Education Proposals: Motion.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I move:

Larger classes, less pupil-teacher contact, a worsened pupil-teacher ratio, thousands of redundant teachers, later recognition and diagnosis of learning problems, no prospects for those at present in colleges of education, and a damaged school administration structure being the inevitable and regressive consequences of the Minister for Education's proposals as outlined in Department of Education circular 20/87 are unacceptable to Seanad Éireann which now calls for the immediate withdrawal of the circular.

In moving the motion I would like to read into the record my regret that the Minister for Education has not seen fit to show up here tonight. In a sense these proposals are so indefensible that I do not blame her for not showing up. Perhaps it will at least keep the debate on a more rational level because at present teachers, parents and pupils are absolutely incensed at the total disregard the Minister and the Department have shown for them in the new figures put forward in circular 20/87 from the Department of Education.

Larger classes, less pupil-teacher contact, a worsened pupil-teacher ratio, thousands of redundant teachers, the later recognition and diagnosis of learning problems, no prospects for those in colleges of education and a damaged school administration structure are just some of the inevitable and regressive consequences of the Minister's proposals as outlined in the Department of Education circular 20/87. They are unacceptable and should be unacceptable to the Members of this House who now call for the immediate withdrawal of this circular.

I know that many of my colleagues on the Government side of the House feel as badly about this as I do. Unfortunately, the exigencies of political life will stop them from saying what they would like to say. I will read into the record the effects these proposals will have on the schools in the localities of many of the Fianna Fáil Senators in this House.

It is time people recognised that this is not a decision taken in the cloisters of Dublin. It is a decision which affects every school and every parish in Ireland. That is not to say that every school in Ireland will lose a teacher. One thing that is quite clear from the debates on these cuts is that the Minister does not have a clue what effects these figures will have on the teacher population or the organisation of schools around the country. She does not seem to know where it is at, at present.

The new staffing figures for primary schools are the most diabolical set of proposals that have ever emanated from the Department of Education. They betray the commitment, vision and work undertaken by successive departmental secretaries, departmental ministries and people from all walks of life. Even though the Minister never likes references to be made to her own family I want to include in that list of people her grandfather who did Trojan work in County Clare to improve the pupil-teacher ratio and who worked on behalf of teachers there for years. It is work that we appreciate and I am sure the man would feel disgusted at what is happening at present.

The proposals seem designed to undermine and to destroy the total fabric of Irish primary education. The Minister apparently intends to implement these arrangements from 1 January 1988. When the enormity of these cuts comes to be realised by people everywhere, it will become apparent that the Minister could, in no circumstances, implement them. I ask her now to consider what she is doing and to change her mind.

One of the difficulties with a debate like this is that one can get lost in statistics. I do not intend to do that. I do not intend to read down through the departmental circular but for the benefit of my colleagues in the Seanad I want to give one example. There could be up to 418 pupils in a school which has ten assistants. With ten class teachers under the new arrangements that gives an average of more than 41 pupils in a class. The first thing I want to warn my fellow Senators about is that the average bears no relation to the size of classes. Unfortunately because of the way we operate the same number of kids are not born per year; nor is there the same intake per class per year. An average of 41 pupils means that there will certainly be classes of 45 pupils and over in all schools with ten assistants where the enrolment is over 400 in the foreseeable future. What does that mean in terms of the numbers in classes? It means on average 5.5 extra pupils per class. It means that there could be up to eight extra pupils in classes in schools in the future.

One of the great difficulties teachers have is trying to explain to people what effect the increase in class size has. How does one quantify it? How does one indicate to people what it means? If Senators can remember the last wet Saturday they were at home when their children of primary school age were around the house and they wondered what to do with them, how to keep them quiet, interested or occupied, I can assure them that in primary schools the problem is roughly 13 times worse. That is what it is like. Teachers have no special knack to make it less stressful for them to deal with those kinds of numbers. They do not have any special knack to make that organisational difficulty easier for themselves. Because of the size of classrooms and the condition of many schools this problem is exacerbated.

I want to quantify what the class size means. If a class of 40 pupils is increased to 44 pupils this is a 10 per cent increase in the size of that class. The school year runs for roughly 10 months. A 10 per cent increase in class size is comparable to losing a month at school. It is comparable to holding pupils at home for a full month every year. That is a problem that we and the educational service are faced with. It is the duty of every teacher, parent and elected public representative, especially the people in this House tonight, to resist the implementation of this disastrous plan by the Minister.

