Will there be a Minister or a Minister of State from the Department of Education in attendance in due course?
Third Level Education Funding: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Senator J. O'Toole on Wednesday, 15 July 1987:
That Seanad Éireann, while recognising the need for controlling public spending, condemns the arbitrary nature of the decision to cut back the funding of R.T.C.'s and Universities. These cutbacks will:—
1. Create unemployment and the forced emigration of highly qualified personnel in whom the State has already made a substantial investment.
2. Threaten the quality of Third Level Education by reducing personnel at a time when student numbers are on the increase.
3. Stop essential building programmes with a knock-on effect on employment in the building industry.
4. Lower the morale and threaten the security of tenure of all workers in education.
5. Eventually reduce the numbers of highly qualified young people who are so essential to future employment and to the creation of projects.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following—
"recognising the need to control public expenditure in the interests of laying the groundwork for economic recovery and in view of the fact that the allocation for total recurrent expenditure in the higher education sector in 1987 is 5.6 per cent greater than that provided in the 1986 Estimates, approves the measures adopted by the Government to maintain higher education services at as high a level as possible."
—(Senator Mullooly.)
It was made very clear to Senator Bulbulia that the Minister may not be here at 6 o'clock and she agreed that we would carry on without him for a little while.
I am sorry, I had overlooked that. The day has been full of unusual occurrences and changes. The motion has been bedevilled by surrounding activity and I look forward to getting down to the meat of it as opposed to the distractions that surrounded the commencement of Second Stage of the debate of the Bill we have been dealing with.
I was here for most of the debate on this motion last week and in particular for the Minister's speech which was bland, which contained a great deal of waffle and, as subsequent speakers said, which had a hidden agenda and was more important for what it omitted than for what it said. I was very struck by a cartoon by Martin Turner, in The Irish Times on the following morning. He is adept at these things and in that delightful cartoon he depicted what he called the Fianna Fáil 22 letter alphabet. There were photographs of the sort of alphabet signs one sees in a classroom. “The cat sat on the floorboards”, it said, and then it went on to say: “an apple for .93 of a teacher” and the missing letters from the alphabet added up to the word “cash” and, of course, that is really what this motion is all about.
The education cuts have been completely overshadowed by the furore caused by the health cuts and have not yet really sunk in. But come September and indeed, October when the third level colleges come back, the full brunt and the full significance of these cuts will be felt very speedily by third level students and indeed members of staff. This is another confidence trick that has been perpetrated against the Irish public by the present Administration. Before the election, education cutbacks, as proposed by the outgoing Government and which were part of the Fine Gael election programme, were referred to by the Fianna Fáil leader, on a radio broadcast on the Sunday prior to the election, as counter-productive. Now a further £11 million worth of cuts has been imposed on the education budget by the Fianna Fáil Party now in Government and there is no talk of counter-productivity at this stage. The effect is a swingeing one. There will be huge cuts in the pay and non-pay bills of RTCs, Dublin colleges and the universities, the fastest growing sector of education where the ratios are already very poor indeed. Never was there such a demand for third level education. All the demographic studies which have been scientifically conducted indicate that demand will rise for third level places and will rise inexorably until 1995.
To take £3,100,000 from the RTCs and £2.65 million from the universities amounts to the most devastating attack on third level education ever known in the history of the State. Somehow or other — apart from the education interests — the full effect of this has not quite sunk in yet but, as I said, it will, come September and October. Already university students and young people are beginning to be concerned as to the number of training places that will be available in third level institutions when the term reopens in October. My heart goes out to these young people because already they have to listen to dirges of hopelessness concerning the lack of employment. Are they to be subjected to a further pressure from these cuts which will, when they are implemented, probably deny them chances in the education system? It is a further hurt and a further injury to the young people whom as many politicians glibly speak about as being our greatest resource.
We need more than lip service towards our young people. If successive Governments, particularly Governments who denied that there ever was a problem, have mortgaged their future, will we deny them an opportunity of education so that they will be able to gain employment, if not in this country, at least elsewhere. It is important that we make people skilled, self-sufficient and confident. The only way to do that is to give them skills and the tools which will educate them and enable them to stand on their own two feet.
The Minister evaded spelling out the reality of all this. In volume terms, the cut of 4 per cent by 1988 in the gross pay of the staff of all third level institutions will have disastrous consequences for the development of this fastest growing sector. Allowing for the normal incremental progression of third level staff and the full effects in 1988 of the present national wage agreement, it is clear that staff cuts of 6 per cent or perhaps 7 per cent will be necessary from next September or October if the institutions are to achieve the Government's targets. Student numbers are increasing by 4 to 5 per cent per annum. Student numbers will possibly have to be seriously curtailed and staff made redundant and-or suffer a severe cut in salary. The horizon is a gloomy one.
It has been Government policy to provide degrees and diplomas and other specialised courses outside the university system and to increase their provision. I want to devote the little time I have at my command to an analysis of what this will mean for the RTC sector. This development of degrees and diplomas has been sound educational thinking and a significant opening up of third level education to many people who would otherwise never have attempted or even seen its relevance. In times of financial stringency, such as we are now experiencing, the provision, for example, of relevant degree courses outside the university system has proved to be a most cost effective one. The RTCs, in order to cope with increased demands for course places, have maximised their use of teaching resources. As a result all fat was trimmed from the system almost seven years ago. The RTCs have absolutely no room for manoeuvre. In a new technological era it is of the utmost importance that as wide a variety of courses as possible be made available and nurtured in order that those skills in educational needs which are necessary for our survival exist and can be called upon as and when required.
Waterford Regional Technical College, the one I know best, has provided and is providing for the needs of a region with approximately 400,000 people and has at all times been under-funded. Since 1980, together and in partnership with the National Council for Educational Awards, it provides relevant degree programmes as well as a range of new diplomas, some of which also satisfy national demands. From 1 January 1988, colleges have to implement what is in reality a 4 per cent pay cut. They have horrendous choices to make. They can reduce relevant pupil/teacher inputs, they can reduce courses, they can reduce course hours or they can reduce courses that are not fully self-financing. The Minister seemed to target the self-financing side of courses. She spoke about surveying all colleges and courses to see what was economic. It is my firm view that self-financing courses must be encouraged and maintained. Because of our frightening unemployment statistics we must, if adult education is relevant, offer updates in skills and in education in order to assist people towards a chance of employment. We must, if we are serious, be prepared to subvent and underwrite these courses. It is daft to insist that they be self-financing and purely self-financing.
The Senator's time is up.
In deference to the many people who wish to contribute I will waive the remainder of what I have to say.
I originally did not intend to say anything on this Bill because I thought we would leave the motion to the principal speakers supporting it but anybody listening could hardly sit back and allow such a distortion of the facts. From the language used to describe the nature of the cutbacks and funding, one would think that concern was felt by only one or two people in the House. I compliment the Minister for Education who is doing a courageous job. When she took office the cupboard was bare, it was like the pub with no beer. She is a courageous lady to have taken on that marathon task. Everybody here knows that all the funding was earmarked and politically committed. I recently said to somebody from my own county who was critical about house building that it was extraordinary that people could not be four months away from the heap until they were complaining about the smell. One would think that we were living in two different worlds.
