Private Members' Business. - Education Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (26th Dáil) – Wednesday, 6 Nov 1991

Private Members' Business. - Education Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. McCormack

I compliment our spokesperson on Education, Deputy Jim Higgins, on the amount of work and research he undertook in order to introduce this Bill. Its introduction affords us a great opportunity to debate this far-reaching subject of education here and its future. Members have responded enthusiastically by their presence and contributions. It is noticeable that opportunities to speak have been fully taken up with Members having to share their time in order to do so, in itself an indication of Members' desire to have a say on educational matters.

I was somewhat disappointed with the Minister's response on the evening on which the Bill was introduced. I was more disappointed and concerned at the manner in which she contributed rather than the content of her response. Perhaps she had many other things on her mind. She said she was very glad to have been in the House to talk about education. Yet she did not want to talk about this Bill. She said there was no need for this Bill, that the House should not worry; she would produce a Green Paper, later a White Paper and, later still, an Education Bill no matter how long it would take; those were her words. Since a Green Paper was promised by the summer of 1991, a White Paper by the end of this year and the Bill shortly afterwards, it is extraordinary that there has been a Fine Gael Bill introduced without having seen any Green Paper, White Paper or Government Bill. Why is the Minister so annoyed with Deputy Jim Higgins and the Fine Gael Party in our attempt to assist her by producing this Bill and opening a debate in the House on it? For example, why did the Minister not say that this Bill was a start and that we should all sit down together and henceforth work to produce a final document for the improvement of our educational system, which all contributors to this debate so far have acknowledged is in need of a certain amount of overhaul?

Two weeks ago at the commencement of this debate, at the end of her contribution, the Minister dismissed this Bill with a wave of her hand, predicting that it would be defeated on Second Stage, thus ending the debate. Would it not have been much better had the Bill been allowed its Second Reading, allowed to progress to Committee Stage when all requisite amendments could be introduced, when the Minister would have had her input? Two weeks ago the Minister was safe in the knowledge of the support of her party and the Progressive Democrats in being successful at having the Bill defeated on its Second Reading. In the light of events since I hope she is as confident of that outcome this evening.

It is obvious that the Minister will delay the introduction of her Bill as long as possible lest any of its proposed provisions would entail cost. Since the revised Programme for Government was reached by the two Coalition parties I observe that there have been instructions given to all Government Departments to cut out all unnecessary expenditure. That means that the capital programme for education will also get the chop.

I should like now to refer to a parliamentary question I tabled to the Minister for Education on 22 October 1991 asking her when work would commence on the building of the new school at St. Joseph's, Snipe Avenue, Galway. I had this extraordinary reply:

Tenders for the proposed new school for St. Joseph's, Snipe Avenue, Galway, have been received in my Department and are being examined. This examination will be completed at the earliest possible date when the question of the placing of the contract will arise for consideration in the context of the available capital. I am not in a position, at this stage, to say when building works will commence.

That is the same school promised in Galway by the Minister and her Minister of State — whom I welcome in the Chamber this evening — before the last general election. It was subsequently delayed somewhat and reannounced before the local elections, constituting the second bite of the cherry. In the meantime the 90 pupils in that school are being taught in leaking prefabricated buildings. I am asking the Minister and Minister of State to state clearly to the parents, teachers and children when work will commence on this school. I raise this matter because of my responsibility for children with mental and physical handicap and special educational facilities. In that regard I am glad Deputy Jim Higgins has seen fit to include section 17 (c) which deals with that aspect of education and says:

(c) the recognition and maintenance of schools for the mentally and physically handicapped and the training of specialist teachers for employment in such schools;

Thereby recognising that the Minister is responsible for the care of the mentally and physically handicapped and for special education. I believe there is a crisis in the service for people with mental handicap, in that school places are impossible to obtain, some schools having no such service, and where there are such services, they are enormously under-funded. The Department of Education should be responsible for funding and maintaining the mentally handicapped services and their special educational facilities. Such provision is included in this Bill. Equally it should form part of any Bill to be introduced by the Minister at a later date.

There is too much buck-passing at present between Government Departments. For example, when one contacts the Department of Education inquiring about services for mentally handicapped pupils in schools one is told that it is the responsibility of the relevant health board; when one contacts the health board one is told it is the responsibility of the Department of Health; when one contacts the Department of Health one is told it is the responsibility of the Department of Education and, when one contacts the Department of Education, one is told it is the responsibility of the Department of Health. There was a classic example of this buck-passing in my parish in Renmore. A special class for nine handicapped children was initiated in Scoil Catríona, Renmore, as a result of a special class in Merlin Park having been closed at the end of the last school term. Yet on the first day of that class no child-care assistant was provided as had been provided for those children previously in Merlin Park.

When I inquired of the health board I was told I should contact the Department of Health; when I contacted the Department of Health I was told to contact the Department of Education; when I contacted the Department of Education I was sent back to the Department of Health. Eventually I tabled a motion at Western Health Board level when I was told the health board had no legal responsibility in the manner, that it was a matter for the Department of Health.

Subsequently I tabled a parliamentary question when I was told, and the Minister of State was quoted in the local papers as saying, that this was a matter for the Department of Health. Let somebody be responsible for children's special classes. Eventually the problem was solved by the provision of a once-off £10,000 grant for one year from the national lottery. It should not be a matter for the national lottery whether children with special needs have child care assistants and the necessary back-up. Rather it is a matter which should be legislated for in an Education Bill. Equally it should be a matter for which one Department, the Department of Education, is responsible.

Where it is proposed to integrate children with special needs into an ordinary school it is essential that the necessary child care assistants and proper back-up service be provided. If not, children would be better catered for in special schools. Parents should be very wary of integration proposals in circumstances in which written agreements on child care assistants and back-up services are not provided. In any Education Bill the children with special needs should be provided for and the Department of Education only should be responsible for that. In addition, each area should be provided with a special school, each class having a qualified teacher and trained assistants with a ratio of 1:10, one teacher to every ten pupils. In the case of pupils with multiple handicap such as autistic/deaf with a mental handicap the ratio should be 1:5, one teacher to every 5 pupils, in that extremely structured supervision is essential in such cases.

An Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would now bring his contribution to a close.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. F. Fahey)

Would the Deputy tell us what is his policy on special education? I have been waiting to hear but it does not seem to exist.

Mr. McCormack

I would rather await the Minister's reply. Indeed it is the first time I have seen him in the House since the commencement of this debate.

I know the lack of services in our constituency is a sore point with the Minister of State and I will continue to highlight it, as is my duty. Unfortunately, I must accede to the Chair's request to conclude, although I should like to put on the record many more issues including the lack of services for the mentally handicapped. I should like to contribute on Committee Stage, if the Bill gets that far, and I hope the Minister and the Progressive Democrats will see the light by allowing the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Davern

I wish to share my time with Deputy Martin.

An Ceann Comhairle

Agreed.

Mr. Davern

I could take the unusual step of complimenting Deputy Higgins on bringing forward this Bill and on the time and effort involved in doing so, but at a time when the Minister has committed herself to the publication of a Green Paper this Bill seems to represent political stroke pulling. There must be criticism of this Fine Gael Bill. The TUI who are involved in the Vocational Education Committees have regretted that there was no consultation before the Bill's publication. The purpose of a Green Paper is to consult with all sectors. I am disappointed that Fine Gael did not consult those involved in the teaching profession, not that they are the sole authority.

While I respect the effort put into drafting the Bill, it does not recognise the tremendous improvements which have been made by the Minister for Education. I particularly compliment the Minister on the introduction of a child psychology service on a pilot basis in Clondalkin and south Tipperary. This has been widely welcomed by all child psychologists. The most important person in the educational system is the child and the need for child psychology services is growing. It is frightening that so many young children are disturbed. The pilot schemes will be monitored by the Department and by the psychology services. Twenty-eight thousand young people will be assessed. The Minister has also created 325 new teaching posts to reduce class sizes in primary schools this year.

Mr. McGrath

Is the Deputy looking for a job?

Mr. Davern

I am very pleased at what the Minister for Education has done for my constituency and for education in general. Unlike Deputy McGrath, I would not be ambitious or avaricious.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy should make sure he votes the right way.

Mr. Davern

In our party we announce the type of vote. The party opposite will not even announce what the vote was.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Davern

Deputy McCormack should watch the former mayor of Galway in his own party. In the past five years, in spite of limited funds, the Minister has achieved a great turnabout in education. I cannot understand why Fine Gael did not wait to make their input to the Green Paper. This Bill is scrappy and provides no real security for the child. I do not see any emphasis on the child except in regard to discipline. I hope when the Green Paper is published that all the vested interests, parents, teachers, the Department and others, will give priority to the child to be educated rather than to education itself.

Mr. Martin

This is a limited Bill which comes at a time in our education history when a momentous event is to take place, that is, the framing of an education Bill which will for the first time in the history of the State place education on a statutory basis.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy should be careful about the way he votes next week.

Mr. Martin

That, no doubt, will be an educative process also. The Green Paper will form the basis for initial debate before the framing of a Bill. In that context it is regrettable that this Bill is before the House. It does not contain any definite statement of aims and objectives. I respectfully suggest that one of the major flaws of our system to date has been that very lack of general statement of philosophy setting out what we want our system to achieve. That should be the first priority. One of the first things a lecturer endeavours to implant in the minds of H.Dip. students is the need for a comprehensive statement of aims and objectives underpinning our education system, which has evolved over a period. My view is that it is a very good and satisfactory system which has served the country well.

One further limitation is that the Bill seeks to contralise power to a greater extent in the Department of Education. The view of educational theorists is that we should be democratising education and devolving more powers to local communities and boards of management. The Bill lays down a series of regulations and administrative mechanisms which would continue the overbearing centralised involvement of the Department of Education in every-day school processes. That is one of the negative features of it.

The thrust of the forthcoming Green Paper will be towards the democratisation of our educational system and the devolution of more powers to local communities and schools. We can see the extraordinary results achieved by schools which have been given powers on an ad hoc basis. These powers can relate to matters such as curriculum development, the recruitment of teachers and the development of greater liaison between homes and schools and local industries and schools.

I wish to give two examples of schools to illustrate the dynamism which can be injected into the education system by the devolution of powers to local communities and schools. The first is Scoil Stiofáin Naofa in Cork city which is under the control of the vocational education committee. This school introduced tremendous radical curriculum changes in the VPT and VTOS schemes, without any prompting from the Department of Education. This initiative started within the school. In addition to recruiting teachers with BAs, H.Dips and B.Comms, they also recruited personnel from industry and the community who have a particular interest in certain subjects. They have developed courses under the VPT scheme in horticulture, stage craft and design, sound technology, modern dance and other subjects which were not catered for previously. Courses in modern dance and how to manage a band would have been anathema to the school system ten or 15 years ago. The curriculum in that school has been developed to a tremendous extent. That illustrates my point that if schools are given more power and greater freedom they will achieve extraordinary results.

The other school which has been to the forefront of curriculum development is the School of Commerce in Cork. They have developed courses in languages and tourism. Pupils at the school learn how to develop tourist products in Cork city in order to attract more visitors to the area. That places extra demands on the teachers who are recruited. Some of the teachers may not have the recognised teacher qualifications. These schools have demonstrated that the more power schools have the better the results for pupils and teachers. Curriculum development is not only of benefit to pupils; it is also of considerable benefit to teachers. It can rejuvinate teachers who feel burnt out or have become staid as a result of teaching the same curriculum for the past 25 years. The Bill proposes to give power to the Minister to introduce regulations and mechanisms which would unnecessarily centralise the system.

One appalling error made in the preparation of the Bill was the complete lack of consultation with teacher unions, parents, the teaching profession and other interested bodies. The Minister in her speech demonstrated at length the complete lack of consultation in the preparation of the Bill. It appears Fine Gael wanted to get a Bill on the agenda before the Green Paper was published. It should be stressed that consultation with the teacher unions and parents representative bodies is a prerequisite for change in the education system.

There has been great growth in recent years in the input of parents into the education system. I respectfully suggest that education will be the most potent item on the political agenda over the next ten years. More and more parents are becoming involved in the education process. Parental involvement at pre-school, primary and secondary levels has increased beyond recognition over the past number of years. We know this from the representations we receive from parents about what is happening in classrooms. Gone are the days when such matters were left to the principal or schoolmaster and nobody else. It is vitally important that parent representative bodies are consulted on the preparation of any education Bill.

