Deputy Moyni-han-Cronin was in possession. I understand Deputy O'Sullivan intends to take the time remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Educational Disadvantage: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Richard Bruton on Tuesday, 17 November 1998:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to introduce a properly resourced strategy to tackle educational disadvantage and learning difficulties, which are a source of inequality at all levels of our education — pre-school, primary, secondary, third level, and further education — and which, despite their devastating impact on many young lives, are only addressed by a series of under resourced andad hoc measures with very limited impact, and condemns the Minister for Education and Science for not honouring commitments to the electorate in this respect.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann notes that the 1999 Abridged Estimates show spending on first, second and third level education rising by 20 per cent, 19 per cent and 19 per cent respectively versus the 1997 allocation and that this figure includes the largest ever direct funding increase for primary schools, believes that this significant investment in education is of crucial economic and social importance to the country and supports efforts to target resources at those who experience educational disadvantage.
—(Minister for Education and Science).
It is seldom that a contribution in this House leaves me with a sense of anger.
Politics is about debate and disagreement. It is part of the package and we are all accustomed to it. However, the contribution made yesterday evening by the Minister for Education and Science was distasteful. I appreciate he is a man in a hurry and that he has ambitions to lead his party, but if he is to succeed I suggest the unbridled arrogance he displayed in his contribution to this debate last night will not serve him well.
The Minister referred to my party's record in education over the past five years. His contribution was littered with half truths about our record and no detail about his achievements. He seems to believe he has brought about a revolution in his own time. In his former life the Minister was a teacher. I do not know whether he taught history——
I did.
——but his contribution last night gave no indication of that. It was devoid of historical context.
The record of my party colleague, Niamh Bhreathnach, in Government between 1992 and 1997 is a proud one. If this Minister has been able to make any progress in the past year and a half it is built on what Niamh Bhreathnach achieved. There is a practice among most Members of the House to acknowledge the contribution of their predecessors, but this Minister has chosen to ignore that.
I do not intend to be churlish. I acknowledge the £4 million the Minister announced for children with special needs. That is a good develop-ment which builds on progress made by the Minister Niamh Bhreathnach during her time in office.
Labour in Government put in place a national education convention, the first in the history of the sector. That convention, which ultimately led to a White Paper, brought together everybody with an interest in education, with parents and teachers receiving long overdue recognition. That convention, and the model on which it was based, has formed the basis for the development of education into the next century.
When Niamh Bhreathnach took office, the pupil-teacher ratio was almost 26:1. She left it at 22:1. Primary level capitation, which the last Fianna Fáil-PD Government had frozen for three years, increased from £28 to £45. The second level capitation also suffered the wrath of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and was frozen for three years.
The Minister made great play of the fact that the grant did not increase in 1997, but he deliberately chose to ignore that in that year a £9per capita payment was made to schools to assist in upkeep and maintenance. Expenditure on special education was revolutionised. The capitation grants for children with special needs increased from £76 to £316 during Niamh Bhreathnach's period in office. Our Education Bill, not the watered down version which has gone through the Dáil, provided for a statutory obligation on education boards to cater for children with special needs. These are substantial achievements and only represent a small proportion of what Niamh Bhreathnach achieved in office.
As the Minister travels around the country opening new school buildings, he should remember that these projects were initiated by his predecessor. If he thinks school buildings are in a poor condition now, he is fortunate not to have inherited the mess left behind in 1992 by some of his current Cabinet colleagues.
The Minister's comments about third level education and the abolition of fees by the previous Government are particularly shallow. If he is so opposed to the move, why does he not put his money where his mouth is? The reality is that the Minister will not do that because he stated:
The measure has relieved substantial pressure from many middle income families. In short, it has facilitated the attendance at third level of many young adults who may not have had the opportunity to attend.
The Minister's remarks about educational disadvantage ring hollow. Educational disadvantage was not an issue until Niamh Bhreathnach took office and recognised the good advice of agencies like the ESRI and the Combat Poverty Agency which provided documented evidence that the most effective way of preventing early school leaving was through early intervention. The Breaking the Cycle and Early Start programmes were concerned with addressing the educational disadvantage that has been endured for too long by communities throughout the country.
Early school leaving and the lack of educational qualifications lie at the root of long-term unemployment and poverty. In her attempt to break this long cycle of poverty and disadvantage, Niamh Bhreathnach undertook to examine a number of key issues and trends before pumping money into the Early Start and Breaking the Cycle programmes. The result was that she was in a position, on foot of objective research, to nominate a number of schools in which she could pilot these programmes. The idea of piloting these programmes was that before they were extended further, any shortfalls would be addressed. It was not intended that these programmes would be cut back, which is what the Minister did. I understand that Marlborough model school, of which the Minister is a patron, lost a teacher in September despite the fact that it was nominated under the Breaking the Cycle programme. An undertaking was given in that programme that those schools would not lose teachers in the first five years.
The litany of allegations and cheap jibes the Minister made in the House last night failed to recognise his own decision which is both against the spirit of the national anti-poverty strategy and the people in the schools to which I referred. As my party colleague, Deputy O'Shea, said last night, it is not possible to change the education system overnight. As has been proven in the past 17 months by the Minister, change takes time. I do not expect the Minister to achieve everything overnight, but what has been achieved should be acknowledged.
It will take years before we see the benefits of the Early Start and Breaking the Cycle programmes. That is, if the Government starts to build on them rather than cut them back. The extra remedial teachers put in place in schools under the previous Government was a start but the numbers remain insufficient. That is why the Minister must build on those numbers although I acknowledge he has stated that he is in favour of providing remedial teaching for all children who need it. I fully support him in that and recognise he is making some progress.
The home-school liaison service is another measure extended by Labour in Government. This service needs to be extended to all disadvantaged areas. That is an effective programme because it links the school with the home, where disadvantage starts. That link is very important.
Vast improvements in the school building pro-gramme and the improvements undertaken in the institutes of technology have made a huge difference, but this work must be continued. In my constituency, the Limerick Institute of Technology, which was located in an old factory building when Niamh Bhreathnach came into office, is now located in a beautiful modern building where many young people who might not otherwise get third level education have the opportunity to pursue it. That is also true of the IT sector generally.
The Minister's job would be much more difficult were it not for the array of initiatives undertaken in the area of education in recent years. It is time the Minister came to grips with the fact that he has been in office for 17 months, and while the legacy of Labour in Government has made his job easier, he needs to move on and stop attempting to discredit the record of Labour in Government.
I understand it takes time to bring about the various changes and improvements we all want to see in the education sector. My colleague, Deputy O'Shea, has debated this issue with the Minister, particularly in regard to the Education (No. 2) Bill, in recent weeks. There are many areas on which we all agree but it is important that the work started by Niamh Bhreathnach in 1992, which in many ways built on an education system that did not focus on children from disadvantaged areas, is continued. Niamh Bhreathnach made a great deal of progress in those areas. She was particularly dedicated to the idea of early intervention.