I strongly support the Minister in regard to effective economies because she had no alternative. The future of our young people is at stake. If no economies were effected the young people about whom we are now talking, would have no future. The Minister is the person concerned and is demonstrating in a crystal clear fashion that she has a duty to protect the future of our young people, which is what she is doing.
There must be a revision of expenditure. I am on the management board of an RTC in Letterkenny and it was very interesting to look at the budget and to realise that there would be no difficulty in saving 10 per cent in areas other than teachers' pay. One institution were using £19,000 worth of fuel oil but when economies had to be effected they were able to keep the heat at sufficient temperature for £9,000, thereby affecting a saving of £10,000.
We must take into account the size of the Department of Education, the size of the institutions and the complexity of management. Those who say there should be plenty of money to meet every situation are living in a different world.
The Minister for Education deserves our support. I would like to acknowledge publicly that she is doing a courageous job. She went into her Department and found that Department without funds. She looked for areas where economies could be effected because that was the only way she could find funds to support and to promote new programmes in education. The Minister is doing a useful job and has the confidence of the people. Even those people, the so-called deprived and those who are scaremongering, will admit that there is more confidence in the Department of Education today than there has been under any previous Administration.
We have 3,363 students in the Donegal vocational education system. The Donegal Vocational Education Committee had a total budget of £938,841. We looked at a few areas where economies could be made and found that we could effect £150,155 worth of economies. I do not claim any credit for that; nor am I looking for any bouquets. We were only doing what we and every section of administration should be doing to survive. My vocational education committee were able to effect economies of £44,876 in teacher travelling expenses. You would not need to be a university graduate to establish that some of these people are very reluctant to lose that untaxed income. That would be a factor in their concern, because nobody likes to lose that kind of income. Nevertheless, under the previous Administration we were allowed to appoint teachers and to share teachers in different centres with the result that we did not know where we stood. We had teachers in two centres, in two schools, 25, 30 or 40 miles apart, and we were pumping money into travelling expenses. Anybody who comes into this House and says there is no need for a review of that situation, shows he is not in touch with reality.
The present Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, was very actively involved as a member of a local authority. She served her time on the management board of the RTC in Athlone and has a practical knowledge of how to effect economies. She is going about her job in a practical way. I stand in support of and in total admiration for the Minister. Her administration is a great change and improvement on that of the previous Minister for Education. We were forced to sack a teacher in Ballyshannon for misconduct over a long period. Having gone through the normal channels of communication with the TUI, my vocational education committee finally decided to sack the teacher. At a TUI conference, the previous Minister for Education was lobbied to reinstate that teacher, in spite of a unanimous decision taken by the Donegal Vocational Education Committee. The Minister reinstated that sacked teacher but I am proud of my vocational education committee who took the Minister to the High Court and succeeded in having that teacher dismissed. The previous Minister for Education had been actively involved in a local authority, in local administration, in a vocational committee or in a management board, she never would have gone over the heads of the vocational education committee and reinstated a dismissed employee. I raise that case in contrast to what Fine Gael Senators said from the Opposition benches today and the stand they took under the previous Administration. Whether this motion is passed or another motion is put down, the people will not be fooled. People are aware that resources are scarce. The Minister for Education is doing Trojan work and has the confidence of the majority of the people.
I will confine myself to the allocated time. Our main speaker Senator Brian O'Shea, is preparing for another motion and is not here at the moment. I support the motion although, in my opinion, it is not broad enough because it is confined to two areas of the educational budget — the RTCs and universities. Unfortunately I will have to confine my comments to the motion. I reject out of hand the amendment in the names of the Fianna Fáil Senators representing the Government point of view because last year when we were discussing education, there was a great outcry from Fianna Fáil for additional expenditure, ignoring completely the words used in this amendment. How can this group have such a radical change of heart within a couple of months? What educational changes have taken place in the meantime? I fail to understand it.
I bow to the views expressed by Senator McGowan because he believes what he says. He was not here last year and was not a party to what went on over an extended period, which created a lot of unrest in schools, among teachers and parent groups about how the Government were approaching an arbitration award. We would have dearly loved to be able to pay that award in full. I want to put it on the record tonight that, in my opinion, that debt has still to be paid whenever the State's finances can meet it. In the discussions on postponing the payment of that award I listened to many comments from Fianna Fáil which contradicted everything said by them and by the Minister last week.
I am sorry the Minister is not present at the moment. It is not her fault because we changed the time for taking this motion from 6.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. As I said, I am sorry she is not present because reading her speech in the Official Report would lead one to believe we were talking about two different problems. If one were to believe everything that was said last week one would believe there were no cutbacks and no problems in the area of education, in the student-teacher ratio, in the building programme for RTC colleges and so on.
This is what we were led to believe and the Minister in her own special way admonished everybody this side of the House and waved her hand, saying "This is my speech and I believe it and I am going to say it". Senator Murphy was prompted into responding "Well, obviously we are all misled so there is nothing at all wrong." All the experts in this House engaged in the whole process of education at third level particularly — that is what this motion deals with — and all the people dealing with education and the process of education at that level are convinced that there are problems. We would want to agree on some formula to arrive at the total truth of the implications of this year's budget vis-á-vis education irrespective of what the Minister says about the budget estimate or about the allocations not creating problems.
From my experience — it is limited in this field and I want to be honest with the Minister in that, I am not an expert — listening to parents and teachers there are problems and there will be problems following this year's budget allocation. I know that my own party have had to hold a press conference to bring to the notice of the public the fact that there are problems and will be problems in this year's educational Estimate. There is no doubt that it will create problems in the delivery of what was and is considered by all of us to be one of the most important areas of social services — the delivery of education. There is no doubt that there will be unemployment created among temporary teachers because wholesale layoffs of temporary teachers will follow on the budget. It is inevitable that teacher managements and group managements will be unable to live within the budget that is already announced. We are waiting still to hear the intricate details from the Minister as to how these will effect any of the areas mentioned in the motion.
The quality of third level education will be affected. There is no doubt about it but if you reduce the student-teacher ratio — and all of us would have liked to see a continuing improvement in that area — third level education will suffer. The essential building programme that has been disappointing, to say the least, and I want to be charitable to the Minister, is postponed. She said last week, and I have to accept what she says, that there is a precess of review or recapping on the projects that were already approved by the previous Government and Opposition Deputies who are now Ministers.
I specifically interjected last week to remind the Minister for the new RTC college which was approved by Government for Thurles to serve the County of Tipperary, north and south. There was total agreement between the VECs in the South Riding and North Riding, and agreement of all the industrialists as to the need for third level education in County Tipperary. That college has now been put on the long finger after eight years of discussions, negotiations and review by this Government, the last Government and the preceding Government. One of the now Ministers who comes from that constituency expressed the wildest concern last year when there was some hold-up in the actual acquisition of the site. As a Minister, as part of a Government now, he is in agreement that the whole thing should be postponed, despite the fact that we have bought the site and have planning permission. We had gone down the road as far as the specification of accommodation. That project has the total support of all the interested people in County Tipperary and that includes Government representatives on the VEC committees. I am not being political; I am just being factual. That is what the situation is like and for Senator McGowan, Senator Mullooly or the Minister to say that that does not create problems, is understating the case, to be charitable. There is a responsibility on this Government to cease this stop-go manoeuvring in areas of the provision of third level institutions which have been approved and on which considerable public expenditure has already taken place. That is unfair to the people and to students who had hoped to be able to be educated at that level within their own county and not to be forced to go to Waterford or Carlow and create demands on the services there that they are unable to deliver to their own pupils.