The Bill proposes the establishment of a curriculum review board. There is no reference to the achievement of the Primary Curriculum Review Body or the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Those bodies achieved a great deal since they were established. It seems to be a terrible slight on them to think that they can be dismissed with the wave of a hand and a new curriculum review body established. Those bodies have done outstanding work and have been to the forefront in the preparation of the new junior certificate syllabus, which has been welcomed by all sides to the House and by most people involved in education.

Mr. J. Higgins

They are referred to in the Bill.

Mr. Martin

The Deputy calls it a curriculum review board.

Mr. J. Higgins

Did the Deputy read the Bill?

Mr. Martin

I read the Bill. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment have produced tremendous documents on, for example, languages. They also prepared the syllabus for the new junior certificate and are now preparing a new syllabus for the senior certificate. The Deputy should have given a strong vote of confidence in the Bill to those bodies and proposing to retain them.

Mr. J. Higgins

We have done that.

Mr. Martin

Not in the Bill.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy was busy dealing with other affairs in Cork.

Mr. Martin

Politics should become part of the educational process. It is an issue which has been poorly treated in the curriculum over the past 20-30 years.

Mr. Ryan

It is also been treated poorly by the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Martin

Obviously, the Fianna Fáil Party would dominate that subject.

The Green Paper will have to concentrate on three areas of the curriculum. The first is the area of communication skills. There should be greater linkage between the education system and industry. I am amazed that there has never been an oral English examination. One of the most fundamental skills we can give young people is the skill of communication. This is of benefit to young people in all walks of life. Communication is vital in the tourism industry, for example, for receptionists who answer telephone queries and tour guides. We have concentrated to much on the written language as opposed to the spoken language. An oral examination in English should be an integral part of the leaving certificate and junior certificate courses.

There is a need for greater liaison between schools and local industry. Industrialists and shopowners should be asked to outline to pupils the skills necessary to work in their places of employment. There has been a lack of linkage between schools and industry in this area. I accept that there is now greater liaison between vocational education committee colleges and industry and that there are representatives of industry on the boards of management of schools. However, this process needs to be accelerated so that there will be increased linkage between schools and industry. The facts show that those who come out of our educational system with qualifications actually gain secure employment and sustainable and skilled jobs, those who leave school early do not and have a very poor chance of securing long term sustainable skilled jobs. That is one of the great dilemmas facing us in our education system and facing the whole question of how we go about solving our unemployment problem. The development of education cannot be separated from resolving the unemployment problems. We will have a chance by means of the Green Paper and the new education Bill to move towards that end by targeting specifically in a comprehensive way two areas — the area of the early school leaver of 14 or 15 years who finds it difficult to get into labour market. We need targeted initiatives to increase the number of remedial teachers, or special integrated initiatives to examine and identify the problem areas. Where we have an excessive number of people leaving school at an early age we must endeavour to find out the reason and put matters right. That should become part of the new Green Paper and the new Education Bill. This is vital if we are to come to grips with the long term problems of our unemployment situation at present.

Another area which should come under focus and does not under this Bill is the whole question of extending the period of one's involvement in education. In a European context, and indeed in a world context, young people leave our schools much too early. People can complete their leaving certificate at 17 or 18 years of age. I suggest we extend the school period until students are 19 or 20 years of age. For example, the Confederation of Irish Industry proposed some time ago that the school leaving age be increased to at least 19 years of age. To an extent that is happening in an ad hoc way via the VTP process, but I think we should do it in a more programmed and determined way with the post-leaving certificate course which would enhance the skills of those students in a very specific and vocational way — in other words, that it would target them for particular employment areas. That is happening in certain vocational education committee colleges but it is not happening in a uniform way. It should become part of national policy.

First, there are too many people coming on to the labour market who do not have the necessary skills and who therefore are finding it very difficult to obtain employment. We have also a major problem in our system where a huge number of pupils are coming onto the labour market at the same time and that is creating shortages. We are exposing too many young people — I say this quite bluntly — to the experience of the dole queue far too early and it is a waste of resources. The resources would be far better ploughed in to extending the school system and, if necessary, paying to these students a sum equivalent to what they would receive on the dole. We may not be in a position to do that, but I reckon it would be far better for people to improve their skills rather than go through the experience of the dole queue in the first two years immediately following the leaving certificate. It is terrible for many young people that the first experience they have following their leaving certificate is to go on to the dole queue. It does not help the morale and it does not help their own self-esteem. That is an area that needs to be examined closely.

I turn to the extension of the lifespan of our school period. In Germany and in most other European countries they come out of school at a much later stage. We need to increase the number of third level places. The present Minister for Education has had an outstanding record in increasing third level places both in the RTCs and in the universities. I know that has happened in relation to UCC and in relation to Cork RTC where there has been an increase in third level places. From a demographic point of view the number of people in second level education will begin to fall in the next couple of years and onwards. It is clear therefore that the percentage of those leaving school who will want to go on to third level will increase. The bulge in five or ten years' time will be in the third level sector. It is important that we plan ahead for that expected bulge because more people want to get into education and more and more people want to get into adult education.

The success of the VTOS scheme has been an outstanding revelation. It illustrates the fact that people who left school at an early age are very anxious to return to education, to pursue formal education and to sit the leaving certificate and so on and go on to secure third level skills.

An Ceann Comhairle

I intervene to advise the Deputy that some five minutes now remain of the time available to him.

Mr. Martin

The whole question of the control of teachers, disciplining of teachers and so on is touched on in this Bill. We are dealing with a very difficult and sensitive area here. Before we go down the road to creating a framework which would have as its objective the control of teachers — almost giving the Minister and the Department the right to hire and fire teachers — we should consult with the teaching profession. Undoubtedly there must be some degree of public accountability in relation to how teachers perform. It is very difficult to establish a yardstick by which to measure performance in the educational system. This is not something that can be decided easily. There are a whole range of circumstances which can determine how a teacher performs in a particular classroom, in a particular school, or in a particular location.