The decision to increase the size of the class will mean an absolute drop in quality which will ultimately mean a reduction in the service provided to the pupils. The already over-strained, over-resourced primary educational service will be reduced to chaos. I was prepared until yesterday to resist the temptation to quote anything the Minister had said in Opposition or before that but I think it is important that I should put some things on the record. Regrettably she is not here to defend herself because what she said has implications about the honesty of people in political life. I will let the House be the judge of that.

Over the years the quality of people entering Irish primary education was second to none. In comparison to other European countries there is no doubt that the Irish primary teacher would rank at the top of the league in terms of quality, intellectual capacity and sheer commitment. Scotland and Denmark are the only two countries that could provide a primary teaching service as good as the Irish one. Over the years a huge investment has been made in primary education in terms of the intellectual investment of the members of the primary teaching profession and in terms of the commitment of the same primary teachers who, as Senators will be well aware, never faltered in their commitment at 3 p.m. or whatever time their school closed. They were always prepared to give to their community. There is not a voluntary organisation or political party in this country who have not depended to a large measure on the voluntary contribution, commitment and involvement by the Irish primary teacher in local communities. This has been an intellectual investment and an investment in commitment.

Because of the quality of those people — and I know the Aire Stáit having been reared in the house of one of these people will be well aware of what I am talking about — we have had results which are comparable to results anywhere in Europe. Despite having the most under-resourced, under-financed, over-stretched primary school service in Western Europe we have still managed to produce people of the highest calibre. The investment was the intellectual capacity and the commitment of the teacher. The price we are now paying is worn out wrecks of teachers at the age of 60 and 65 years who are not getting any thanks from the State for a lifetime of commitment, stress and making ends meet.

It is not good enough and it shows grave irresponsibility on the part of the Minister. It is irresponsible and the already over-strained and under-resourced primary education service will be reduced to chaos. It is a clear abnegation of the Minister's responsibility for education. It shows a horrific lack of understanding on the part of the Minister that the primary education service which seeks to serve all the pupils of the State should be singled out for the deepest most swingeing cuts of all. It will have a disastrous effect. It will reduce pupil-teacher contact, make early diagnosis of learning problems almost impossible and devastate what is already the most under-resourced, under-financed and overstretched educational service in Western Europe.

It is difficult to imagine the effect this will have on the learning process. The amount of time a teacher has with individual pupils relates directly to the number of pupils in the school, or in the class, who need some form of remedial teaching, support or help. It is a fact of life. If the teachers cannot spend time with the pupils, that time is lost and those pupils lose out. Therefore, there will be more need in schools for remedial services. Because there will now be larger classes there will be a need for a greater amount of remedial teaching. Because the classes are larger the remedial groups will be bigger. I sense that that sounds contradictory so let me put it this way. In a class of 40 pupils there could be four pupils in need of remedial attention. Because there will now be 44 pupils in a class by applying the same 10 per cent, which is an acceptable percentage of pupils who need remedial attention, that immediately brings it up to an extra person. Because there are more pupils in the class and the teacher has now less time to spend with individual pupils, there will be a greater need than ever for remedial attention for pupils in that class. The number will go up much higher than the 10 per cent that operated heretofore.

I want to give the lie to the question of the disadvantaged. I was sickened listening to the Minister's response day after day and week after week that the disadvantaged would be looked after and would not be hurt. I will refer to that in a few minutes.

The proposals will have severe consequences for young, qualified and fully trained primary teachers. At present there are up to 2,000 fully qualified, fully trained primary teachers available for work but who are without full time jobs. There are now approximately 1,800 student teachers in colleges of education who will come out during the next three years with no prospects and no future in primary education. By implementing these proposals the Minister will create a stock of almost 4,000 fully qualified, fully trained, available primary teachers who are being trained and qualified at great cost to and investment by this State, without any work and with no prospects.

It was noted in the newspapers over the weekend that the primary education qualification is not being recognised in parts of England and Wales. The most ironic comment of all was that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is now seeking recognition of the Irish qualification in Britain. I recalled a statement made by the Minister, Deputy Fahey, some months back when he said politicians in other countries were less helpful to the Irish emigrant than they might be. It puts it in a totally new context when the Minister for Foreign Affairs not only is encouraging people to emigrate but is now going abroad to open the path for them so that they can get out of this country more quickly. We are creating a future without qualified young people.

The Minister for Finance spoke over the weekend about out great stock of young, highly educated and highly qualified people. I do not know whether if the Minister is aware that even in his own constituency those young people are leaving in football teams every week. That is the level of the movement out of the country. It is time it was pointed out to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the rest of the Government, including the Minister for Education that they have a commitment and a responsibility to the youth of Ireland and that they are clearly turning their backs on them. It is totally and completely unacceptable.