It is not unfair to say in a motion that the budget Estimate will stop these programmes. It is stopping them and the Government have announced that they are stopping them. Perhaps the Minister says one thing one day and something else another day. But eventually there is no doubt that the highly qualified young people who are essential to the future development of this country will suffer — the numbers will suffer. The economic consequences of that will have repercussions for this Government and for the future of the State.
The amendment is unreasonable on the basis that it is not in line with the facts. It specifically talks about the percentage increase on the 1986 figures. No account has been taken of increased costs in education and there are increased costs. There are increased salary costs and other such commitments that were given to teachers' organisations and teachers' unions by the Government. God knows, they gave them even further consideration when they were in opposition; they promised the sun, moon and stars. The knew the promises could not be kept and now with a small fractional increase on last year's Estimate they state that there is an increase on the overall allocation. Of course, there is not. There is a reduction in real terms if you take into account the problems that have arisen with the increased costs in areas over which this House and indeed the Minister at times have no control. These are statutory demands. The amendment is unreasonable. The motion is not wide enough and I would have hoped that it would have covered the whole area of educational allocation from this Government.
Senator Norris, in fairness, Senator Fallon comes now and you follow Senator Fallon.
Naturally, I will be brief. Ten minutes is the allocated time and I would like to add my support to the amendment which has been put forward by our group. Despite what the previous speaker has said, it is a realistic and truthful assessment of the situation and one that will lay the foundation for a better educational service for the future. Both the motion and the amendment have in some way a common denominator; both are suggesting that there is a need for controlling public spending. It is right and proper that we should all be of that mind and it should be spelt out that not just in the field of education are we saying that, but that in the area of health and other areas of Government there is a need to control public spending. You cannot unfortunately, control public spending without having some form of rationalisation or some form of economy. That is happening and will happen in education, too. Every area of Government needs rationalisation. In an era of cutback, education is no exception. If cuts are to come, I cannot see why university lecturers and professors or RTC lecturers should be excluded. Among health board employees, local authority employees, with companies like Waterford Glass and Guinness, right across the board, this situation must prevail. Everybody should be prepared to play ball, not just in the area of teachers, professors or lecturers but in the running costs of the universities and RTCs.
We cannot forget, in regard to RTCs and to the universities, that the State continues to fund in a very real way the fees and maintenance costs of so many of our students, students who have not the means, who are good students and who qualify on a four honour basis. They are being funded in a very practical and a very large way by the Exchequer. In my own county alone, Westmeath, for this year we have received almost 200 applications for higher education grants. The numbers for RTCs will be equal if not more and that, when it is worked out, will involve a massive injection of fees and maintenance costs for students who want to attend the RTCs and universities.
We should all be striving for economies. There would be very little unemployment if strict management in our schools, colleges and institutions were adhered to. We should be looking for ways of creating economies in different areas. I cannot help feeling that students at, say, university and RTCs, their teachers and management boards should be endeavouring to create a better environment for self-study and research with the obvious consequences of a lesser emphasis on instruction. In large educational establishments great savings can be made also on duplication in various departments in the area of equipment and of computers. That is a reasonable request that ought to be examined. The teachers' unions should be alive and helping in this critical economic time. They should recommend to their members that they cut back on field trips and overseas trips which seem to be a feature of life for teachers at RTCs and universities and which of course are costing the Exchequer a great deal of money.
Adult education was referred to in this debate last week. I welcome the recent statement by the Minister. I want to make it quite clear that my views so far as adult education is concerned have not changed in the last two, three or four years. I have always felt that taxpayers should not have to pay for hobby and leisure type courses. In Westmeath VEC for example, over the years we have had courses such as "how to play better golf" and "how to know your car engine better". These type of courses are typical of the adult education courses that have been run during the past number of years. Of course there was nothing wrong with them in what one might call the good days. If there was a demand for a particular course it was put on. In almost every case these courses were pursued by people with good jobs who could afford to pay for this facility. The courses should never be subsidised by the Irish taxpayer. I have made this comment before. On the other hand I would welcome an increase in funding for the literacy and community education. As we all know, this type of education is pursued in the main by people who are on low incomes, or who may be depending on social welfare and should not be part of the self-financing concept of adult education.
The motion as it appears on the Order Paper almost suggests that the Department of Education have a role in propping up the building industry. We all know what the Minister, when she came into office, discovered early on that whatever money might be available for the building of extensions and in particular, new schools in the primary sector for the year ahead was all committed as far back as January. Another point worth mentioning is that it is a reality that student numbers in post-primary schools will fall by 15 per cent by 1991. Obviously, the fall will continue. The obvious question then is why build extra facilities if this is the case? Is it right to continue with this attitude knowing that there will be a reduction in the number of students attending post-primary schools in the future? It is right that the Minister and her Department should sit back and examine the position before we get involved in the spending of millions of pounds on buildings which in years to come might not be required.
Third level institutions should look to the EC for funding for the new technology courses and equipment that is coming on stream. Greater emphasis should be placed on incentives for entrepreneurial type courses in RTCs and universities so that employment could be increased. More jobs could be created in the manufacturing sector if entrepreneurial skills became part and parcel of university and RTC courses.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Francis Fahey, to our debate and I congratulate the Minister for Education on her appointment. I am very happy and proud that a colleague of mine from Athlone is Minister for Education. Whatever the Opposition may say, the Minister, as a former teacher, as a past chairman of a board of management of an RTC and as a past member and chairman of the Westmeath VEC has a practical outlook in regard to education. She is well equipped to deal with the very real problems that are now cropping up in the area of education. She is taking courageous steps and decisions to ensure that education for the future is kept at as high a level as possible.
I am sure you, a Chathaoirligh, will not find it inappropriate if before I begin my speech I pay respect to the memory of a man who was a great educationist, an ecumenist and a tireless worker for peace and reconciliation on this island. I refer to the former Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland in the Church of Ireland tradition, the most Reverend Dr. John Armstrong, of whose death I learned with great sadness this morning.
I would like to congratulate the Minister on her appointment. She has the qualities of sensitivity, caring and understanding of the teaching profession which are necessary for somebody discharging this onerous responsibility particularly at a time of financial stringency. I am aware of the Minister's special qualifications both as a mother and as somebody with a distinguished background in teaching.
I acknowledge the financial difficulties in which the country finds itself but I believe that these are recognised and clearly stated in the motion put down in the name of the Independent Senators. I feel strongly, however, that despite the fact that cuts are necessary in certain areas to put the country back once again into the advantageous position, financially speaking, that we all wish to see it in, those cuts must be made prudently and the Government, before embarking on a policy of cutbacks, must make clear the principles that decide such cuts in every area.