It is extremely difficult to set down in an Education Bill a national uniform system. Is it to be done by exam results or by discipline? The issue of discipline is not a problem in certain areas in certain schools but, because of other circumstances it can be an enormous problem in other schools. Is it the teacher's fault or is it caused by the circumstances under which teachers work? Who determines which? These are points about which we will have to be very careful. Historically, there was a time when teachers were judged by exam performance. They were judged on the basis of how many As or Bs their students received: that was an appalling system and exacerbated the rat race that our points system has brought into this country. That is something we would not want to return to and I would be very anxious that we avoid that process.

The matter of disadvantaged teachers will come into focus in the Green Paper. I should like to say that our Minister for Education has taken very important measures to combat disadvantaged situations in our school system. Funding for the special assistance scheme for schools in disadvantaged areas has increased by 300 per cent since 1987; that is in the context of the severe budgetary constraints which were imposed upon the Government from 1987 onwards. Within the past three years 325 additional teachers have been authorised for primary schools in disadvantaged areas and for remedial education. A pilot school psychological service for primary schools has been included in the west Tallaght-Clondalkin area. I would urge the Minister to extend that scheme because it is needed in a number of areas throughout the country. In the present year 325 teaching posts were authorised in order to reduce class sizes in primary schools. At post primary level some 120 schools have each been provided with the services of an extra teacher to assist in the aspects of disadvantage within those schools, and to reduce the pupil teacher ratio in post primary schools a further 420 teaching posts were sanctioned this year. At present there are some 1,000 teachers approved for post primary schools outside the normal quota provisions to meet particular curricular remedial and other needs.

To sum up; a Cheann Comhairle, it is widely acknowledged through editorials, through all commentators on the educational system, that the Minister for Education has made magnificent strides in the development of our educational system: at primary level by eradicating many of the deficient school buildings; at second level by extending the cycle to six years, and at third level by bringing the four honours rule back to two honours for grant purposes and also by extending third level places. Above all, it should be remembered that in the context of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress the educational achievements this year were based on negotiations with the social partners — in other words, our education policy formed part of the Government's overall coherent programme in relation to both the economy and to the vital areas of health and education. This Government have taken a philosophical stand in that we are committed to Irish education and committed to the development of the system. We recognise that the development of our economy and the growth of employment is inextricably bound up with the development of our education system. They cannot be separated and we cannot proceed without dealing with both.

Mr. Ryan

With the permission of the Chair, I would like to share my time with Deputies Hogan and McGrath.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Ryan

The Programme for Economic and Social Progress clearly indicated that a Green Paper on Education would be issued in the summer of 1991, that it would afford an opportunity to all parties to offer their views on this issue and that following consideration of the various views a White Paper would be issued in 1992. We still have not got the Green Paper. That we are discussing this Bill here tonight is an indictment of the Government for not adhering to their commitment and timescale in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. It indicates a lack of commitment to a Green Paper. The delay on the part of Government has afforded Fine Gael an opportunity to introduce this Bill. While complimenting Deputy Higgins on the Bill, despite the lack of resources generally, it would be more appropriate to have a broad discussion on all aspects of education before an education Bill is passed. Following the 1988 Bill in Great Britain, on which there was no consultation, there were disastrous effects.

In the context of discussing this Bill and in the context of the forthcoming Green Paper we must recognise that Irish primary school class sizes are the largest in Europe. The majority of children are in classes of 30 plus and in many cases the classes contain from 36 to 38 children. In many cases teachers are involved in crowd control rather than in teaching children and weaker children who need individual attention are not being adequately catered for. It is a disgrace. Many schools are without the service of a remedial teacher. Many of our European neighbours have reduced class sizes to a fraction of what we have. In some of our schools class sizes are greater than those in Third World countries. In the context of 1993, is this the way to plan for our children?

Section 5 of the Bill refers to social deprivation among the pupils or potential pupils of the schools. Children from disadvantaged circumstances benefit less from primary education than do the children of better off families and the disadvantage is compounded rather than alleviated by the years in primary school. Because of the nature of home life many disadvantaged children are unable to avail of the opportunities provided by education. They are lacking in their ability to cope with life, they do not have jobs, they lack self-awareness, confidence and so on. Many leave the system with poorly developed literacy and oral skills. They suffer from bad diet and a negative attitude to school and education generally. This attitude is fostered in many of these areas by poorly paid work when available and by unemployment. In contrast children from comfortable backgrounds are encouraged at home and they can see the link between educational progress and financial reward. Extra tuition is made available and is paid for in homes where there is a positive attitude to school so as to ensure success and a place in university. Children from such a background make the most of the educational system.

What can we do about this deplorable situation? A programme of positive discrimination is called for. We should have lower pupil/teacher ratios in disadvantaged areas and home/school liaison personnel should be employed. I acknowledge that schools in disadvantaged areas were provided with £1 million extra last year. This does not deal with the situation. In the context of this Bill and the Green Paper we must deal with the problem once and for all.

Education is constantly growing and developing. New ideas and methods are being explored and defined. Technology has changed communications. Computers and language laboratories are accepted as part of the furniture in any modern school or university; yet there are teachers who have been working in schools for perhaps 20 or 30 years who have not had a chance to avail of in-service training to bring themselves up to date with modern trends and developments. Most in-service courses have been organised and indeed paid for by teachers and they have been pursued during spare time or during holidays.

Even the smallest of industrial enterprises set aside part of their budgets to train and retrain their workers. Many of the larger companies use either cash or promotion incentives to encourage the workforce towards self-advancement and development. Major banks and large companies contribute towards the further education of their workers; yet teachers are expected to meet the changing times, cope with new demands and work with a changing curriculum without the benefits of a properly structured and financed in-service training scheme. It is not that the facilities do not exist. Many of the training colleges are working at half steam. They have the personnel and the expertise to organise courses. The facilities should be used to bring teachers up to date. Any profession that does not develop in a properly planned way becomes static.