The proposals will hit the poor and disadvantaged. I would like at this stage to make it clear how this will happen. The Minister for Education said over the weeks that the disadvantaged quota of teachers would not be hit. I want to explain this to my colleagues. There is a certain staffing ratio for primary schools, the worst in Europe. Certain schools have been designated socio-economically deprived over the years. These have been given an extra number of teachers. What the Minister is saying is that in the main they will not be affected. Therefore, she can say the stock of teachers for the disadvantaged will not be hit. That is untrue. The appointment figures for all schools in disadvantaged areas will be hit hard and teachers will lose their jobs.

I want to give some indication of what I am talking about and mention some of the more deprived areas of Dublin. Last week a survey of all teachers in north County Dublin showed drastic effects from the cutbacks. The survey covered a total of 1,400 teachers in the north county area. I want to stress that this is not a sample survey; it is a total survey. An incredible 179 of these 1,400 teachers will be wasted to the primary education service in north Dublin through the application of the new appointment figures. Applying that result nationally, and assuming a teaching stock of approximately 18,670, there would be a net national loss of 2,400 teachers wasted to the educational service.

The Minister for Education claimed three times over the weekend that these figures were an over-estimation. She was incorrect. On numerous occasions she tripped herself up and contradicted herself by saying that on the one hand there would be only 1,250 jobs lost and, on the other hand, there would be only 13,000 schools affected. I have lists of schools where up to three jobs will be lost. Her figures simply do not stand up. She is totally and absolutely misinformed.

To emphasise my point, a survey has been completed this week in the north city area of Dublin. Every school and enrolment was surveyed. The results from the north city area are slightly worse than those from the north county area. Therefore, in the north Dublin area, north of the river Liffey, where a total of 2,600 teaching jobs were surveyed, it was found that 354 teaching jobs will be wasted to the service. I hope Senators representing those areas will take note of the effect this will have on those areas. If these figures were applied to Dublin as a totality one could expect more than 700 jobs to be lost in the greater Dublin area. If the figures are the same nationwide, and I will refer to those in a few minutes, we can expect, a striking 2,560 jobs at a minimum to be lost.

I have been asked if these figures will carry from Dublin to the rest of the country. I do not know. I made a honest extrapolation of the figures and applied them as I found them. I made a number of telephone calls this afternoon to check out the position in particular areas.

I had hoped that the Cathaoirleach would be here so that she could hear how it will affect her own area of Ennis. I thought Senator Hillery might be here so that I could tell him about the Miltown Malbay area, I will tell the House anyway. Of the 75 teachers in the 26 schools in the north Clare region, 15 of the posts will be suppressed. Senator Cassidy said to me today that the Castlepollard area would not be hit too badly but I would like to tell him that of the 24 teachers in the Castlepollard area, five will lose their posts. I hope the Senator has plenty of time on his hands to explain to them why this is necessary and why the primary teachers, the pupils and the parents are being made to pay for mistakes somebody else made. The people who are being asked to pay this time are not the people who had money in the good times either.

In real terms these proposals are disastrous. I want to refer to Drumshanbo because Senator Mooney showed a great interest in the motion this afternoon and had some comments to make about it. Of the 11 teachers in Drumshanbo local school, which I think the Senator attended, two will lose their jobs. Those are Maureen O'Keeffe and Dessie Doyle. I am sure the Senator will have a good time explaining to them why their jobs are being lost. That is two jobs out of 11. I hope the Minister is taking note of the fractions we are talking about. Senator Farrell's local school, Grange national school, which is a six teacher school, will be reduced to a five teacher school. Brid Leonard, a local activist in the INTO, will lose her post.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

I would prefer if the Senator did not mention the names of the teachers. The number is sufficient.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I am sure you would prefer it but the teachers are in no doubt that they are being thrown out of jobs. They are going to fight and bring this to the notice of the local elected public representatives they feel have a responsibility to them, to the service they are providing and to the schools they work in. I accept your position but that is the point.