I have spoken on the health cuts and on many areas in which the Government are currently retrenching but I have never opposed the policy of saving money. What I have tried to make clear in everything I have said is that it is important that the principles should be clearly decided on and clearly stated before such cuts are implemented if they are not to prejudice our future. I am sure that this is the last thing that the Government, the Minister or the Minister of State intend. I am grateful to my colleagues in the university with whom I have consulted widely in the preparation of this speech. I have received help from a distinguished colleague, Dr. Vincent McBrierty and it is my intention to quote some figures which I believe to be unchallengeable. Universities have not indulged in the historic budgetary over-runs experienced in other sectors of public spending. Furthermore, in Trinity College there has been sustained improvement in cost effectiveness in recent years through the deployment of staff into developing growth areas and in the increase in student numbers in college without any comparable increase in staff. In other words, we know what productivity is all about, because, without receiving any productivity bonuses, we are implementing precisely this desirable aim. Student numbers in Trinity have increased from 6,600 in 1981 to a current complement of 7,500 in 1986 which represents an increase of 14 per cent. In the same period staff numbers have increased by only 3 per cent and that 3 per cent has been largely due to the assimilation of personnel associated with new activities such as physiotherapy which are being transferred to college.
I listened with interest to what Senator Fallon had to say about people improving their golfing and these marginal interests. Our universities have not taken on anything like that kind of responsibility. We have confined ourselves to areas which have some very clear and definable social practical application. Over a similar period to that to which I have referred, the State contribution to the college budget has fallen. It fell from 81 per cent in 1981 to 64 per cent in 1986. Income from student fees has doubled from 11 per cent to 22 per cent while contract research earnings have increased fivefold. The annual cost to the State to educate a student in TCD is only about 60 per cent of the comparability cost for a student attending one of the British universities. I include in that a university such as Queens University, Belfast, which is not administered from Dublin but which is part of the general university context on this island. It is clear from these incontestible figures that the Government, and the people, are making an appropriate investment. They are getting very good value out of the third level institutions so there is very little fat to prune back.
I would also like to express my shock and disappointment that the Minister's speech did not find room to refer to the University of Dublin, Trinity College, which I have the honour to represent. We heard a great deal about the Regional Technical College in Athlone, the NIHE, UCD, UCC and UCG which are all splendid institutions. I know most of them. I have lectured in many of them, but I find it astonishing that the University of Dublin, which is the oldest institution — I suppose it might be considered contentious of me to allege that it is the most prestigious third level institution——
Control yourself now.
——but it has a long distinguished tradition in which we all share. The people are proud of the institution I represent and consider it in a very special way to be a national institution.
Further fee increases are not the right approach to meet the current difficulties. I hope I have demonstrated that the universities are good housekeepers. It is vital to preserve the right of access for citizens to third level education. I understood that we were a Republic, that we wished to cherish all the people of the nation equally. I am distressed that in regard to the right of access to third level institutions of people — I deprecate these terms, but to use shorthand because I must keep my eye on the clock — I must call the working classes, they are being afforded less and less opportunity to attend the university which I, for example, have had the privilege of attending. The universities when I was an undergraduate were very clearly places of social and intellectual privilege. This had begun to change. There was a clear commitment on the part of all Governments that access to third level education should be made as widely available as possible. We are once again in a tragic situation where people drawn from the working class, the less socially advantaged areas, are dwindling instead of increasing in numbers and there is enormous pressure on university places. There were 14,000 valid course applications to Trinity College in the last year for 1,200 places. That shows the pressure there is on the universities as a resource. Education was already heavily cut in the proposed Fine Gael budget. Further cuts were introduced by the incoming Fianna Fáil Government. These cuts were further entrenched by the announcement of an intention to cut staff numbers. The Government want cuts of 1 per cent this year and 3 per cent next year, and what about 1988 when the really serious damage will be done? As I understand it, universities have been instructed to reduce staff numbers by 3 per cent.
It appears that the only way the Government will be convinced that they are getting good value is if they begin to see jobs disappearing. That produces serious problems. We are talking about cuts of about 9 per cent in staffing as I calculate it. I understand also that replacements — the Minister confirmed this in her speech — are now only to be made with the approval of the Minister for Finance on the advice of the Minister for Education. I can put this in perspective, as I am one of the people involved through the constitution of the university, in the appointment of the professor of Irish and I understand that the chair of Irish in Trinity College, Dublin, may be frozen, a chair founded in 1840, the oldest such chair in these islands.
I turn to what I regard as the most important element in this debate, that is, the Dublin Dental Hospital. I regard it as important from the point of view not just of the university but of the city of Dublin. I regret that the Minister made no mention of the University of Dublin in her speech but I welcome the fact that she did not announce any cutback of funding for this highly important development which is essential for the wellbeing of university life in the capital city and essential to the provision of adequate health services for the largest concentration of population in the island. I am sure that this coyness of the Minister indicates tacit approval for this scheme.
The Minister is unquestionably aware that Trinity College is about to celebrate the 400th anniversary of its foundation. It would be unthinkable morally and politically for any Government to contemplate cancelling the first major capital programme for many decades in the University of Dublin, a programme approved by Government and budgeted for in budgets that had gone through both this Administration and the previous one. Three million pounds of public money has been spent on preparing the site. I am sure there is no intention to jeopardise this. In a previous speech I referred to the knock-on effect whereby the College of Pharmacy which has been incorporated in Trinity College has been pressed to increase the number of qualified graduates from its present level of 50 per year, which is the maximum it can do with this site in Ballsbridge, to 70 per year by the pharmaceutical professions, and it would be an extraordinarily absurd situation where the Government acknowledge that unemployment is one of the most serious problems confronting the State, if they were to turn their faces against this kind of clearly productive development.
While I accept the necessity for what I have described as good housekeeping in educational terms, it is demonstrable that in terms of third level education generally, and particularly in terms of my own college, this requirement has been met, but there is also a necessity to maintain in third level institutions the capacity to innovate and to maintain the development of new subjects such as biotechnology and computing sciences.
The Senator's time is up.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for her usual gracious ruling. May I put one quotation on the record from the OECD report on Innovation Policy in Ireland? It clearly accepts, as we all accept — and I do not wish to be contentious with the Government party on this — that there is a necessity for retrenchment. Having acknowledged that, it makes this point which I ask the Government to bear particularly in mind. The imposition of uniform recruitment policy across the whole public sector has resulted in some unfortunate distortions in the development of key technological support institutions in Ireland. This refers particularly to the Dublin Dental Hospital.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on the way in which she has handled the education situation. She is not afraid to go out and meet the teachers and the people to discuss with them and explain the serious situation that we are in financially. Everybody says there is a need for better housekeeping but that it should not be taken from their table; it should be taken from somebody else's.