I have worked in the pre-school area and have studied some of the education psychology and sociology in relation to it. It is clear from reading that material that if we do not intervene with children at an early age, we are perpetuating the status quo in the education system. Those people who have always benefited from education will continue to benefit from it unless we make some radical changes in the system. That is why programmes like Early Start and Breaking the Cycle were piloted under Niamh Bhreathnach. That was done on the basis of advice given and evidence gathered by the Combat Poverty Agency and the Education and Research Centre in St. Patrick's. The leaving certificate applied and other measures were also designed to carry on that programme into second level. A large number of students drop out of school because they do not have appropriate programmes at second level.
The contribution made by the Minister last night did not do him any credit in terms of the way he attacked, without substance, the record of Niamh Bhreathnach in Government over a number of years during which major changes for the better were brought to the education system.
I propose to share my time with Deputies Kitt, Keaveney, Power, McGuinness, Hanafin, Brendan Smith, Michael Moynihan and Pat Carey.
I welcome the opportunity to record my admiration of the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin for his commitment to education. As Opposition spokesperson on education during the rainbow administration he highlighted the sad and failed efforts of that Government. I am surprised to read that the people involved in that administration tabled this motion condemning the Minister for failing to honour his commitment to the electorate. The Minister has honoured all his commitments and more. This House should recognise the dynamic proven track record of the Minister as Opposition spokesperson and as Minister. He is one of the best if not the best ever Minister for Education.
The Minister believes education is crucial in giving people opportunities. The lack of access to education undermines people's ability to play a full part in society. That is the Fianna Fáil ethos. We have always put education at the top of our priority policy list and the Government honours that tradition.
Deputy O'Sullivan is concerned that the Minister, last evening, attacked and discredited the former Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach. The Rainbow Government introduced education policies which did nothing for the education system as a whole. More importantly, their policies did not help the disadvantaged. The question of education for autistic children, for example, was not addressed by the Rainbow Government or by previous successive Ministers for Education. People with disabilities were denied the right to education. When I raised this issue in the past the responses from the previous Minister were sad. However, I recently received the following letter on the subject of autism from the Minister, Deputy Martin.
On many occasions we have discussed the issue of the education services available to special needs children and you have made representations on behalf of constituents seeking improvements in these areas. I am pleased to be able to inform you that this Government has approved a major new initiative in special education which will provide the first ever automatic support for many children with disabilities. This initiative marks a particular breakthrough for integrated education for children with autism and will deliver extra teaching and child care services.
The letter goes on to give a detailed and comprehensive report on the package of services. Congratulations are well deserved by the Minister for this initiative in an area where several Ministers had failed in the past.
Many speakers last evening chose to ignore the fact that the largest ever increase in funding for primary schools has been made by this Government. They ignored the new educational psychology service, the major expansion in early school leavers services, the wide range of well-targeted and effective initiatives and most of all, they seemed to want to ignore their own record of failure in Government.
I pay tribute to parents who have suffered frus-tration and annoyance at a system which could not accommodate their children because of their disabilities. I pay tribute to schools in my constituency and particularly to St. Patrick's national school, Drumcondra, St. Paul's special school, Beaumont and the Central Remedial Clinic in Clontarf.
On January 22, 1997 Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left voted for a budget which froze school funding, cut primary teachers' numbers, refused automatic supports to many children with disabilities and maintained examination charges for the poorest families. I ask why?
Two weeks ago a headline in the Irish Independent proclaimed “Successful end of 20 year campaign”. The headline referred to comments by the Irish Society for Autism on the £4 million package of measures for children with special needs. I welcome the special pupil-teacher ratio of 6:1 for autistic children and the automatic entitlement to child care support. It is not just autistic children who will benefit, as children with a severe or profound mental handicap who are in special schools will have an entitlement to two child care assistants for each class of six children. This level of response will be in line with the recommendations of the special education review group which reported some years ago.
I welcome also the Minister's announcement of remedial and resource teachers which he made during the year. However, sometimes too many schools are included in a cluster sharing a remedial or resource teacher. In some cases the teacher spends too much time travelling between schools. Schools in rural areas might instead have extra teaching hours for children with special needs. The question of a suitable classroom for the remedial or resource teacher also arises. These facilities must be provided.
The money provided in the Estimates for building and renovation of primary schools has been increased significantly. Primary school spending will be 20 per cent higher next year than in 1997. Spending on building grants and capital costs for secondary schools will increase by almost £17 million to £58.8 million. I acknowledge the Minister's help to one-teacher schools. In my parish our 23 pupil school has been allocated a second teacher. I hope that other one-teacher schools will receive the same assistance.
The Government has identified the necessity of addressing adult education as a means of combating long-term unemployment. An OECD survey published in October 1997 highlighted that 25 per cent of Irish people have serious literacy problems. Without basic literacy skills people cannot get jobs or access to training programmes. As we face a future dominated by technological communications, literacy will become an even greater necessity. The Government acted quickly in response to the OECD figures and increased the budget for adult education from £2.3 million in 1997 to more than £4 million in 1998. I also commend Deputy Richard Bruton for his report on literacy levels.
Primary schools received additional funding in the recently published Estimates. The basic capitation grant will increase from £50 to £60 and will be supplemented by new capitation based initiatives for science equipment and for pupils in infant classes. This amounts to the largest increase in direct funding for primary schools. The Minister has delivered on his pre-election commitment and will continue to fight for more resources for education.
I will refer to three aspects of education — Youthreach, the post-leaving certificate sector and remedial education. I record my appreciation of the work of the Minister and the Government and their commitment to education. This is evidenced by their commitment to improving the position of the less advantaged and additional resources provided in 1999.
The pre-budget estimate for spending on education in 1999 shows a £500 million increase in the post-budget position of the previous Government in 1997. This is evidence of the Government's and Fianna Fáil's commitment to education. Direct funding for primary schools will have increased by more than 33 per cent in that two year period. This is evidence of the Minister's success in Cabinet in negotiating the resources needed for education. I compliment him on tackling the difficulties in a number of sectors.
The Minister has provided maintenance grants for the post-leaving certificate sector. He has also established a capital budget for the provision of proper facilities for these colleges. Fortunately, my county will have one of the first colleges of further education built and provided for by the Minister. He will not come to Cavan to open schools built by the previous Government. He will open schools for which he will provide the funding and which are being constructed now.
Fortunately, there is a large investment pro-gramme in school buildings in Cavan but more needs to be done. I compliment the Minister and the Department on advancing the planning stages and providing the funding necessary for so many school projects.
The importance of Youthreach was identified by the Minister when he provided extra places. I know many students who have gone through this programme. It is gratifying to learn of the success of these students. Some of them come from less advantaged parts of society. They were somewhat troublesome in primary and secondary schools, but as a result of their participation in Youthreach, some went on the futher education and took up worthwhile and gainful employment. I applaud the Minister's efforts in this regard. I appeal to him to ensure that staffing is regularised and that the co-ordinators of the Youthreach pro-gramme are given permanent status.
The Minister has consistently said we will not be able to eliminate all the problems in education overnight. He has made a good start in the area of special needs and remedial education. I commend him for these efforts and I know that further progress will be made in the next three years.
