These are the colleges in which the Minister is cutting back and increasing the fees.

The report also makes the point that the presence of an RTC in an area increases the level of third level participation and it made a specific point about Carlow which is the only area of south Leinster which has an RTC and participation in third level education is at a much higher level than elsewhere.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has less than two minutes remaining.

Tomás Mac Giolla

In cutting back the capital allocation by 29 per cent the Minister has said that RTCs are out. RTCs were to be built in Dún Laoghaire, Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Thurles and Castlebar. They will not now be built. I know that the Minister said last night that she would toss these projects into this big stew they are sending over to Europe. The stew will contain roads, schools and next we will throw in a hospital and we will ask Europe to pay for them. As far as I am concerned that will not build an RTC. The Minister has abandoned the programme. Even the second level schools in Tallaght and in other areas are not being built because of this cutback in the capital allocation. I would ask the Minister to go to the Minister for Finance and at least seek an increase in the capital allocation in this budget.

Minister for Education (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I thank the Members of the House who contributed to the debate. Deputy Deenihan made a point about career guidance. The Fine Gael Government on leaving office left a provision disbanding the career guidance scheme and I had to correct that provision. The capital allocation at primary and post-primary level has been reduced but, as the Deputy knows, at primary level I have been engaged in a very cost effective building programme. The Deputy has been on deputations with groups who have gladly accepted that we are building proper bricks and mortar structures. If I get my next primary schools programme underway, in about two years the vast majority of prefabs will be gone from primary schools. That is what I am aiming for. The Deputy also referred to disadvantaged and remedial children. Under the programme, conditions have been maintained there. I know there is a need for more remedial services.

In relation to the school transport charges, as I said during Parliamentary Question Time yesterday there will be no increase in the school transport charges for the remainder of the 1988-1989 year. That is from January to June.

Mr. Deenihan

What about next September?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Since I came to office I have not increased school transport charges. In the term of the Coalition there were relentless twice yearly increases in those charges. Parents have enough to bear without that as well. The Deputy wanted to know how secondary schools got 25 teachers allocated under the Programme for National Recovery. That was agreed with the participation of the unions in the Programme for National Recovery. I am not reneging on anything. The two relevant unions participated in all of the talks and this was decided by common accord.

Mr. Deenihan

It was outside of the spirit of the motion passed in this House.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is another question. The Deputy and Deputy Mac Giolla also spoke about the need for RTCs and our commitment to apply to Europe for funds. What I said the other night is in the Official Report and the Labour Party have acknowledged it as being a very good step forward. Whether the money comes from Europe in a stewpot or in a box is irrelevant. With those funds I hope to be able to build a regional college in Tallaght. In my knowledge as chairperson of the board of management of an RTC for years I know of the good they do in a region not just in terms of disseminating education but in terms of the active network they build up in a region.

Tomás Mac Giolla

What about the other four colleges?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I have not addressed myself to those yet. Deputy Deenihan talked about fees. In Deputy Cooney's time as Minister the fees went up by 30 per cent. I am rather modest in comparison with that. I freely admit that where vacancies occurred in the adult education organisations they have not been filled. There is a need to look at that. The Deputy said that the allocations for the VECs were too late. That was because we did not receive until nearly the end of October the final request for allocations from the VECs who had actively looked for their students for the VPT courses. The Deputy says that at this point in the month of December teachers are being asked to move within the county committee system. As the Deputy knows, the county committee system allows for teachers going in in September to be redeployed from one part of their county committee scheme to any other. That is the tenureship on which they take up these jobs. I agree that it is not educationally sound that a teacher would be asked to move in the middle of the year. If the Deputy brings me any relevant cases, I shall look into them.

I know the Deputy's views on physical education and that they are held with sincerity. I am arranging for a copy of the speech of the Minister of State to be sent to him. It struck me that the Deputy had not seen it. I have been asked why we do not correct misinterpretations in the press. If I have learned anything in the last two years, it is that if one were to run to the newspapers every time there was a misinterpretation, one would not get much else done.

Mr. Deenihan

It was stated very clearly in the paper.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I make it a policy not to write letters to newspapers. It is the daftest thing that one could do.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister has a staff.

Mrs. O'Rourke

One gets an opportunity to correct the misinterpretation later and put the matter into order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Deputy Quill spoke on behalf of the Progressive Democrats and asked if we were getting good value for the vast amount of money we were putting into the education system. The vast amount of our budget goes on teachers — something like 90 per cent. We are getting good value from teachers.