The motion states that the cutbacks will create unemployment and forced emigration of highly qualified personnel. We have had free education for the past 20 years and it is time our professionals took a hard look to see what have they achieved after 20 years. A lot of money was spent and many schools were build. If education was the answer to our problems we should have no unemployment today. Certainly I thought that would be the case 20 years ago when we were embarking on this project of providing more education, just as I thought when we embarked on the health policies that we would have no sick people. After 20 years we have more sick people in our society, more hospitals filled and more and more waiting lists. The products of our last 20 years are ending up in the courts and jails today, and there are far more people unemployed. What has education done? Have we been serious about education? I am saddened at the millions and millions of pounds spent on education and what is the end product? All the professionals will have to ask themselves have they been on the right road, or on the road of squander-mania, of just doing a job and not giving a damn about the consequences.
I am a product of a small vocational school and a large percentage of pupils from that school, which is in a rural village, are employed today. Ten of those graduates from the vocational school have 120 people employed and contributing to the welfare of the country. What are the products of our big schools doing? We, the workers, have been paying tax since we were fit to stamp a card. When we go for the services of those people we pay taxes to educate, we can pay anything up to £20 for ten minutes consultancy. It is time the ordinary citizen had a look at what he is getting and at what he has got for the vast amounts of money he has put into education. There should be some return from those professional people to the State. Instead we pay to educate them and then we have to pay dearly for the services they provide. What is the ordinary man in the street getting? This will have to be looked at seriously as I do not believe we have been getting value for money. I am convinced that the Minister is taking a hard look at the situation. The whole teaching profession — and I had experience of this in the health boards with the health cuts — is more concerned with self-preservation which is the motivation.
Does the Senator believe that?
Senator Farrell without interruption.
I certainly do. It is not the higher motive we expect. As an ordinary layman I feel——
Untrue.
——that we should be looking up to men like the Senator and his people and that they should be setting a lead and an example, but, unfortunately, this is not so today. For many years in my innocence I thought everyone who came out of a university was a little god or goddess in his or her own right and there for our whole and sole good use and benefit. I have not got the same regard for them today and I am disappointed. We will have to talk about higher motives than self-preservation for the base motive of getting a week's wages. You must be productive, you must show value for money and, unfortunately — the ordinary Sean Citizens whom I represent — the majority of the people are not getting value for money. We must give them value for money because we are in an age when we can no longer live on nice high-falutin' highly-elevated phrases. We have to think of the facts. What is the end product? What has our educational system given us after 20 years, which is a long time? We must examine this very harshly. If any other business organisation had that disastrous result after 20 years, it would not be in existence. We cannot continue to prop up a system that has been taking quite a lot of money and not putting back into the economy anything like what it should.
I agree with Senator McGowan on the question of travelling expenses. I know a little about that. There were courses in the vocational school in Grange and I asked what they cost. We had professors driving all the way from University College, Galway, to talk for ten or 15 minutes. In my innocence, I thought that people went to those places to learn something. The professor came and read a paper. He could have put it on a taperecorder and it would have been the same. What was the cost of that? I can assure Senators that the students who stood there for ten minutes listening to him were no wiser or better. This is the squander-mania we have to come to grips with. We cannot have professors going around the country giving lectures which amount to reading a paper for ten or 15 minutes. Those are the problems I see as a graduate of a small vocational school.
The Minister is going the right way about education. She is having a proper review of the whole system carried out which will be telling and the result will be that we will have a better system.
At the beginning of the year everybody was concerned with the health cuts. You would have thought that every hospital was to be closed and that we would have many people dying because of neglect. We are well through the year now and there are no ill effects. Hospitals are working and I have no doubt that the schools will also work. In my own area we have no problems.
How can the hospitals work if they are closed?
I have no complaints from patients.
I have.
I know there will be no complaints from the schools either, as they are doing a good job. The Minister came into office at a time when, as Senator McGowan said, we were like the pub with no beer. Thank God today there is an air of prosperity in the country. Everybody, including the bankers and the business people, sees a glimmer of hope on the horizon. We will get our finances right. The Government are doing a fantastic job in this respect. The House knows that.
I always give an example of a Galwayman living beside me who, when he left University College, Galway, got his first job in Sligo building a new bridge. He designed it under the guidance of the then county engineer. Twenty five years later when that man had years of experience, we had to build a bridge in Grange but he was not considered good enough and we had to get consultants. The bridge was built across the river at an angle and we have spent a fortune trying to change fences to make the bridge appear straight. The consultants and I are well known for our great admiration for each other — and experts in particular.
Bridging the gap.
I support the amendment and I am quite convinced that at the end of the year we will have a much better educational system and that there will be no adverse effects and no problems. The Minister is doing a great job.
Is mian liomsa ar dtús fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach seo. In an important international report recently published entitled "Innovation Policy, Ireland" the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development stated:
Modern development relies more and more on investment in brains rather than investment in fixed assets.
It is in the context of that independent and objective report that I wish to support the motion here condemning the education cuts of this Fianna Fáil Administration and to also condemn and deplore the dismal performance of the present Minister for Education and the Fianna Fáil Government. No one person and no political party ever promised so much in the field of Irish education as did Deputy O'Rourke and Fianna Fáil in Opposition. No Minister and no Government have ever so totally reneged and so comprehensively failed to deliver on those promises as Deputy O'Rourke and Fianna Fáil in Government, a Minister whose dismal failure is sad for Irish education, sad for students, teachers, parents and management. For all these groups were assured by Deputy O'Rourke, by the present Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and by Fianna Fáil — and I am sure Senator Farrell and Senator McGowan were included in their midst in the heady weeks and months leading up to the general election in February 1987 — that "education was special", that the limited Fine Gael cuts were devastating and that they could not be contemplated and would not be tolerated. This was the Minister who for four and a half years as education spokesperson for Fianna Fáil opposed all and every measure, whether reasonable or not, taken by Fine Gael Ministers to improve the efficiency and logic of educational spending. She called for more spending in every area of the educational sector. Never I believe was there such a betrayal of trust and never was there such a cynical misuse of democracy as the performance of Fianna Fáil before and after the general election in February 1987.
All these fine notions, as Senator Farrell has indicated, are punctured and all these rosy promises are to be abandoned by this Minister and this Government as they endeavour to conceal the real impact of these cuts with their bland and continual waffling. The biggest cuts, as indicated by the university Senators, pay and non-pay in the vocational, community and comprehensive schools, in the RTCs and the universities represent a U-turn of staggering proportions. It will tax the ingenuity of all these managements to run their services at present levels, let alone deal with increased numbers. March 31, 1987, budget day, was a black day for Irish students in our educational system, for on that day it was clearly seen that Irish education had no champion at the Cabinet table and that the special protection given to the young people of Ireland and their parents by Fine Gael in Government was caring and resolute. These cuts must be seen in the context, as Senator Norris has indicated, that the third level institutions have not indulged in budgetary over-runs and that there has been a sustained improvement in cost effectiveness in recent years involving increased student numbers without any comparable increase in staff. The cost efficient measures implemented during the squeeze by the previous Government in all third level institutions in recent years reduced very much the margin for manoeuvre in the face of the cuts now proposed for 1987 and 1988.