I am delighted to speak in this debate. The number of speakers on the Government side is a sign of how well the Minister and the Government are doing on education.
I will speak about primary education and Youthreach. The Book of Estimates included a major cash boost for primary education. This is right and proper, as primary education is the foundation stone of any child's education. For too long, the primary sector was neglected. The infrastructure of primary education is in disrepair in every part of the country. Buildings have fallen into disrepair and the necessary resources were not made available for maintenance. The facilities available to primary teachers were also sadly lacking. I am delighted the Minister has ensured in the Book of Estimates that primary education will get the resources it needs. We have a long way to go but I am delighted a start has been made.
Youthreach is very close to my heart. I know people who have worked in Youthreach since it commenced in 1989-90. People entered Youthreach coming from disadvantaged and troubled families. They received training, a sense of purpose and confidence that they can belong to society. This is a start in tackling social exclusion and ensures that people are brought into the system. I commend the Minister and the Youthreach service. We must ensure that more funding is made available for this area.
I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate. The scope of this topic is enormous and impossible to condense into the three minutes available to me.
I commend the Minister for the important developments he has made since taking office. I commend him for the aims he set out in the pro-gramme for Government and wish him well in implementing those which are still outstanding.
The 1999 Estimates show an increase of more than £250 million on the 1997 post-budget figure. This will enable spending on the primary sector to increase by 20 per cent next year, and second and third level spending to increase by 19 per cent. This is to be welcomed.
On entering this House, remedial education was one of the main issues raised with me by constituents. The previous Government let down the whole country. Then, due to an approaching election, my county got one remedial teacher. However, since this Government took office, there has been an improvement with the promise of further significant improvements next year.
Some people talk of the lack of grand prix drivers when they talk about the provision of remedial teaching. I thank the Minister that we have more grand prix drivers under his flag than ever before. However, I would welcome a reduction in the number of laps expected of them.
Another improvement which can be seen is in the home-school and teacher-counsellor models where extra resources are being deployed and the Minister is looking at the expansion of this initiative. A source of amusement to me on entering this House was the previous Minister's generosity in providing computer trolleys. I congratulated her foresight. However, more importantly, I congratulate the current Minister for providing the computers for the trolleys. This adds a new dimension to the concept of partnership and planning.
While every Deputy will know of special needs students who require assistance, I compliment the Minister for the radical initiatives he announced which give automatic rights to supports which these children need, such as a child care assistant. Could it be that the previous Government spent £250,000 fighting a case to deny these entitlements? Shame on that Government.
Donegal continues to have inadequate access to educational psychologists and I am glad the Minister is appointing extra psychologists and putting in place the blueprint for a national educational psychology agency. My constituency will be one of those entitled to extra support.
In contrast with the position in many rural areas, I had the pleasure of attending the openings of two rural schools recently. While work is ongoing in schools such as Scoil Colmcille, Malin, and work is needed in schools such as Cloontagh national school, Clonmany, it is important that the Government has doubled the spending on school buildings and renovations. Next year, more than £117 million will be spent. There are needs in each region but moneys are being provided.
I am glad the Minister established a group to carry out the first proper qualitative and quantitative analysis on early school leavers and has made a commitment to act on the results in the near future. This issue is of great concern and is evoking much constructive debate and imaginative solutions in my constituency where the problem is particularly acute. I congratulate the Inishowen Partnership on its initiative in carrying out a survey. I trust the Minister will consider its findings and help in counteracting the current situation.
All Deputies know of the importance of education. Everything is not perfect at present but in comparison with previous Governments, much has been done in a few months. The Minister is gradually fulfilling commitments that all the partners in education recognise as positive. I wish him well in continuing this task.
I thank Deputy Bruton for tabling this motion which gives the Minister an opportunity to highlight the number of changes he has made in a short period. I have never seen the Opposition so quiet during a debate in Private Members' Time and that probably tells its own story. However, I will not seek to make political capital from it.
It is useful to look at the effects on the education system of major decisions by the Department. The abolition of fees for third level education is one such decision. It was one of the biggest mistakes ever made by the House. It seriously restricted the ability of the Minister to make changes to tackle disadvantage in a meaningful way.
When the current Minister, Deputy Martin, was Opposition spokesman on education, he consulted widely with the partners in education. On the basis of those consultations he formulated a strategy which he promised to implement. Many of the teachers' organisations and Members of the Opposition will acknowledge that, in his capacity as Minister, he has lived up to his promises. He has made a tremendous impact on the education system in a short period.
An important element of the education system is the provision of remedial education. Every school in Ireland requires this service and in many cases too many schools are trying to share a remedial teacher. In spreading the jam too thin, the effect is reduced. While the Minister has made great progress and has pledged to continue it, he should pay special attention to this area and ensure that no more than two schools share a remedial teacher. That would target the resource effectively.
Another area worthy of mention is adult literacy. The budgetary allocation for adult literacy was doubled last year. It is an important area and I am aware Deputies Bruton and Ferris have done a great deal of work on it. However, we are still not sure of the extent of this problem.
I urge the Minister to continue to invest in adult literacy. It is of great benefit not only to the individuals concerned, but also to their families in terms of improving self confidence and the quality of their lives.
Educational disadvantage is part of the broader issue of disadvantage. In availing of the opportunity to speak on the motion, I wish to point out that this Government is not a latter day convert to the cause of alleviating disadvantage. When the National Development Plan was being formulated, the URBAN initiative was put in place to combat educational deprivation in areas such as Finglas, Ballymun and Darndale. However, when the rainbow Government took office the same amount of money had to be spread thinly to include areas to satisfy Deputy Rabbitte. That was done despite Deputy De Rossa's presence in the Cabinet as Minister for Social Welfare and despite the fact that it would deprive Ballymun and Finglas. The interim report of the Higher Education Authority on the needs of third level education in the Dublin area stated that an institute of technology was necessary in the Finglas area. When the final report was issued, Finglas was not given its institute of technology. Instead, certain pieces of the proposed institute were transferred to other areas. One part went to Dun Laoghaire and the rest was allocated to Blanchardstown, although it was unfinished, unannounced and unfunded.
I compliment the Minister on committing £20 million to the Blanchardstown Institute of Technology and on giving the go-ahead for the first phase of Coláiste Íde where 800 students follow post-leaving certificate courses. I also compliment the Minister on introducing the grants scheme for students in post-leaving certificate courses.
With regard to measures to assist access to third level education for the disadvantaged, the motion rings a little hollow when one considers that the National Youth Council, the Union of Students in Ireland and students' unions across the country made a pre-budget submission to Deputy Quinn when he was Minister for Finance seeking an increase of maintenance grants for third level students. Labour Youth is part of the National Youth Council and it concurred with that motion.
Mr. Hayes
So is Ógra Fianna Fáil.
It did not concur. The measures that matter are youth services. The work being done by groups such as the Aisling project, the Finglas youth service, the Ronanstown youth service and so forth in after-school education does a great deal to counter educational disadvantage.