I will refer to the aspect of the Bill dealing with the utilisation of school buildings for community or other purposes during non school hours. Community workers and community organisations right across the country have a major problem in getting facilities while schools are lying empty. When one considers the cost of putting the infrastructure in place, with many buildings costing up to £1 million, these under-utilised buildings should be used. Why should these buildings lie idle while many youth and community organisations are crying out for facilities? The youth service is an extension of education, and in this regard I compliment the youth services throughout the country. There are perhaps 40,000 voluntary youth workers providing an extension of education for the people who need it. In many cases they are not getting the back-up for finance required. They are prepared to give their time and in many cases the only thing they need is a meeting room. The Minister should come up with policy guidelines to be implemented right across the board to facilitate these organisations. To that end the Government as a matter of urgency should address their minds to the cost of public liability insurance for voluntary youth and community organisations. The boards of management of some schools have facilitated these organisations but there are many boards of management who are not prepared to facilitate community groups. They need encouragement and incentive from the Government to provide those facilities.

On the provision of new schools throughout the country, there is some shortfall in the Department. One section of the Department of Education do not know what another are doing. The figures do not add up. Communities are demanding new schools. There is over-crowding. Children are being educated in prefabricated classrooms. Then, after six or seven years when a school comes on stream it is full up. There must be closer liaison between the various sections of the Department to ensure that we have proper planning and development in our areas.

The question of enrolment in our schools is addressed in the Bill. Most of our schools are grant-aided for the buildings and the teachers. It is an utter scandal that certain private schools here are creaming off the best of the talent in various communities. If they are availing of grants and assistance they should realise that they are part of a wider community. I am talking of areas where there are different types of schools, such as vocational schools, community colleges, private schools, convent schools, etc. Many of those realise the role they must play in the community. Unfortunately there are some people in schools out there who think they have the divine right to go out and cream off the best at the expense of some of the other schools. That is not the way to do things. I have been made aware of schools that have encouraged prospective pupils to go to other schools because they said, their school was not the school for them. The Department will have to have a more positive outlook in relation to this.

Another aspect of the education system is the lack of teachers to fill in when teachers are absent. I would like to congratulate the Irish Press on highlighting the anomaly that exists at the moment. I fully support the concept of paying properly trained teachers to cover the absence of other teachers through sickness, marriage, Department approved courses, etc. This is needed because the current situation is totally unacceptable where there could be over 40 pupils in one classroom. A panel should be organised on an area basis that could be contacted by principals needing a teacher for a day, a week or whatever. Any day there was no call for teachers on the panel they could be made available in disadvantaged areas or they could do remedial work in other schools in the area. In my own area of north county Dublin there are many schools that have not yet got remedial teachers and these could be facilitated through this mechanism of setting up a panel. This proposal warrants consideration by the Government.

Fine Gael are to be complimented on this Bill. However, we feel the proper way to deal with this is to have a Green Paper discussed by everyone involved in education, and that means everyone in this country and then, at the end of the day, we will have a new Bill that will do justice to our children and our children to come.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wyse)

Deputies McGrath and Phil Hogan wish to share their time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Hogan

I support this major legislative initiative presented by my colleague, Deputy Jim Higgins. It is most peculiar that we have the most important work of all being carried out in this country by dedicated teachers and parents, namely the education of our children, without any worthwhile legislative base. In other words, there is little accountability for the education of our young people to the Oireachtas.

One of the most reforming Ministers for Education was Mrs. Gemma Hussey who sought to put greater emphasis on providing a curriculum that allowed for the full development of the individual through all facets of life. She established a Curriculum Examinations Board and because of Fianna Fáil's petulance and pettiness this work was abandoned and replaced somewhat later by something similar. This political stop-go planning approach is not in the best interests of our young people.

In recent times we have learned of proposals in relation to the implementation of the junior certificate and the primary education review without any debate in Dáil Éireann. This lack of statutory framework is unacceptable.

We have always been led to believe that Irish educational standards are high. This has been a great source of pride to our country and indeed has given the opportunity for many of our emigrants to gain access to valuable employment because of their particularly high educational standards.

Section 4 of the Bill ensures that we have ongoing evaluation and monitoring of our educational system. It clearly sets out the functions of the Minister for Education. Part 4 and Part 5 of this section speak about comparative information and the degree of achievement realised in our schools. It is important that this comparative information in relation to different schools is broad ranging to include all subjects, the background of pupils, the resources of the school, etc. Otherwise it could be misinterpreted and the comparative information could lead to the labelling of schools as "good" or "bad" schools.

It is essential that the primary school system evaluates pupil performance particularly relating to literacy. I regret that there are still pupils learning the educational system who are not capable of basic literacy.

Section 5 deals with co-operation between primary and post-primary schools and it sets down minimum standards to be attained in each school.

Many of the teachers in the "special" area have to travel from one school to another at the moment. Indeed, many of the specialist teachers who teach dancing, drama and music work outside school hours, which is not acceptable. It is essential that all children are able to avail of specialist subjects within school hours.

I am amazed that there is not a comprehensive scheme of in-service training courses for teachers. In view of the great psychological and physical pressures on teachers to meet the curriculum demands at the moment it is important that an opportunity be given for re-training. Presently, in-service courses are totally underfunded and inadequate and not convenient for all teachers.

I have never witnessed as much pressure and tension on teachers as there is today because of the lack of guidelines in relation to codes of conduct for pupils. It is time that the Minister got off the fence in relation to this matter and gave teachers a chance to teach pupils properly without harassment in some cases from pupils and more often from parents. In fact, the situation is so serious today that a compulsory career break of one year in every ten years should be given to primary teachers.

I wish to support the establishment of a school psychological service in view of the many social problems in society. It is important that we continue to cater for the socially disadvantaged in each community through our education system.

In relation to section 6 I think that the teaching staff of each school should draw up a school plan taking submissions from the parents' association into account which should then be put before the board of management for discussion and approval.

Section 10 deals with the qualification of staff. In my opinion there are adequate mechanisms for teacher qualifications in the system already — but they could be improved. We should establish under subsection (3) what constitutes an acceptable standard of performance or teacher efficiency. Before termination of employment could take place teachers' mental and physical health should be taken into account. Therefore, leave of absence accompanied by mandatory health care should be offered to the teacher in question for a period of one year. A detailed procedure for terminating a teacher's employment should be worked out between the Department of Education and the teachers' unions and laid down in an Act. This should also apply in reverting a principal to a non-principal post.

Under section 10 (2) I believe that all activities of the parents' association should have prior approval of the board of management similar to school staff.