However, the contribution of our universities and third level institutions tends far beyond the provision of education and training. In particular the support given to the country's strategy for job creation cannot be over emphasised. The provision of an adequate supply of well qualified graduates and the availability of a pool of specialist knowledge among staff who are expert in many areas together with comprehensive R and D support facilities are essential to a healthy climate for investment in job creation in the high technology sector.
The salient conclusion of the OECD report is that it is essential for Ireland to pursue an aggressive innovation policy through "a coherent approach based on an overall vision for the future". That international report recognises that Ireland cannot afford to increase total public expenditure but it warns that "the imposition of uniform recruitment policy across the whole public sector has resulted in some unfortunate distortions in the development of key technological support institutions in Ireland". They recommend that there should be "a deliberate and sustained reorientation of resources towards education, research, development and information" and that the Government should take "a series of measures to improve the climate of innovation and entrepreneurship in this country".
The OECD report specifically recommends: (1) That there should be an increase in the intake of engineering and technology students by 25 per cent per annum over the next five to ten years; (2) That other university studies should be geared to the future needs of a society based upon advanced technology and international trade; (3) In developing the third level of education, inspiration could be obtained from the curricula of the NIHEs; (4) There is a need for expanding the quality of technicians and skilled workers educated in the regional technical colleges and for continuous upgrading of the courses offered in this regard.
How have the Minister for Education and the Fianna Fáil Government responded to these recommendations? Not only have they implemented the limited Fine Gael cuts contained in the Fine Gael budget, but a further £11 million has been chopped off education and the current vote to the Higher Education Authority has been reduced by over £4.5 million for the 1987 calendar year.
In conclusion, therefore, it must be recognised that we have a fundamental responsibility to meet as far as possible the aspirations of our young people who seek high quality third level education. Public expenditure has to be controlled, but in a manner that takes due account of long term consequences. Short term expediency is particularly unwise and difficult to implement in the area of third level education where commitments have been given to students in respect of courses which span several years and which cannot be abandoned in midstream. Academic staff have traditionally enjoyed tenured employment and in this regard it must be recognised that we compete in an international market for academic third level staff. Any further deterioration in the conditions of employment below those of other countries or the private sector would, coupled with the relatively low salary scales, be a formula for mediocrity. The proposed cuts would adversely affect our industrial strategy of job creation in knowledge based industries and make it impossible to implement the recommendations of the OECD report relating to the steps required to ensure this nation's future viability.
It has been recognised for some time in the universities and in the other third level institutions that the State's contribution cannot be expected to increase year after year. Many novel and innovative means have been devised to obtain funds from other sources with much success. This process should be allowed to run smoothly without the imposition of arbitrary and short term interventions.
I, therefore, support this motion and I reject the amendment.
The motion before us condemns the arbitrary nature of the decision to cut back the funding to RTCs and universities. When we talk about the 4 per cent reduction in the staff allocation to universities and regional colleges we need to examine the full implications of that reduction. It is much worse than it appears on first examination. The worst aspect of it is that it fails to take cognisance of the fact that the financial year and the academic year are different. The financial year is from January to December while the academic year is from September to August. The academic year straddles two financial years. A 1 per cent cutback has to be effected in the staff allocations between September 1987 and December 1987 but the courses which begin in September 1987 will have to last for the academic year 1987-88. In 1988 a cutback of 3 per cent has to be effected. The courses begun in 1987 will require the same level of staffing and will have the same student numbers throughout the academic year 1987-88. The problem that arises here is that the cuts for 1987 will then of necessity be greater than 1 per cent and in the 1988 financial year there will be a further cut of 3 per cent. One is compelled to ask what genius in the Department dreamt up this piece of muddled retrenchment which is presenting horrendous problems for management.
In the case of regional colleges a very fundamental question must be asked. Where there is a very large proportion of courses in regional technical colleges that are funded by the European Social Fund, why are the Government cutting back? The same applies to the vocational education committee schools and colleges where again there is a considerable contribution from Europe. Why therefore, is this area being so drastically cut when it is a sector which attracts considerable finance from outside the State?
The Labour Party are very concerned about one basic issue and that is access to third level education. The Clancy Report on participation in higher education shows that in 1980 1.2 per cent of entrants to higher education came from the unskilled manual worker group and 2.7 per cent from the semi-skilled manual worker group. These stark figures are further compounded when we take regional factors into consideration. The higher education annual report 1984-85 indicated that in the matter of degree courses in Waterford city and county 523 students were participating. This represents 6½ per cent of the appropriate age group. For instance, the figure in Cork city and county was 4,330 which represents 12½ per cent of the appropriate age group.
There is a grim reality in these figures. In Cork city and county a student has twice the chance of participating in a third level degree course than a student in Waterford city or county would have. The whole south eastern region, which includes Counties Kilkenny, South Tipperary, Carlow and Wexford as well as Waterford, had a total of 2,300 students taking third level degree courses. The population of the south eastern region is roughly the same as that in Cork city and county, yet Cork city and county would have almost twice the number of students. The Clancy report demonstrates the appallingly low level of students from the semiskilled and unskilled groups participating in degree courses. The figures from the higher education annual report 1984-85 demonstrate that proximity to a university also influences the participation rate in degree courses.
The Minister indicated in her speech that third level scholarships and the income level applying to them were being increased in line with inflation. Of course, this is very much to be welcomed but I must state most emphatically that the income limits are much too low. Another factor to be taken into consideration is that there is now no child allowance under the tax code. With the very high level of taxes in this country the difference between gross and net income is immense. I suggest that the Minister make every effort to get income limits to a more realistic level. Indeed, net income figures should be the yardstick to resolve this problem.
A case in my area illustrates a fundamental flaw as regards access. I came across a student who did not gain two honours in his leaving certificate but obtained a place on a national certificate course at an RTC. For the first two years of the course when he was taking his certificate he was allowed a European Social Fund grant which is not means tested. Having passed with distinction, which is the highest of four grades, at the end of two years he could not qualify for a grant from the VEC because he had not got two honours in his leaving certificate, yet a student who would have been three levels below him in attainment but who had got two honours in the leaving certificate could qualify for this grant. The tragedy of this case was that the boy's father was unemployed.
The Minister told us in the House not so long ago that 60 national school building projects are ready to go to tender. This year there was a 10 per cent cut in allocation for national school building, and on present trends, it will take eight years to cover all the schools. There is also what I must speak about as a cutback in adult education. It seems that the message is that there is no hope for the hopeless. The national adult literacy agency reported that there are about 4,000 illiterate people in our country yet this sector of our population have been abandoned to a large extent by the Government with the grant in the adult education area being reduced by 20 per cent, form £50,000 to £40,000. The Minister, when she spoke on this motion last week, made a lot of play with the fact that there had been consultations with vocational education committees, CEOs and so on. My information is that they were invited to her office, told what they were getting, treated to one of her charming smiles and then told to be on their way. I would hardly consider that consultation. In conclusion, I support the motion.
I support the amendment. Everyone recognises that the country is faced at the moment with one of the most serious economic problems of our time. I do not have to elaborate on the problem of unemployment and the need to take the necessary measures to redress that situation and to create a climate in which we can set about reducing the unemployment numbers, one-third of which represent people under 25 years of age. We all appreciate that in order to reduce the national debt there must be a substantial reduction in public spending.