I conclude by complimenting the Minister on his commitment to introducing a Green Paper on adult education, another important means of alleviating educational disadvantage.
I acknowledge the need to continue to invest heavily in the provision of education for those who are disadvantaged or disabled and who cannot easily access mainstream education for a number of reasons. The measure of maturity in a society is how it looks after its weak and vulnerable members. In this regard, the Minister and the Government have an excellent track record which continues to recognise the need for investment in this area.
The policy of support and development in this area of education is reflected in the 1999 Estimates. In my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, the spend on education across all levels from June 1997 totals £5 million. The Minister is to be complimented on this investment which will benefit everybody in the constituency. Other projects await sanction, but I have no doubt they will be sanctioned in 1999.
However, one cannot become complacent. Every effort must be made to keep the disadvantaged and marginalised in the education system. New methods of providing a safety net for those who fall out of the system must be examined and funded. Community initiatives such as homework clubs or services such as those offered in Kilkenny by the Young Irish Film Makers must be examined and possibly funded through the Department. The outreach centre in Kilkenny, headed by NUI Maynooth and the Carlow Institute of Technology, is now located in St. Kieran's College and caters for those who missed education in their earlier years. These initiatives should be examined and properly funded by the Government.
The outreach project is an ideal pilot scheme which would tell the Minister and his Department a great deal about outreach centres and their effect on communities. The project is up and running and has the support of the local community. It has a student base and uses the skills and expertise that are already being funded by the Department. It would be sensible for the Department to use it as a pilot project and I ask the Minister to examine that possibility.
In the past year when the House discussed Private Members' Bills and motions, I often empathasised with the ideas behind them and sympathised with the sentiments expressed by the Members. However, I cannot do that on this occasion because I have rarely heard such blatant hypocrisy on the part of the parties supporting this motion. They obviously came to the House to bury the Minister rather than to praise him.
Before I was elected to the Dáil, I heard much talk about disadvantage. As has been said previously in this debate, disadvantage was not an issue until the Labour Party went into Government. There were many speeches, press conferences, seminars, videos, policy documents, Green Papers and White Papers on disadvantage, during its time in Government, but little done about it. It has taken this Government and Minister to do something about the issues which were raised during that period.
While disadvantage was being discussed in the Dáil during that period, in Dun Laoghaire I met children who could not get into their local schools, there were classes of 37 and 38 pupils, children got lost between the primary and secondary school systems — nobody knew where they had gone — and children dropped out of school between the ages of eight and 15 years. I met six travelling students who are the only travelling students in the area to be incorporated into mainstream education, students who could not afford their books or examination fees agus gael-scoileanna nach raibh in ann aitheantas a fháil ón Aire in a Dáil cheantar féin.
After the election the mood, the Minister, the investment and the commitment changed. In the past 15 months we have witnessed a record of which any Minister would be proud after five years in office. In months to come, I will be the first to criticise where criticism is deserved and to highlight important issues. I will be the first to say something must be done or that the Government should do more.
The motion before the House is shortsighted, untimely, inappropriate and hypocritical in the extreme.
Mr. Hayes
I wish to share my time with Deputies McManus, Deenihan, Farrelly, Boylan, Reynolds, Crawford and Stanton.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Hayes
Last night's speech by the Minister for Education and Science had more to do with reasserting his position within the upper echelons of Fianna Fáil than addressing the serious issue of educational disadvantage. In a performance which obviously appealed to his Fianna Fáil back-bench colleagues, the Minister attempted to use the opportunity to seek forgiveness for the disaster in Cork South-Central. The speech was a shameless one and it exposed the Minister as a Minister on the run.
He is obsessed with public perception of him following his party's haemorrhaging at the polls in the Cork South-Central by-election. Last night we heard the speech of a man who is desperately trying to regain his position within Fianna Fáil. The defeat in Cork in the constituency of a man with leadership ambitions is not looked upon sympathetically by the party faithful throughout the land. Last night the wagons circled and we were all treated to the Minister's swan song — Come back, all is forgiven.
I thank the Minister and, indeed, his private office for sending me a copy of his idiot-proof guide to educational propaganda which all Members of the Government parties received last evening. In a bizarre twist I was the lucky recipient of a document from the Minister's propaganda department. The ritualistic bleatings from the Government Members tonight obviously have their source in this special unit in Marlborough Street. I look forward to receiving further Stasi-like pronouncements in the months ahead.
Why did the Government not want to address the central issue behind this Private Members' motion, that the Minister had £178 million made available in extra spending for education and could only devote 20 per cent of that spending to primary education? The Government does not want to face the reality behind this scandal in which students from disadvantaged backgrounds have not and will not receive their fair share of the educational budget. It is in the area of educational disadvantage that the Minister stands indicted. At a time of unprecedented economic wealth, we now have the opportunity to make a substantial difference to the teaching and learning environment of children who come from disadvantaged areas. That opportunity will not exist forever. The failure of the Government to introduce a properly resourced strategy to tackle educational disadvantage and learning difficulties will produce additional problems within society in the years ahead.
In my constituency there are a number of schools which regularly report 20 per cent of their pupils not attending school. If there is one issue which we need to address in terms of additional resources, it is the issue of school attendance. To date, the Minister has failed to bring forward legislation and has failed to give support to the school attendance service throughout the country. There is the ridiculous situation in my constituency where members of the Garda Síochána must spend their time running after children who are not attending school. It is a waste of Garda resources and it is disgraceful that in the late 1990s we have yet to reform this key function of educational policy. Children who are regularly playing truant from school are exposed to a cycle of crime at an early age.
Despite the brashness of the Minister's comments, a massive 54,000 children are in classes larger than the maximum number which the Department claims is acceptable. As Deputy Bruton rightly stated, this year 91 disadvantaged and Breaking the Cycle schools have lost teachers on account of insignificant falls in their school enrolments. There are too many schools where teachers are faced with a daily routine of having to manage oversized classes. If the opportunity is not taken to resolve the situation within the context of the present Book of Estimates, it will never be grasped.
The Minister for Education and Science has failed to address educational disadvantage. It is quite obvious from his reactionary remarks that he is provoked by Deputy Bruton's consultative paper on educational disadvantage, which has stolen a march on the Minister's plans. I take this opportunity of congratulating Deputy Bruton for the radical set of proposals he has outlined in this area. At last a national strategy exists to deal with educational disadvantage. The Minister should now implement in full Deputy Bruton's proposals.
I welcome this motion from Fine Gael and thank them for giving me some time.
The issue of disadvantage is an important, if rather perplexing, one. It is not helpful to have the kind of statements made by Deputy Hanafin which clearly do not appreciate the difficulties and the necessity for consistent concentration on tackling disadvantage in a way which is not a matter of an instant overnight response. The policy on disadvantage was developed during the time of the Rainbow Government as it had not been before. Anybody who is not mean-spirited would acknowledge that.
Increasingly we understand that it is investment at primary and pre-school levels which pays off both in terms of enabling people to continue on through education and to achieve when they leave the educational system. That investment needs to be concentrated at an early age if it is to make the significant difference which it can.