Miss Quill

That was not the point of my question.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy asked if we were getting good value for the vast amount of money we were putting into education. I am sure the House will join with me when I say that we are getting good value from the teachers. Perhaps the Deputy was thinking about administration.

Miss Quill

I specifically asked if the consumers, pupils and parents, were all agreed they were getting good value.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am sure that the consumers, who are the parents and the pupils, feel that the teachers are doing a good job, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. I would stand over the quality of service they give. The Deputy called for a national debate on education which is a very constructive suggestion. How one would go about it is another matter.

Tomás Mac Giolla

An Education Bill would be a good start.

Miss Quill

Correct.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not know how one would organise it on such a vast scale, but I recall similar debates in other countries which led to seminal changes in policy-making.

Deputy Quill talked about the introduction of a psychological system in the primary schools. I am battling away at that. The Deputy has a very honest and sincerely held regard for under-achievers. I have often heard her speak about them. The Youthreach scheme, which the Deputy acknowledges to be a fair one, is only tacked on to what might then be the end of an inequitable system.

Miss Quill

Are we getting good value out of the system?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Out of Youthreach?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to make her contribution without interruption.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The VECs have oversubscribed to the take-up of the system. The Deputy has often spoken about the points system. We are looking into this at the moment with regard to easier access. Easier criteria of access could be looked at. At the same time, the interviewing of such huge numbers of people would be an immense job. The Deputy talks about the grind industry within education. That has been put to me. On the one hand, there is private enterprise which one would be loath to disturb. On the other hand, students would get a good education under the structured system. On teaching bodies and in-service courses I dwelt only briefly. I am putting in place in January a programme which will be much more intensive. There will be further announcements about that.

The Deputy spoke about job sharing. I said yesterday that I took that point and also the matter of panels of replacement teachers. The Deputy also spoke about parental involvement and this has become more structured and is very worth while.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, asked if qualified teachers who were not working would be regarded for entry into in-service courses both at primary and post-primary level. Where a school required a teacher and it was decided that that primary school should get a teacher, the Deputy said that these teachers were being appointed in a temporary capacity. That is a difficulty we are endeavouring to resolve. The difficulty was caused by the time lag in getting to the schools and checking every matter. We are looking into that now.

I remember very well the Benson report on Arts and Education.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Minister used to support its implementation.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I shall read the report again. I remember supporting it. On school transport, I gave an answer to Deputy Deenihan. Deputy Higgins spoke about fleet replacement, which CIE have carried out. They offered that replacement freely by letter and by negotiations. This was done out of their own capital programme.

Mr. M. Higgins

But they did not offer a reduction.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy is asking me where the fleet replacement came from and I am telling him. With regard to political and social studies being on the curriculum, Deputy Higgins marked it specifically for tomorrow's date. I have spoken to the Deputy on this matter. I intend to bring it to the attention of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and ask them to look again at the valuable work which was done during the interim board period on political and social studies.

Mr. M. Higgins

And perhaps nature studies as well.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes. The Deputy spoke strongly on the Education Bill. He said that the Minister for Education would find that when he or she would decide on this, matters would be different. We shall see about that as it progresses. The Clancy report to which we have all referred today entitled Who goes to College? is mandatory reading. It certainly coloured some of my thoughts.

I thank Deputy Mac Giolla and all the other participants in the debate for their contributions which were without personal rancour. Naturally, one must do one's job and that is the spirit in which the contributions were made in the House today. Deputy Mac Giolla spoke of the education system being dismantled — the Deputy's words. I do not accept that. With the moneys that are available the educational system is delivering a very good service. The Deputy talked about a two-tiered system of education and I do not accept that. The Programme for National Recovery made a very distinct contribution, arising out of a consensus in this House, towards ensuring that the particular areas of vocational preparation and training, or remedial, or disadvantaged education would be attended to. The RTCs and the VECs the Deputy spoke about from his own vast knowledge of that system, having served long years on the City of Dublin VEC. The role the RTCs can play within the community, as I said earlier in answer to another question, is vast. I hope that a response to what we have put forward to Europe will include reference to the RTCs. I will be following that up.

The Deputy also raised the question of capital provision for the financial allocation for 1989 and mentioned specific schools. That is a matter I hope to have examined and reviewed. I shall be back to the House with further comments in that regard.

Vote put and agreed to.