Another matter that needs elaboration is the cost and procedure of building, maintaining and equipping a school. The present procedure is ridiculous and not cost effective. As public representatives, we are aware of the long delays in building schools which often means some empty classrooms two or three years later because of a drop in the population. This is a scandalous waste of taxpayers resources and it should not be allowed to happen. In my own constituency. Mooncoin vocational school, Johnstown vocational school, Ballyhale vocational school, St. Johns infant primary school and Clogh primary school have needed essential facilities for many years and have been the subject of planning reviews for far too long. They urgently need new buildings.

The Government can be accused in the most factual terms of having no plan for education and being very scant on planning every aspect of every activity in education. Inspectors are locked out and have no resources to inspect. That is totally unacceptable.

An area that is largely forgotten in our education system is adult education. We are living in an era when very few people will retain the one job during their lifetime. It is essential that the education system is able to respond to the retraining of these people and that planning and development for this upsurge in educational activity is given priority. This is a practical way in which our education system can adapt to the world of work.

Finally, I wish to commend, once again, Deputy Higgins for introducing this Bill. In so doing he is proving once again that Fine Gael are committed to reform in all aspects of social and economic life to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and that actions speak louder than words.

Mr. McGrath

I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me and hope in the short time available to me to address a number of issues in relation to this Bill. First, I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Jim Higgins, for bringing this Bill forward and for the time, effort and research he has put into it. This proves, once again, that Fine Gael can produce worthwhile and far-seeing Bills which should be taken seriously in this House.

I was very disappointed the Minister for Education could not accept the thrust of the Bill despite indications that many aspects would be included in her own Green Paper. This of course is the Green Paper which has been promised since 1987 and which has been put forward on many occasions as the answer to everything. I am afraid the patience of the pupils, teachers and parents is wearing thin at this time.

Having listened to the debate during the past few days I note that many of the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken seemed to be more concerned with praising the Minister for Education than addressing the issues dealt with in the Bill. I wonder if they are looking to the future and how many of them are trying to slot themselves into suitable positions in case there is a change of leadership. It would have been far better if they had spent their time addressing the real issues in education.

I would like to respond briefly to a number of the points made by two Deputies who spoke tonight. Deputy Noel Davern spoke about the schools psychological service. I welcome the fact that two pilot studies are being carried out in two parts of the country. However it is important that the role of the schools psychological service should not be as he indicated, to find "disturbed children" but to help those pupils who have been identified by teachers and parents as weak to achieve their full potential.

Deputy Martin made a worthwhile contribution and I would agree with many of the points he made but it was rather ironic that he spoke about the importance of parental involvement and the need to have parents on school boards as only a few short months ago a Bill which had been brought forward by Fine Gael and which would have made it mandatory to reserve places for parents on vocational education committees was voted down by him and his party. He is being cynical in talking about that matter today.

Section 2 of the Bill states that the Minister shall provide primary and post primary education to all persons of school age who enrol at primary and post-primary schools. That section is extremely important to me at present. An excellent primary school in my constituency with enough pupils for an extra teacher were told when they applied to the Department of Education for an extra teacher that because some of the pupils were in what they called a repeat sixth or seventh class they were not validly enrolled and as such did not count or did not exist. I note that it was somebody in the finance section of the Department of Education who decided that. Those pupils were assessed on financial considerations and no consideration was given to the fact that the parents, the teachers and the principal had decided for educational reasons that these pupils would be far better off spending an extra year in primary school before going on to secondary school. It is most disappointing that the Minister stands over this situation, particularly when it is in her own constituency.

That constituency is not unique as I believe this is a problem facing a number of schools across the country. I hope it will be addressed very quickly. Surely parents have the right to decide what schools their children should go to and how long they should spend there. That should be a prerequisite in introducing rules in relation to education.

The second aspect I would like to address is the question of in-service training for teachers. In the primary sector many teachers qualify at the age of 20 or 21 and could spend the next 40 to 42 years teaching two or three different classes in the same classroom. Those teachers do not get the opportunity to update their skills, to become aware of new trends in education or new developments and to help themselves to do the job better. There is a crying need for a comprehensive in-service training scheme for our primary teachers.

The Department will no doubt tell us that they run a number of courses around the country and that these are not fully utilised but I should point out to the House that most of those courses are conducted in July after the teachers have completed the school year. They spend from September to July looking after their pupils and by the time July comes they are drained. They are then asked by the Department if they want to go on a course but if they do they have to go in their own time and at their own expense. To be fair to the teachers, many of them do go and spend a few very worthwhile weeks there. Six to eight weeks then remain of their holidays but, low and behold, when September comes they probably have forgotten everything they have learned and what the purpose of the course was. I propose to the Department that each teacher be given the opportunity to go on an in-service training course every five years which should take place at the beginning of September and, if necessary, the school should be closed. The service we give to our children must be improved and if this means closing the school to give the teachers that opportunity, so be it.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. F. Fahey)

I would like to compliment Deputy Higgins for the work he has put into the preparation of the Bill. It is nice to see the Fine Gael Party accord a high priority to education in introducing this debate. However I feel they could have used this time in a much more effective and efficient way because it is clear the Bill was drafted in a hurry and without consultation with teacher organisations and other interested parties. It is clear that the Bill is going in all directions, it does not have a focus or philosophy and lacks vision. It is unfortunate that the amount of work the Deputy has put into it has been largely a waste of time because there is not much more in the Bill apart from statements such as: "The Minister will make regulations ... build new schools, provide transport", do this, that and the other. It is unfortunate that it does not deal with a number of specific areas regarding which it would have been very useful to have some interesting new policy initiatives.

I see my good friend Deputy Deenihan here. It would have been an ideal opportunity for Fine Gael to introduce some of the things about which he has been talking, including the need for physical education, in schools.

Mr. J. Higgins

That is coming.

Mr. F. Fahey

This is the place to mention it. The Bill lacks cohesion with Fine Gael policy because, very recently, the Leader of the party indicated that the cornerstone of their policy in Government will be the control of public expenditure. Politicians must be very careful not to make promises to the public. This is a whole series of promises to introduce this, that and the other——

Mr. McGrath

What about the sports centres which the Minister promised?

Mr. F. Fahey

The promises made by Fine Gael would cost millions although they said a few weeks ago that they would control expenditure. It is important that their credibility is not shaken——

Mr. Deenihan

The Minister should deal with his own credibility.