Tá brón orm nach bhfuil an Seanadóir Tom Fitzgerald anseo ach tá an Seanadóir Haughey ann agus an-aithne aige ar Chiarraí Thiar. Tá slad agus scrios déanta i gCiarraí Thiar. Sin mar a tá agus sin mar a bheidh. Tá aithne ag an Seanadóir ar na scoileanna timpeall na háite sin. Tá scoil Dún Chaoin dúnta, is dócha, an scoil is cáiliúla i nGaeltacht na hÉireann. Bhí an-troid ann leis na blianta chun an scoil a choimeád oscailt. Bhí troid ann ó 1970 go dtí 1974 agus ina dhiaidh sin go dtí 1977. Tar éis na blianta ag iarraidh na huimhreacha ar na rollaí a chur suas d'éirigh leo muinteoir nua a fhostú ansan anuraidh. The shame is tá siad san i nDún Chaoin ag cailliúint muinteoir an uair seo. Imigh as san siar go dtí an Buailtín, Baile an Fhéirtéaraigh. Tá siad ag cailliúint muinteoir i mBaile an Fhéirtéaraigh. Tá scoil eile thíos an bóthar agus tá siad ag cailliúint muinteoir ansin. Isteach go dtí An Daingean go dtí Clochar na Toirbirte, tá siad ag cailliúint muinteoir ansin chomh maith. Tá slad agus scrios déanta ag an Aire ar sheirbhís bhunoidea-chais na h-Éireann. Ní dóigh liom gur féidir aon chosaint a chur suas ar an méid atá déanta aige.

I am sorry I have broken a rule but since I was elected to this august body I have had to repeat things I said in Irish in English because, unfortunately, the message does not always get across to people. I want what I say to be clearly and definitely put on the record until such time as we get a translation service here. Dunquin school in west Kerry fought for years to establish itself as an entity and finally got a second teacher employed there two years ago. That school will lose a teacher. Ballyferriter school will lose a teacher. Muiríoch, Scoil Smerbhic and Clochar na Tuirbirte in Dingle will lose a teacher.

I am making these points because people think this is an urban problem only. It is not. Every parish in the country is affected. I want to issue a challenge to the Minister. She said she rejected the INTO's view that there was not a parish in Ireland which would not be affected by these cuts. I challenge her to list parishes which will not be affected by these cuts. No doubt that is not a challenge she will take up either.

The pupil-teacher ratio in the North is 23.4 at present. For us to achieve that figure 5,000 extra teachers would need to be employed immediately. We would not have enough teachers available. The Six Counties have the worst pupil-teacher ratio in the United Kingdom and that shows how far behind we are. Were we to retain the present teaching stock and to apply the experience of the demographic movement and trends, it would be another ten years, with a falling pupil population, before we would reach anything like the figures in the North of Ireland.

The disadvantaged and the socio-economically deprived areas are hit hard. I want to do a scan across part of Dublin. Every school in Corduff and Blanchardstown will lose teachers. Every school in Finglas will lose teachers. Every school in Bonnybrook will lose a teacher. Every school in Ballymun will lose teachers. Every school in Darndale will lose teachers. These are the most deprived areas in Dublin and the Minister dares to stand up and say that the disadvantaged will not suffer under these cuts. These are the facts and I have the names of the teachers, the names of the schools and the enrolment of the schools with me should anybody wish to challenge them.

In the north inner city area, which is considered to be the most deprived area in Ireland, only three of the many schools there will be spared the chop. How can anybody justify this? Are these people responsible for the problems that have been created by the financiers, by the economists, by the politicians? Are these the people we are going to make pay for the mistakes of the past? Who can justify the proposal to hit the poor, the disadvantaged the under-privileged, the socio-economically deprived? It brings us back to a situation where the rich can build their own schools or buy their own education. It creates a situation where we will have better quality education for the better off. I do not know if that is the objective of the Minister but that is certainly where we will be.

We have already, as the Minister of State knows, examples of places where the local people have got together to build classrooms or are beginning the process of building new buildings. This might be all very well for the Department of Education and quite acceptable to them. The fact of the matter is that this can only be done in those areas where there is enough marginal money available to do it. The whole problem is that these cuts will hit the poor more than others. It also means that because of the difficulties that will be created for pupils in the learning process in schools with over-crowding, with a poor service in general, the rich can afford to buy solutions for their pupils. The poor have to live with the problem and concentrate on putting bread on the table, or living from day to day. It is totally and utterly unacceptable. It is disgraceful.

In 1985 Deputy Mary O'Rourke said to the then Minister for Education:

Will the Minister accept that she is stonewalling and that throughout the country at national school level the funding available to the management of schools to carry out their normal activities is inadequate and that they are forced to call upon parents of the children attending the schools for finance? The Minister is also aware that this is greatly to the detriment of pupils in disadvantaged areas whose parents cannot afford the finance.