The Government have set about that task since coming into office, recognising that unless the problems of the balances in the public finances are resolved there will be continuing and increasing problems for the economy. However, the Government are at pains to ensure that none of the measures which they have taken in the education area will affect entry to education or educational opportunities. This year, they are spending 17.2 per cent of their total expenditure on education.
The growth of the universities and other third level institutions in recent times has been great. This contribution, particularly in the third level VEC sector, has been enormous and will continue to expand and develop. This is a tribute to the excellence and the relevance of the courses they provide. I am convinced that these colleges will continue to provide and develop an outstanding service to the overall educational sector. As I have stated, the intention of the Government is that there will be no discrimination in service to students. The improvement in the overall economic situation is of vital interest to the third level institutions in order to provide a future for the large numbers of highly educated students who pass through these institutions.
A major development in recent times has been the very close links created between third level education centres and industry and, in particular, the development of incubator units and specialised research and development centres. This is a development which I hope will continue to expand, recognising the contribution third level institutions can make to industry in terms of technology, management, marketing and product development. It is extremely important that, with huge technological changes taking place at such a rapid pace, the opportunity is afforded to industrialists to update and refresh their qualifications.
I am pleased that a task force has been established by the Department to examine admission procedures to third level colleges and to make recommendations on how best the present system can be improved because of the confusion and difficulty it causes to parents and to students seeking third level places. The task force will also investigate the administration of grants and scholarships and this is also to be welcomed.
I support the amendment put down by our party. Restrictions are being made rather than cuts. I believe, as is the case in the health system, there have been no cuts. There has been a 1 per cent increase in our total health allocation and a 6 per cent increase in our educational funding for the year. In fairness to the Opposition and the people who put down this motion, to a certain extent it is rather divisive. At the moment it is a good strategy for an Opposition party to put down motions like this and to say that the Government are dealing with the matter in the wrong way.
In conclusion, I wish to say something which does not have much to do with education but in a way it is related. We all wish Stephen Roche the best of Irish luck in the Tour de France and I hope he wins it.
I agree with the last remarks of Senator Fitzgerald whatever about anything else he said. The basic problem about the debate on cutbacks is that it is centred on a whole series of basic, fundamental, factual errors and unproven assumptions. The first error is the presumption that cutbacks are necessary because we are giving ourselves too much in the way of public services. If the cost of servicing our debt is deducted from the entire Government expenditure, what is actually left over is quite a substantial surplus in Government revenue. Without our debts we could improve the services we currently have and still reduce taxes. At present there is surplus Government revenue of £900 million when debt servicing is removed from it. The idea that we are living in a luxury of excessively expensive services beyond our capacity to pay for them is only true because of the state of the national debt, not because the quality of services is so high.
The trouble, of course, is that the banks cannot and will not wait for their money and therefore everything else must wait. Effectively, what we have is Fianna Fáil, the banker's party. However, if we are coerced by the banks, then clearly cutbacks are inevitable and the only way to avert such cutbacks is by a fundamental change in economic policy. Cutbacks which are dictated by banks, stock exchanges, financial markets, etc. are not the sort that affect banks, stock markets, financial markets etc. The sort of cutbacks that will be made will be those which will put up the price of some item or increase its scarcity and in that way produce a higher price. Of course bankers, stock brokers, etc. can afford to pay higher prices. In fact, higher prices have a certain attraction for them because they limit demand and therefore increase access for themselves and their children, to services, whether they are health, education etc. which were in recent times tending to be overpopulated by what would be to them less acceptable elements of our population.
As always it will be the poor who will suffer as a result of such a policy. It is important to say that, notwithstanding the posturing, what is being done by the Government has the full support of Fine Gael and of the Progressive Democrats. Indeed, it is difficult to be certain which represents the greater hypocrisy, the U-turn by Fianna Fáil not only on their election manifesto but on their traditional policies, or the pretence of the two major Opposition parties in the Dáil and the one major Opposition party here that somehow they would have done differently. They are all at one in thinking that public expenditure must be curtailed, whatever the price.
The final inanity in all of this is that, when you come to an area like third level education, you have the pronouncement that these cutbacks will lead to higher economic growth. I cannot help wondering who in God's name is going to work in all the new high technology industries that are supposed to spring out of this new era of financial austerity when what we are going to produce are undertrained, under-funded and under-qualified graduates.
Now is the time for an increase in expenditure in all the areas of third level education related to our future economic development in innovation, imagination, creativity, research and in developments in the quality of teaching if we want to develop into what the Taoiseach has often described as a high wage, high production economy. We are trying to turn ourselves back into a low wage, low cost model of South East Asia. This cannot be done and we must recognise that what is being done in third level education today is directly in contradiction of the expressed economic policies of the Government.
The Minister's reply, even by the standards of ministerial replies, was infuriating. It was, perhaps, most infuriating in its lack of specifics, the pretence that there were no cutbacks when anybody who works in a third level education institution knows that there were. That does not contribute to proper political debate, no more than does the idiotic utterances of Senator Farrell. I do not propose to reply to the speech other than to say that the logic of Senator Farrell's position is that we should close down the schools, close down the hospitals that then we would be better educated and healthier. That was his logic, not mine, I regret that Fianna Fáil have reduced themselves to that.
I am not sure what Senator Ryan meant but he has more than a vested interest in the field of education. He has a vested interest in ensuring that both his position and the position of those who are employed, rather than those who are being educated, are protected.
The decision of the Government to examine all levels of education was not an arbitrary one. Unless we have a reasonable look at the services being offered in every sector of the economy, unfortunately, what is happening at present will only be the tip of the iceberg. As has been said, the ship of State was heading towards a watery gravy unless changes were made, changes which are unpalatable to many people but which were necessary. In spite of our very difficult financial situation, the allocation for the educational services this year is more than 11 per cent greater than the 1986 outturn. The health services cutbacks, for instance, were not in relation to the outturn but in relation to the Estimates. Therefore, the cutback in education has not been as harsh as those in other areas. We are talking about the need for rationalisation. There is no doubt in the minds of those who have children going through any level of the education system, that the cost of education at third level is too high. Nevertheless, young people are getting a level of education which is superior to that in any other country.
Within the educational system there is a need for discussion and for rationalisation. I am not sure if additional funding is the correct way of having a proper educational system which is relevant to our young people who are supposedly being educated for work. The educational system needs to change when the world changes. A number of people in academia have lived and worked a little bit away from the realities of Irish life and are educating people in the wrong area. That is not their fault, it is the fault of the educational system.
Additional funding for third level education at this stage could only be secured at the expense of first and second level education which, I am sure Senators would agree, would be highly undesirable. Even as matters stand, the total allocation for recurrent expenditure in the third level sector in the present year is 5.6 per cent greater than the 1986 Estimate. In spite of this, the motion sets down supposed consequences arising from the present level of funding third level education which I can only describe as alarmist and quite unfounded.