Mr. F. Fahey

In areas such as the provision of school transport it was an ideal opportunity for the party to have given us innovative ideas in relation to it. However, merely to talk about the provision of school transport is hardly an adequate response to a need to improve the system.

It is disappointing that in section 17 there is no mention of special education. Earlier, Deputy McCormack, the new spokesman on special education for the handicapped, should have realised it was an ideal opportunity for him to give us an idea of his policy on special education. Alas, he took the opportunity to prove that he is a good parish pump politician by referring in most of his speech to issues in west Galway. He should have referred to his policy for the development of special education at national level.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

We are waiting to hear the Minister's policy in this regard.

Mr. F. Fahey

Perhaps in his summing up, Deputy Higgins might take the opportunity to outline his thoughts on the very important area of special education for the handicapped.

Mr. J. Higgins

I did that in my opening address.

Mr. F. Fahey

Does the Deputy, for instance, agree with the policy of integration of children with physical and mental handicaps where they can be assimilated in the normal primary school provided there are adequate resources? What is his feeling about the existence of special schools? What is his feeling about the need for a change for children with severe physical handicap to be taken out of health establishments in which they are at present and sent to normal schools? This would have been an ideal opportunity for Fine Gael to declare their support of the new integration policy for children with handicaps to be treated normally as far as possible. I hope the Deputy will now spell out his support for these initiatives which are taking place on a pilot basis for the first time. They are very expensive but they are a novel part of the present education development programme.

The Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, made much progress in education over the last number of years. The debate on education is welcome but the time could have been more usefully spent by Deputy Higgins in perhaps outlining the way in which our education system challenges the present set-up and looks forward to the future. The proposals he puts forward should have a vision and philosophy, make education look forward and respond to the demands of our young people. Unfortunately, he did not do so, he merely outlined a list of promises. I recommend to the House that we should vote against the Bill.

Mr. J. Higgins

I want to thank everybody who participated in this debate. I am happy that the Bill has afforded Members from all sides of the House an opportunity to voice their opinions on the various issues current in first and second level education and the challenges facing them in the future.

Although I explained quite clearly when bringing the Bill before the House that it was largely a developmental Bill, the majority of Members on the Government side of the House chose to ignore it. Indeed, they made it quite obvious that they had not even read the Bill by talking in many cases about third level education and third level grants, a very meritorious concept but one not envisaged in this Bill. It is flattering that 15 Members participated in the debate, again showing the high interest area that education is.

In outlining the Bill during my introduction I emphasised that what Fine Gael are doing in this measure is putting in place a legislative framework to end once and for all the ad hoc system that has been the unique feature of first and second level education, to pull together all the directives and myriad circular letters that have issued from the Minister's office, to legislate for all the happenings, great and small, that have occurred over the years and to do it by way of a single Bill for first and second level education which will have a legislative scaffolding which will facilitate change for the future. I believe that this Bill does this.

Again I want to thank Deputy John Bruton for identifying in 1989 the fundamental weakness in our first and second level education framework of having no legislative base. His announcement in 1989 that Fine Gael would publish an education Bill gave rise to the debate on the need for such a Bill. The initial reaction of the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, was typical of her closed, closeted reflex action to any move coming from any quarters other than her own. She responded first by scorning the idea — there was no need for an education Bill, she said. Having discovered that the idea was popular, that the public were interested and that a great public debate was about to take place she then discovered that she, as Minister for Education, was about to be left behind and relegated to the role of a dumb spectator on the educational sidelines. The Minister, therefore, did a complete U-turn and announced that she would publish an education Bill but not before the convoluted process of first publishing a Green Paper — a discussion document — then a White Paper with the Government's proposals and, finally, an education Bill. The Green Paper was to be published in May of this year — it did not appear. It was to come in September — it still did not arrive. It was to emerge in October, October has come and gone and we are now told, courtesy of the Mark 2 cobbled arrangement between the Coalition partners that we will see it sometime before the end of this year. Three deadlines have already been broken and we are only talking at this stage about a Green Paper, a discussion document. This from a Minister who has been in office for four and a half years with many civil servants and back-up at her disposal. I do not have any doubt but that the Green Paper will eventually arrive, it will be a discussion document into which all the various interested parties will have an input. I hope it will be thought-provoking but we can certainly rest assured that it will be accompanied by the usual fanfare.

I am sure that there will be lots of discussion as a result, lots of questions asked, lots of PR but no answers given, the idea being to stoke the educational embers, get the debate running and their leaving some other Minister perhaps the hapless Minister Flynn, to pick up the political baby. I do not have any doubt that whatever about seeing a White Paper which will be the Government's clear ideas on where education is going we certainly will never see under any Fianna Fáil Minister or Government an education Bill. I make that as a firm prediction because I believe that the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, never intended to introduce an education Bill. Her sole interest is a high profile allin general free-for-all discussion paper by way of a Green Paper. This Minister, indeed any Fianna Fáil Minister for Education, would run a mile at the prospect of putting firm legislative proposals before this House. I will be the first to recant if I am proven wrong in my predictions.

When the Minister for Education was eventually converted to the idea of a Green Paper, White Paper and an education Bill, she launched the process of a press conference with a universal invitation to everybody involved in education, teachers, teachers' unions, parents, parents' associations, and so on to make their input. She wanted a frank, open and honest debate where people would feel uninhibited, where there would be freedom of expression, dialogue and ideas of every shape, sort and description would be advanced and encouraged.

Yet in the debate three weeks ago on this Bill I heard an ingracious, dog-in-the manger attitude advanced by the Minister. It was quite clear, and it is a constantly recurring theme in every Fianna Fáil contribution on the Bill — nobody from the Progressive Democrats contributed — that the Minister essentially is peeved at the fact that Fine Gael have taken two quantum leaps forward and produced not a Green Paper, not a White Paper but a Bill that can be stood over.

The Minister described the Bill as "arid, bureaucratic and arrogant". What an apt description of the Minister's own performance. She faults the Bill on the basis that it was drafted without consultation. I can tell the Minister, the Minister of State and every altar boy from the Fianna Fáil side who regurgitated the same theme, that there was quite an amount of consultation, not at official level with the unions or the parents' associations but at semi-official level with individuals in each sphere of education, primary, vocational, secondary, community and comprehensive as well as with parents. I have gauged the temperature correctly.