Pre-school education is a topical issue at present because of the debate about child care. I hope the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, will not deepen the divide further by opting for the quick fix proposal which Fianna Fáil has been promoting of simply providing tax relief on child care. That will increase disadvantage if it is done in a one-sided and unintelligent way which even the Minister would understand is not the way to move. A much more comprehensive approach is required.
I commend the INTO for organising a campaign which is exemplary. I have been contacted both to attend meetings and to meet small deputations to deal with the fundamental issues relating to primary schools. I pay tribute to those teachers who use their spare time to lobby for the children in their care. They are not looking for better conditions or extra money. They are not suddenly succumbing to the blue 'flu because they want more money. They are campaigning because they understand the importance of investment in the schooling of young children who are at risk even of simply not being able to read when they come out the other end. Such children do not have a chance of being able to get the benefits of secondary education.
We must look at the spending on primary education which is only about 64 per cent per pupil of that which is spent on secondary students and 28 per cent of that which is spent on third level students. This is the time when we can make a real difference. This is the time when there is agreement in the community that we must look after the young, and we must look after the younger of the young. We can only do it by spending money and spending it wisely.
There is no doubt that we can look back at our history and see that there is a tremendous record of education in Ireland. There was great commitment from individuals from religious orders who have left us a great legacy.
Now the opportunity is to seriously tackle disadvantage, not with the reactive nonsense which I have heard here tonight but in a way which genuinely faces up to the fundamental issue in education. The Minister for Education and Science recognises that it is of fundamental importance.
I do not think the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, would share his view as he comes from a very different ideological perspective.
This debate is timely and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to speak on it.
It is rather disingenuous of the Government side of the House to criticise the record of the Rainbow Government regarding disadvantage. That Government really started the process of catering for this sector. The present resources are there as a result of the economic policies of that Rainbow Government. The Minister has more at his disposal than any previous Minister. We must view the allocation of resources in the context of the amount of money which is available to the Government.
Times have changed. The Minister has more latitude to provide funding for the disadvantaged than heretofore. Irrespective of what Minister is in office we would expect that.
I wish to refer to disadvantage in rural areas.
There are 3,200 primary schools — 318 are designated disadvantaged, while 33 urban and 123 rural schools participate in the Breaking the Cycle programme. In those urban schools the pupil-teacher ratio is 15:1, whereas in rural schools there is no additional staffing. The Breaking the Cycle programme should be in all schools designated disadvantaged.
There are 558 schools without the service of a remedial teacher. That is not fair and is an issue that must be addressed. Several other schools share a remedial teacher, sometimes with five or six schools. That is unsatisfactory. If the problem of disadvantage is to be tackled, a remedial service will have to be provided. That service is not being provided to any great extent.
I refer to the report of the educational research centre on educational disadvantage. It estimates that 16 per cent of the schoolgoing population is disadvantaged and indicates that the majority, 60.7 per cent, live in areas with a population of less than 10,000. When the number of disadvantaged children is expressed as a percentage of all pupils living in rural areas, it shows that one in every five is disadvantaged. It also confirms that Dublin is the best served of the regions by schools designated as disadvantaged with 41.2 per cent of its pupils placed in such schools. Conversely the report shows that rural areas are least well served with only 4.9 per cent of pupils in schools designated as disadvantaged. Provision for disadvantaged pupils in Dublin is shown to be nine times better than in rural areas and four times better than in towns with populations between 10,000 and 40,000. I have no argument against the provision for disadvantaged in Dublin — even more is needed. Nevertheless, it shows a glaring difference between rural and urban schools.
When the absolute number of disadvantaged pupils is taken into account, provision in Dublin is shown to be 20 times better than in rural areas. This disparity of treatment is further exacerbated, as the report highlights, if one takes into account the level of remedial service available to both categories of pupil. While virtually all pupils in designated schools in the larger urban areas will have a remedial service available in their schools, it can be assumed the vast majority of disadvantaged pupils in rural areas will be found in the 50 per cent of primary schools which do not have access to the services of a remedial teacher. The report also shows the Early Start programme is entirely urban based. I do not know whether that is accurate.
It is.
The Minister introduced a scheme whereby supports are made available to 25 clusters of rural schools, each cluster having a combined enrolment in the region of 350 pupils. This support takes the form of a co-ordinator who works with families and teachers. There is one cluster in Kerry, in Cahirciveen. For many years the greatest demand from parents, teachers and management in rural areas has been for the appointment of remedial teachers to serve realistic numbers of pupils and schools. There would seem to be little point in establishing a co-ordinator, to improve the confidence and skills of pupils and families, to schools which are unable to provide such a basic service as a remedial teacher. The provision of a realistic remedial service to rural schools must be the Minister's top priority. I understand an additional 220 posts would meet that requirement.
One of the Minister's many promises prior to the election concerned career guidance teachers. He said: "The provision of additional guidance counsellors will be a priority of the next Fianna Fáil Government. In particular we will aim to restore the ratio of one guidance counsellor to 250 pupils and acknowledge that this must happen if the service is to be effective in schools". He has not lived up to that commitment and has got nowhere near it. I shall remind him of it again.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and compliment my colleague, Deputy Richard Bruton, on introducing the motion.
At a recent meeting of the Education and Science Committee some teachers came from around the country. I was struck by the figures provided for disadvantaged schools. A teacher from County Clare informed the meeting that two schools were declared disadvantaged at primary level. Every second level school in Clare is disadvantaged. That says something about the care being given to primary school children throughout the country.
There are two main problems. There is extreme pressure on the parents of primary school pupils who have become tax collectors on behalf of the Department of Education and Science. The capitation grant for schools is being increased by £10 and was increased by £5 last year. The Minister can make whatever case he wishes about what happened under previous Governments. The reality is that £1 billion extra is available in the Department of Finance this year. Therefore, there should be sufficient funds for education without putting the parents under pressure on a daily basis for money. The day of free education is long gone and it is time the Minister admitted it. That is some of the pressure children are experiencing.
One remedial teacher serves three or four schools. These remedial teachers have become known as the new rally drivers of Ireland as they try to get from one school to another. Those children are not being given a fair chance. When they go to second level education, teachers say that because a percentage of the children need to move on with the curriculum, they cannot wait for the others who are left behind. Any primary school teacher will confirm this. Unfortunately, there are a number of children in that position in every primary school.
This motion is important. There is a need to provide more money for education, given that last year 14,000 did not sit the leaving certificate. The reason is there is not sufficient money in primary education.
I thank speakers for sharing their time on this important debate. I take exception to the remarks of Deputy Hanafin, who stated this is an exercise in burying the Minister and that it is hypocritical. A debate on education is never hypocritical. During my 11 years as a Member I have never sought to bury a Minister or an Opposition spokesperson.