The Minister dealt in detail with these matters and there is no point in going through them again. The reality is that there have to be cutbacks although the stock market seems to be taking a bullish attitude towards what is happening at present when one sees a share which was 55 pence the day before yesterday ending up at £6.25 today. There must be a certain amount of confidence in what the Government are doing. Some areas need funding, obviously there are funds available and it is a pity that the people who are making a lot of money in the Stock Exchange do not put some of it into education.
The Government, according to the people, are going in the right direction and will continue to provide the required level of education. There is a need for computer-aided learning methods for distance education teaching and changes must be made. The Government are looking at all these areas and I guarantee that as a result of the 5.6 per cent increase in allocations, the educational system will be better off.
It is coming to the end of the debate on this motion and the time allocated to speakers has been shrinking. Therefore, I will be brief to allow other contributors, including the Minister, to come in before the debate concludes.
The motion has focused on third level education and the effects of Government cutbacks on that sector but similar and equally serious implications arise at primary and second level education and I hope that we will have an early opportunity to debate those sectors in this House. The debate is not a waste of time, notwithstanding that it may not hit the headlines tomorrow and notwithstanding that, to my regret, although the Minister is here and has obviously been listening with interest, there are no advisers present. It is unusual to have no advisers present, who ultimately have a significant role in relation to policy but I hope they will look at the contributions both of the last occasion and of this evening because there have been some very interesting recurring themes.
A recurring theme of many contributors to the debate sought to emphasise the need to broaden access to third level education. We still cannot be happy about the limited, unfair and discriminatory access to third level education, notwithstanding our problems and the exigencies of the public expenditure crisis. We must broaden access to third level education. We must also support adult education and literacy programmes. In other words, we must have a value priority within the system.
It was a valuable debate because of the recurring themes from those who contributed from the university benches. I regret that the Leader of the House, Senator Lanigan, referred to vested interests. I honestly do not think that that is appropriate in the context of a debate on third level education. It is one of the values of the Seanad that there are university seats and that there are representatives of the university sector. That means that those who contribute have a rather more specialist knowledge, not a vested interest as such, in this particular area. If anyone wants to look at the debate there was some very significant themes from representatives of different colleges and universities. One was that there has not been a large budgetary overrun by universities; another, that Government funding at university level has, in fact, been shrinking and that universities have quite significantly been able to obtain funding from other sources. Universities may be fortunate to some degree in this. Cutting across what universities are trying to do at the moment appears to be an arbitrary curtailment of staffing, a requirement on staff reducing, which frustrates the efforts being made by universities to meet the challenge in the OECD report, to which a number of Senators referred, to be innovative and to expand in certain areas. I would ask the Minister to take into account that one after another the university representatives have emphasised that an overall requirement of staff reduction of one per cent this year, three per cent next year and apparently three per cent the year after, cuts across in an arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and stupid manner, what the universities could do but which would not in any way cut across Government expenditure projections. We need to think about the way in which we develop and curtail expenditure in education in a manner which fits what we can afford to pay. It has to be a very careful process because — and I can speak, as all of my colleagues can speak, on third level education — morale is very low. Unfortunately, that means that those who are most talented and know they can obtain jobs elsewhere may be tempted to go. This is happening, and it will happen more if we are not careful. People are leaving academic life. Those who should be staying in it — in law teaching, an area I know about — are leaving the academic world. That is a very serious loss. This is also reflected in other disciplines.
As I say, time is extremely short and I am not going to take up any more time. This debate has identified a number of issues which the Minister should bear in mind in relation to third level education. I look forward to an early opportunity for a similar debate about primary and second level education. The Seanad has a very important role to play in reflecting on the very difficult situation in which we find ourselves in placing emphasis on the importance of education and in getting the balance right.
I regret that in five minutes I will not have time to give a party political broadcast on behalf of Trinity College, Dublin as Senator Norris had. But I should say one or two things in reply to the debate. First, I and the other university Senators do have a vested interest in the continuation of universities so Senator Lanigan is right to an extent, but I see no shame in that. It is open for everybody to see. What I do resent is the anti-intellectual, anti-university bias that has come from the other side of the House during this debate. I can only conclude that there may have been an element of that in the Minister's speech last week. From what Senator Farrell said this evening, you would think that his great disappointment in the university Senators would lead him to abolish the universities. Maybe that is the position of Fianna Fáil, and perhaps they should say so, but it was certainly the logical conclusion of what he said. Senator McGowan in earlier speeches in this House seemed to think that every university Senator was a professor and that professors were creating a certain amount of trouble. I resent that sort of bias which has crept into this debate.
I had personal difficulties with this motion because I support fully the efforts of the Government to reduce public expenditure as I support fully also their honest efforts to reduce public expenditure, not only in the realm of health but in the realm of education. Those difficulties were solved partially before I signed the motion but after hearing the Minister's speech, I found no difficulty with this at all. The Minister gave us no hope for the future, no concept of what she thought education at third level was about; in fact, her speech could easily have been delivered by the last Minister for Education, Deputy Gemma Hussey. We received, from the Minister a long list of projects in the educational field which were continuing, nearly all of which had started under the previous Government. It was a sort of weak apologia for what she was doing without any justification. The last one is laughable. She said:
In addition to these alterations, essential minor works, such as roof repairs, fire safety works and the installation of security systems, are being carried out in many colleges.
I do not believe the Minister could come before this House and justify her educational policy on the basis of the roof repairs being carried out on certain schools. I would like to have seen a plan for the future, an idea in the Minister's and in Fianna Fáil's minds about what university education was for, and where we were going. I shall have to curtail myself to just talking about one point.
The problem in this motion is how educational establishments at third level are to be funded. The problem is, very briefly, about money. Traditionally, it is fair to say, universities are not very cost conscious. Those involved in the academic world do not think very commercially. I believe it is not impossible that those involved in the academic world and those involved in the commercial world could be reconciled while academic standards are not necessarily being sacrificed. I would ask that commercial criteria be extended to universities. The Government should have put forward a plan for future and present funding of universities which should not have involved the sort of arbitrary costs that we have inflicted upon us. Why could we not have far more overseas students in Trinity College, UCD, UCC, and UCG, all paying the commercial cost of their education? I see nothing wrong with this. I know from experience that there are thousands of people abroad who would be willing to come to the universities here and pay the full commercial cost of their education. They would pay for the privilege. It would be a great asset to those who are educated here to be educated in a more cosmopolitan atmosphere, but it would also increase enormously the funding of universities.
Secondly, the Government should look again at the idea of students being lent money for their education. I know this offends many people with great egalitarian principles but we must recognise that we cannot afford to educate at third level everybody who wants that level of education. We simply do not have those resources. While it is absolutely right that the base of those who are being educated should be broadened, we have got to produce a means of funding it. I suggest that the Government again look at the possibility of lending money to those who cannot fund their education themselves and requiring them to repay it because it is a privilege still to go to university. It is funded by the State and I see nothing wrong with requiring those who are educated at the State's expense to repay this debt to society. We should look at examples like the College of Surgeons which pays for itself — it is funded to the extent of only about £15,000 by the Government and I do not understand why it is funded to that extent because it is so minor. I am disappointed with this debate because I do not see any future plan for education, except for more cuts.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Jospeh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Cregan, Denis.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Murphy and Ross.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.