These remarks from a Minister who has spent most of her time consulting and producing reports, reviews, studies and pilot projects, are very ill-founded and ungracious. The Minister selectively quoted the Teachers' Union of Ireland, that they regretted "that no consultations were held with teachers' unions before the publication". What the Minister failed to allude to however was the very positive remarks by the president of the Teachers' Union of Ireland, Mr. Billy Fitzpatrick, on certain aspects of the Bill. Furthermore, not one of the other teacher unions came out against the Bill or criticised it. I can assure the Minister, and the Minister of State, that there is general agreement that the Bill has many positive features that they would like to see enshrined in an education Bill, if this Minister ever gets around to publishing one.

The Minister went on to state that the Bill contained no philosophy of education. It is obvious that the Minister's track record in relation to legislation has been very sparse. One does not state in bald terms in a Bill what one's philosophy is. One produces a Bill which has a set of measures, the philosophy of which is quite obvious from the content, thrust and direction of the Bill. That is what we have done in this Bill.

The Minister, of course, loves philosophy, vague talk, nebulous aspirations, every kind of verbal conundrum, so that the observer or interested party looking from the outside can selectively take about a half dozen interpretations from anything she says. Again, I am saying that Deputy O'Rourke's education Bill will never see the light of day. I get the impression that the Minister did not read the Bill because, apart from her cursory dismissal of it in her speech, she spent most of her time vaunting her track record in education over the past four-and-a-half years.

The Minister, presides over the largest primary school class units in Europe — 600-plus classes have more than 40 pupils, the vast bulk of them in this city, 11,000 primary school classes have more than 30 pupils; two-thirds of the primary schools have no access to remedial teachers even though between 10 per cent and 12 per cent of the pupils in all schools need remedial teaching. There is a hopeless lack of career counselling in any of the smaller schools; there is no school psychological service apart from two small pilot projects, alluded to by Deputy Davern, one in Tipperary South and one in Clondalkin.

The whole concept of free education has literally gone out the window, with parents having to dig deep into their pockets to fund materials for arts and crafts apart altogether from the basics such as toilet paper, soap and other requisites. Yet the Minister not alone poured her bottle of biliousness over the Bill but she actually instructed her compliant train-bearers and acolytes, Deputies, Kitt, Wallace, O'Donoghue and Michael Ahern to come in with the one recurring theme that Fine Gael were queue-jumping, were being opportunistic and were cutting across the Minister's forthcoming Green Paper.

I wish to thank Deputy Browne of Wexford, and Deputy Martin the only Government Deputies who showed any spark of independent thought. However, I question Deputy Browne's analysis that it is top-down Bill. In fact, it is the very opposite. It is a bottom-up approach, starting with boards of management, having local structures known as local education co-operation councils and at the same time retaining the 1930 vocational education scheme which is the very essence of democracy.

I agree wholeheartedly with him in the need to target resources for the mentally handicapped. Indeed section 5 (2) (j) provides for additional resources. It can be described as a very fulsome Bill in relation to special cases — I am talking about the handicapped, both mentally and physically, the emotionally disturbed, the disabled and travellers. As I said when introducing the Bill, equality of education provision is not equality of educational opportunity. It is clear that where there is social and educational deprivation, poor and impoverished people who cannot benefit from the average education system, we must discriminate positively in favour of such groups if we are to fulfil the requirement of treating all children equally.

Deputy Kitt said I plucked ideas from the Minister and from her Bill which will be published shortly. The Deputy could not be further from the truth. First, we do not know what the Minister's ideas are other than a few selected kite-flying leaps. Deputy Kitt went on to state — this again was a recurring theme from the other side of the House — that the curriculum review board I proposed was a slight on the NCCA. It is not a slight but a compliment. I am proposing to enshrine it in this Bill while at the same time giving greater parental involvement and adding the very valuable input of FÁS.

I wish to thank Deputy Brian O'Shea for his positive comments, although the Deputy spend most of his time addressing third level issues which are not appropriate to the Bill. I wish to say a word of thanks to Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla for his very fulsome and generous comments on the Bill. As Deputy Mac Giolla said, it puts in place solid legislative structures. Deputy Mac Giolla also expressed the hope that as the Minister had welshed on the Green Paper, at least this would provide a spur and a stimulus to her to come off the fence. Of course, that will be the case. The Minister would do much better in the general education debate if she showed a little more generosity, graciousness and openness in her contribution.

In the Bill we have something on paper which will prove very valuable to the education debate. Deputy Mac Giolla rightly questioned the Minister's remarks about the disadvantaged. He asked, whose fault is it that they are disadvantaged? Who has presided over educational disadvantage, over spiralling unemployment and the loss of jobs on an accelerated basis? Deputy Mac Giolla described the Minister as the worst Minister for Education in the history of the State but an excellent public performer. Deputy Mac Giolla sought clarification in relation to the Vocational Education Committee Act and I assure him that the Bill does not trammel or trespass on it because as I have said before it accommodates on a parallel line the 1930 Act.

In his very fine contribution, my colleague, Deputy Deenihan, again pointed out that all of the actions of the Minister for Education up to now have been ultra vires. Every single circular letter and directive she has issued has absolutely no legislative basis whatever. What I am doing in this Bill is putting in place once and for all a legislative scaffolding which enshrines everything that has happened so far and takes the education system up to the present day, yet is flexible enough to allow for much needed changes in the future.

This is a fine comprehensive Bill and I believe the Minister will regret the derisory fashion in which she treated it three weeks ago. This Bill introduces accountability and provides that an annual report be sent to the Dáil. If we had such an annual report we would never have had the Carysfort scandal.

The Bill provides for a greater role for parents as the true and first educators; positive discrimination for the disadvantaged; retraining of teachers; regular curriculum review; the rotation of school principalships; codes of conduct and a strengthened role for the inspectorate; comparison with other EC countries and, last but not least, school-based assessment.

Fine Gael have always been a policydriven party. It is a party with a dream and an ideal of where this country should be going. This Education Bill enshrines this in terms of our view of education for the future.