This debate is important. We talk about the wealth and the future of our nation, that is, our young people. If their future is to be sustained, it behoves us to put in place a proper educational system for them. The Minister would be first to admit he does not have all the answers. Some suggestions will be made here which, no doubt, the Minister will take on board. When there is a problem in a constituency, it will be reflected in the representations one receives at clinics and in correspondence. I have a host of letters relating to problems in education — overcrowding in schools, the need for remedial teachers, bus services, why pupils are dropping out of school. Parents come to me and say that John or Mary will not return to school. When asked the reason I am told they cannot keep up. We all understand that problem. The reason they are not keeping up with the others in the class is that they are not receiving the required level of attention because teachers cannot give them the time. I hear every day about overcrowding, teachers having to deal with 25 or 30 pupils, which is not possible in a working day. Time is not on my side to debate the capitation grant but I will read the following letter, which I received this morning:
At a recent board of management meeting in our school, capitation funding for primary schools was discussed. We feel, as do our primary teachers, that the discrepancy between primary and secondary is terribly unjust, also that the £10 increase proposed in the Book of Estimates is miserly. We earnestly ask you to use your influence to have this unjust situation rectified.
I am now using my influence. As the Minister is well aware, given the day to day cost of running schools, £10 is a drop in the ocean. The Book of Estimates has been published but there is time between now and budget day for the Minister to make a realistic offer to schools in their capitation grants so they can get the equipment they need — they are not looking for luxuries. I ask the Minister to make an adjustment in that area, he cannot say there is no funding because there is more than £1 billion excess. I do not want the Minister to throw it away and he will not spent it on anything better than education, the future of our country.
I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to comment on this important motion, proposed by Deputy Richard Bruton, whose recent report clearly demonstrated that education, especially at primary level, is the most important means for preparing people for work and bringing about full employment. Also, when young people are working there will be less crime, so there is justification in spending more money at primary level to avoid greater costs later.
The Government must meet its commitment to increase funding and lower class sizes at primary level. While I appreciate the extra £10 proposed in the Estimates, that is a long way from the election promise to equalise primary and second level funding. Another anomaly at second level is that schools are given aid posts but extra staff are not provided to cover the changed timetable which results.
I wish to make the Minister fully aware of the schools which still do not have remedial or resource teachers and which must get them immediately. Why were two small schools at Rockcorry and Drumm in my county left out of a group of schools which received such teachers this year? One of those schools has a particularly urgent need for a remedial service. The Inniskeen group of schools is another which has not been serviced as yet. So many schools are grouped together that there is not enough time to give a proper service.
The need for educational psychologists is also urgent. One parent told me that, although she asked for evaluation two years ago and her son was examined six months ago, there is no report as yet. This is not acceptable. Another case concerns a five year old from Monaghan with autistic spectrum needs, in which there appears to be a problem between the Department and the Department of Health and Children. In reply to a question today, I was told there was no request for such facilities in Monaghan, yet the child's parents wrote to me on 1 October that they had heard nothing from either Department on the issue. I welcome the Minister's recent commitment on educational needs and hope this problem can be sorted out.
Disadvantaged schools have been mentioned, in which regard I mention Clones junior primary school. That was the worst hit town as a result of the Border — it received many migrants, which caused enormous educational problems. The senior primary school has been declared disadvantaged, the Gaelscoil gets enormous grants, yet the junior primary school has not yet been declared disadvantaged. This is not sustainable and I ask the Minister to rectify this.
I commend Deputy Richard Bruton for putting this motion before the House to allow us discuss this issue. The motion calls on the Government to introduce a properly resourced strategy to tackle educational disadvantage and learning difficulties. Those are distinct issues and we must put in place a strategy to deal with both. They may come together but we must first look at them separately.
I have put down a series of questions on autism in recent months. I thank the Minister for his initiatives in the area but the thrust of the motion is that the Government's policy lacks an overall strategy where educational disadvantage and learning difficulties are concerned. Autistic children need early intervention at age two to three, before pre-school, which has been seen internationally to be successful. This is needed urgently — the longer we wait, the more children will slip through the net and not get the required treatment. I implore the Minister to do everything possible because the research shows this works — he is nodding in agreement.
In recent months I have also been working for escorts in school buses and I acknowledge that the Minister has provided funding for that, but it must be given soon because it is a huge problem. I received a letter from the parent of an epileptic child who falls asleep on the bus, wakes up and tries to open the door while the bus is moving. He is in danger of falling on the road. The driver has no way of getting help or attracting attention.
There is also a need for extra remedial teachers but again I stress the overall lack of planning. There is no point talking about one remedial teacher, one must train all those teaching a particular class, especially at second level, otherwise there will be a conflict. I could speak about this for a long time; I worked as a guidance counsellor and a home-school liaison teacher, so I know what I am talking about.
I am glad of the opportunity to contribute. One-teacher schools have problems getting remedial teachers. If we are ever to solve the problem to give children a chance we must help primary school children, some of whom need remedial teaching. The Government's manifesto promised to place an extra teacher in one-teacher schools but that has not happened.
It has.
There are three or four schools in my area which still only have one teacher; Aughawillan in Leitrim——
We are getting there.
I appreciate that but this must be taken into consideration, along with remedial teaching.
Tá mé lán sásta an deis seo a bheith agam freagra a thabhairt ar an díospóireacht seo as son an Rialtais.
I welcome this opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government to the contributions of the Opposition. It is unfortunate that the rules of the House only allow me to speak for a few minutes because the catalogue of inaccuracies and wilful misrepresentations we have heard from the Opposition deserve a detailed rebuttal. I remind the House that this Government in its short time in office has a record of implementing more improvements and honouring more promises than the rainbow Government managed during its entire time in office.
It is unfortunate that many of the Opposition contributions have been true to type, with sweeping condemnations flowing from either the disregarding or ignorance of the many initiatives which have been launched by the Government over the past year and a half. Let me remind the House of a few of these initiatives.
Next year will see the largest ever increase in the direct funding of primary schools. While Deputy Richard Bruton tries desperately to twist the figures, he cannot get away from the size and importance of this increase. The doubling of school building and renovation funding will also be felt throughout the country. New approaches to traveller education, school attendance problems and the integration of services targeted at drop outs will leave a lasting impact, as will the major increase in Youthreach funding, together with the introduction of counselling, psychological and childcare services to help disadvantaged groups.
The abolition of examination fees for the poorest families has already been implemented and the creation of an educational psychological service is well under way. Children with disabilities have already begun to benefit from a historic recognition of their right to supports. This is removing the necessity for parents to go to court and once the arrangements have bedded down, this shameful legacy of the rainbow Government will be behind us. The importance of the Minister's initiative was recognised in a recent statement from the Parents for Integration Group, which stated that "we are now getting away from the era of the begging bowl and entering a new era of rights, equality and justice".
The expansion of further and higher education places, together with the introduction of grants for PLC students, is extending educational opportunity to more people. I welcome the concern the Opposition is now voicing for what is an unacceptably high level of literacy problems among our adult population. In this as in so many other areas, we are way ahead of it and have already taken positive action. The doubling of adult literacy funding this year was a dramatic start and we are committed to going further.
The Opposition has failed to explain the reasons that we should take seriously its supposed concern to tackle educational disadvantage.
It is a pity the Minister was not here for the debate last night.
In comparison to the huge funding which it poured into a third level initiative, which has not helped one child from a deprived area access education, educational disadvantage only received the crumbs from its coloured table. It has also failed to explain how it could have supported the education measures in the 1997 budget.
This is Brussels speak.
Having been prepared under the direction of both a Labour Minister for Finance and a Labour Minister for Education and agreed unanimously by Fine Gael and Democratic Left, its last budget froze school funding, cut primary teacher numbers, refused automatic support to many children with disabilities and maintained exam charges for the poorest families. So much for concern or multi-coloured social inclusion.
This is a history lesson.
I call on Deputy Richard Bruton to use his closing contribution to explain why we should forget its recent record and accept the Opposition's supposed commitment to prioritising the issue of disadvantage. Why did he sit in a Cabinet which sought to implement these regressive policies and why did he and his colleagues go through the division lobbies of this House on 22 January 1997 to support a budget which was freezing funding and cutting back teachers in the areas this motion addresses?
We are proud of our record and we will build upon it. I assure the House that this Government will be remembered for the breadth and effectiveness of its commitment to tackling educational disadvantage and the many other imaginative initiatives which we are continuing to table across the entire education spectrum.
I will conclude the debate but I wish to share my time with Deputies Ring, Timmins and Gregory.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister of State made a good speech but he will be burnt out by the time the European elections are held next June if he keeps going at that pace. The Minister mentioned rights, equality and justice. Recently on the Adjournment I raised the case of a school in Carrowkennedy which needs a new classroom. The Minister promised me he would take a special interest in it.
It will be looked after.
The children are using a community centre where they must wear their coats and three pairs of trousers because there is no heating.
The Minister was a great man when he was in Opposition. I remember being on local radio with him discussing one teacher schools. He said there would be no such thing as one teacher schools. He said any school with 12 or more pupils would have two teachers, but he has now changed that to 16 pupils. Many one teacher schools are waiting for the Minister to do something about their situation.
There are 72 schools in Mayo and 704 schools nationwide without remedial services. It is a disgrace that the Minister promised to provide such services and then did not deliver. The Minister spoke well when in Opposition. He was like many Members on this side of the House who promised to do everything.
The Deputy should not cast aspersions on his colleagues.
Many people in Connacht-Ulster will have a chance to deal with the Minister of State next June over the issue of one teacher schools. The only Member to go to if we want to get something done is Deputy Healy-Rae. The people in Mayo will have to come to Dublin to resolve this school issue because no one is listening to the Deputies from Mayo and other constituencies. Only the Independents are getting ministerial attention.
I compliment Deputy Richard Bruton on initiating this debate. The Minister promised he would deliver, but he did not. He did not think he would be the Minister for Education and Science; he had hoped to be side-tracked to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I did not.
He was caught. He did not think the Taoiseach would give him a portfolio for which he was the Opposition spokesman.
The Minister promised he would resolve the bus escorts issue.
I did more than anyone else.
The Minister hates the truth.
It is a disgrace that the Deputy's party did nothing about that issue.
Deputy Ring, without interruption.
The Minister will be proven to be the greatest disaster in the Department of Education and Science. He is the man who said so much in Opposition and did so little in Government. The people will be waiting for him at the next election.
I do not know whether it is misfortune or fortune that I always seem to speak after Deputy Ring in these debates.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this motion. I was surprised that the Minister spent so much time criticising the Opposition, given that he congratulated himself on numerous occasions on the job he is doing. I thank him for visiting Wicklow last week and for attending the funerals of the people killed in the accident during the summer.
I am delighted the Minister has given additional funding to the special needs area. I hope that trend continues, irrespective of what Minister is in power. The Minister mentioned access to technology. Many schools have received computers but they are not used because many teachers are not computer literate. The INTO is running courses in conjunction with the Department, but these are held in the evenings and they may not suit people.
The biggest gap in the educational system is in the provision of in-service training. There are evening, day release and summer courses, but there is no in-service training. Although this requires funding, teachers should be taken out of the system every four or five years and sent to St. Patrick's College or Mary Immaculate College for a couple of months to do an in-service training course. All aspects of life, including education, in particular the teaching of reading, evolve. I heard the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, speak about adult literacy. If we adopted a proper approach to teaching reading, we would not have an adult literacy problem. There is no set standard on teaching reading in schools. They adopt different approaches. The Association of Children with Learning Difficulties use a multi-sen-sory system, yet most schools use a look and say system, which is antiquated compared to the standard of the association's system. I hope the group examining the curriculum will address that matter. Many teachers are inundated with requests for reading grinds after school hours, but it is the approach to teaching reading that causes the difficulty. I hope this matter can be addressed.
I wish to raise one of the Minister's pet subjects, the weight of school bags. He was accosted about this in Bray last week. A report on this matter was completed in June and it has been before the Minister for a few months. I hope he will liaise with the Minister for Health and Children on this and move to introduce some of the recommendations of that report on this important matter.
In the two minutes Deputy Bruton agreed to share with me, I wish to make a special case for national schools in the drugs task force areas. Those areas of extreme social disadvantage should not be assessed under national criteria on disadvantage in respect of the pupil-teacher ratio. They should be assessed as having an exceptional need and the Breaking the Cycle scheme should be expanded in national schools in those areas. Heroin is unique to those areas. The only way children who attend those schools will have any real chance of overcoming the temptation of drugs, completing second level and going on to third level is to give them an opportunity in school.
It is not a coincidence that those areas have the lowest level of access to third level education in the State. It is incredible that a Cabinet subcommittee deals with social exclusion and drugs, but an initiative has not been taken to address the problem in primary schools in those areas. The chairman of the Government's National Strategy Committee on Drugs told a Dáil committee today that education must be the first line of defence in the war against drugs. The previous Government's ministerial task force designated 12 areas in Dublin and one in Cork as drugs task force areas. The 12 areas in Dublin were heroin blackspots and required urgent attention to address social disadvantage if progress was to be made against a heroin crisis. The previous Government introduced the Breaking the Cycle scheme, which is the single most effective measure to combat social exclusion and the drugs problem. Many of the national schools in the north inner city and in the other drugs task force areas benefit greatly from that scheme and progress is being made. However, the Minister's record to date has been disastrous in this regard.
In the Dublin 1 and Dublin 7 areas, which span two heroin task force areas, no fewer than nine national schools lost teachers at the start of this school year. As a result, junior classes were maintained at Breaking the Cycle level, but senior classes had to double up. The progress that was made is now being wasted. Schools which lost teachers include those in Sheriff Street, Seán Mac Dermott Street, Hardwicke Street and O'Devaney Gardens, areas of multiple depravation. I appeal to the Minister to reverse these losses for the reasons I outlined.
I did not have the Minister's attention when I made my earlier comment. What I am requesting is supposed to be Government policy. The drugs task force areas require special attention. They do not get special attention from the Minister's Department which does not have special criteria for assessing the pupil-teacher ratio for schools in those areas. Any attention they got was through the Breaking the Cycle scheme, which is being undermined by the Minister's failure to listen to reason and to respond to the teachers, parents and public representatives in those areas. I appeal to him to change his attitude and to respond to these areas in a positive way.
I thank the many Opposition Deputies who contributed to this debate. Significant contributions were made and much attention was given to the problem of educational disadvantage. Not one speaker on the Government side showed a glimmer of understanding of the scale of disadvantage in our schools. One would imagine they were ignorant of the fact that one in six of children aged 16 to 25 leave school not able to read the instructions on the back of an aspirin package. Instead we had self-serving congratulations from the Minister downwards.
The Minister of State did not grace us with his presence last night, but he seems to be well able to comment on what happened.
I am around a long time.
The Minister looked backwards and peddled half truths——
The truth.
——about what happened in the previous regime. His comments were so transparently self-serving that anyone listening to this debate must believe the concept of politics shown by the Government parties is base. If early school leavers, whom our education system has failed, were lining the gallery tonight, would the Minister have indulged in the type of rhetoric we heard last night? He would not, he would have adopted a different attitude. We would have heard him talk meaningfully and with feeling about their problems, but that was absent when he spoke last night. We heard him make cheap jibes at the former Minister. He was pathetic and anyone who heard him will believe that.
Who are the young people who leave school early? Surveys have repeatedly shown that their ambition is to work and improve themselves, but those young people's experience of school has been universally negative. They have been hurt, made feel small and have come out of the education system feeling resentful and alienated. The Minister must take responsibility for that. He has held responsibility for the education portfolio for the past two years and has failed to address the needs of those young people in the last two Books of Estimates. We must address that reality. A total of 60 per cent of those young people are unemployed. Those figures were not produced by me, the Labour Party or Democratic Left, they were gathered by the CSO.
Doors are closed on those young people in our society. They cannot access reading material or technology and are shoved into menial positions. It is impossible for them to envisage owning their own houses or providing for a family. If those people are listening to this debate, they will be ashamed of the cant we heard from the Government benches.
We in this House stand indicted of investing only £18,000 or £19,000 in the education of an early school leaver, while £50,000 is invested in the education of a graduate.
The Deputy's party agreed to that.
The Minister expected to be congratulated on his early school leaver initiative. A total of £1 million a year over the next three years will be allocated to that initiative. The Minister must face reality. I had to check the promises he made. He said there would be a five year plan to tackle educational disadvantage based on the national anti-poverty strategy, but that has been forgotten. He said staff schedules at primary levels would be based on a progressive reduction in class size, but we have not heard mention of that. He said all schools would have access to remedial teachers, but 704 schools do not have access to one. He said administrative and caretaking services are a basic necessity for all schools, but we have not seen the provision of any of those services. The Minister admitted he will not provide one such post this year. Guidance counsellors were to be appointed at second level and 20,000 early school leavers were to have personal development plans. These are the promises the Minister made.
I would applaud the Minister if he was making a genuine effort to tackle the needs of these children but that is not what he is doing. He is taking the same old approaches and expecting something different to happen. Nothing different will happen while he continues to follow that route. The Minister must take this issue seriously. It is not good enough to allocate 20 per cent of his Department's budget to primary education, he must state that such education is a priority. It is also not good enough to state that £250 million will be made available for the provision of technology. That technology must be made available after a decent service is provided to those who are disadvantaged.
The Deputy wanted me to make £750 million available.
The Minister must honour his commitments.
Deputy Bruton must conclude.
Judging by his reaction last night, the Minister has been stung by this debate. I hope he will take to heart the issues which emerged from it. We will have a great deal to celebrate if he does so.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 55.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahern, Noel. |
Kenneally, Brendan. |
|
Andrews, David. |
Kirk, Séamus. |
|
Ardagh, Seán. |
Kitt, Michael. |
|
Brady, Johnny. |
Kitt, Tom. |
|
Brady, Martin. |
Lenihan, Brian. |
|
Brennan, Matt. |
Lenihan, Conor. |
|
Brennan, Séamus. |
McDaid, James. |
|
Briscoe, Ben. |
McGennis, Marian. |
|
Browne, John (Wexford). |
McGuinness, John. |
|
Byrne, Hugh. |
Martin, Micheál. |
|
Callely, Ivor. |
Molloy, Robert. |
|
Carey, Pat. |
Moloney, John. |
|
Collins, Michael. |
Moynihan, Donal. |
|
Cooper-Flynn, Beverley. |
Moynihan, Michael. |
|
Cowen, Brian. |
Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
|
Cullen, Martin. |
O'Donnell, Liz. |
|
Daly, Brendan. |
O'Donoghue, John. |
|
Davern, Noel. |
O'Hanlon, Rory. |
|
de Valera, Síle. |
O'Keeffe, Batt. |
|
Doherty, Seán. |
O'Keeffe, Ned. |
|
Ellis, John. |
O'Kennedy, Michael. |
|
Fahey, Frank. |
O'Rourke, Mary. |
|
Fleming, Seán. |
Power, Seán. |
|
Flood, Chris. |
Roche, Dick. |
|
Foley, Denis. |
Ryan, Eoin. |
|
Gildea, Thomas. |
Smith, Brendan. |
|
Hanafin, Mary. |
Treacy, Noel. |
|
Haughey, Seán. |
Wade, Eddie. |
|
Healy-Rae, Jackie. |
Wallace, Dan. |
|
Jacob, Joe. |
Wallace, Mary. |
|
Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Woods, Michael. |
|
Kelleher, Billy. |
Wright, G. V. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Allen, Bernard. |
Kenny, Enda. |
|
Barnes, Monica. |
McCormack, Pádraic. |
|
Barrett, Seán. |
McDowell, Derek. |
|
Boylan, Andrew. |
McGahon, Brendan. |
|
Broughan, Thomas. |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Bruton, Richard. |
McManus, Liz. |
|
Carey, Donal. |
Mitchell, Gay. |
|
Clune, Deirdre. |
Mitchell, Jim. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Mitchell, Olivia. |
|
Cosgrave, Michael. |
Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda. |
|
Coveney, Simon. |
Naughten, Denis. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
Neville, Dan. |
|
Creed, Michael. |
Noonan, Michael. |
|
Currie, Austin. |
O'Shea, Brian. |
|
D'Arcy, Michael. |
O'Sullivan, Jan. |
|
Deasy, Austin. |
Owen, Nora. |
|
Deenihan, Jimmy. |
Penrose, William. |
|
Durkan, Bernard. |
Perry, John. |
|
Enright, Thomas. |
Ring, Michael. |
|
Farrelly, John. |
Ryan, Seán. |
|
Finucane, Michael. |
Sargent, Trevor. |
|
Flanagan, Charles. |
Shatter, Alan. |
|
Gregory, Tony. |
Shortall, Róisín. |
|
Hayes, Brian. |
Stagg, Emmet. |
|
Higgins, Jim. |
Stanton, David. |
|
Higgins, Joe. |
Timmins, Billy. |
|
Hogan, Philip. |
Upton, Pat. |
|
Yates, Ivan. |
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.