I agree completely. The position has not changed as the Minister well knows but what has she done but worsen the position? I consider insulting the amendment put down to the motion tonight, to in some sense say that what the Estimates have tried to do is to relieve that situation. Also in November 1985 Deputy O'Rourke said:

The Minister gave the figures for the proportion of GNP spent on education in the course of her reply to Deputy Avril Doyle. That is irrelevant to our position because of the different age structure of our population compared to other European countries. The figures given by the Minister refer to 1982. Is the Minister satisfied that Ireland occupies the lowest rung on the ladder in regard to per capita spending on education in Europe?

That is the position. It has not changed. The Minister has just worsened it. She has made it worse in the section of Irish education which deals with all the pupils from whatever background. What will she do about it?

In April 1985 she said:

If Fianna Fáil were in power what would they do? The Government ask how we would go about doing what we say we want done if we were in power. I will tell the House exactly what we will do. Fianna Fáil in Government will work towards a reversal of the pupil-teacher ratio until it is brought back to the 1982 levels. In common with other social and national organisations we believe that the extent of provision, the standards and the achievements of our educational system must be upheld and improved upon rather than diminished as at present. Above all we want to see true provision for the disadvantaged.

Furthermore in the election manifesto of this year, the Fianna Fáil Party made the following statement:

Fianna Fáil will reduce the pupil-teacher ratio initially at primary school levels.

I know it is not possible to use the word "lie" in parliamentary debates and therefore I will not use it but it certainly seems to me that there is a conflict of evidence at the very least in what I see there. This is a horrendous proposal; it is totally unacceptable. It is an abnegation of responsibility. It is a betrayal of the poor and it is something that this House should throw out and throw out with venom.

Mr. B. Ryan

Senator O'Toole has more than adequately outlined the appalling, the outrageous, the offensive, the unjust consequences of this policy. There are a number of other issues to be addressed and those issues are well contained within the extraordinary amendment. This is an extraordinary amendment for a number of reasons, the most fundamental being that it is an amendment from Fianna Fáil. As I have often reminded this House, I grew up in a Fianna Fáil household and all of my radical convictions, about justice in our society, all of my convictions about the side I was on in society, all of my convictions about what was important in our society, spring from what used to be the view of Fianna Fáil. All of them spring from a conviction that there are two sides in Irish society, that Fianna Fáil were on one side and other people, particularly the old Fine Gael Party, were on the other side. That is where I learned my socialism.

I learned my socialism within and from Fianna Fáil. It was not called socialism but the instincts, the loyalties, the values, the principles and the choices were based on what were essentially socialist convictions. I knew it was Fianna Fáil who built houses for the poor. I knew that it was Fianna Fáil who provided education for the poor. I knew that it was Fianna Fáil who provided welfare for the poor. I knew that, behind the gloss that came on Fianna Fáil in the sixties, was the history of a party with a commitment to justice and, above all, the history of a party who did not bow before the financial institutions, before the banks and the Stock Exchanges and their judgment of who should suffer and who should benefit.

What we have now in this amendment is the total abandonment by Fianna Fáil of what they claimed to stand for, what they used to stand for and what they still sometimes like to pretend to stand for on a safe occasion. They talk about the financial realities. The financial realities now for Fianna Fáil, for the new, right-wing, conservative Thatcherite Fianna Fáil, are the acceptance that you do not tax the powerful, you do not tax the rich, you do not tax the influential. You do not even argue with them. You genuflect in front of them and when they say: "Make the poor pay for the crisis", you say: "Yes sir". When they say: "Make the children pay for the crisis", you say: "Yes sir". When they say: "Let the children suffer because we will not have our lifestyles interfered with", you say: "Yes sir". That is the new reality and that is the real reality behind Fianna Fáil as now constructed.

They have abandoned those who supported them loyally for 50 years. They have abandoned the working class. They have abandoned the poor. They have abandoned the youth because, for reasons that escape me, they have become converted to a viewpoint and a position that used to be dismissed in one word, which I will not use here, in my time as a young person in Ireland. That is the most shameful part of what is going on in this country today. It is bad enough that people are suffering, and that is appalling in itself. It is bad enough that our children are suffering; it is bad enough that our hospitals are suffering but what is much worse is the extraordinary dishonesty of a party who claim to have a loyalty to justice, to the poor and to the under-privileged, walking into Government on the basis of that tradition and then glibly turning their back on those who supported them because their masters down the road in the Stock Exchange and in the financial institutions said: "You must do it".

I read last weekend that one particular right wing economist was called in by the Department of Finance to give advice about cutbacks, one particular economist who I am not permitted to name under the rules of this House, and this House incidentally is far more gentle in the way it treats people than many of those other people are in the way they treat people. But we will observe the niceties of parlementary debate. When I discover that the Department of Finance are not satisfied with their own dose of monetarism and financial rectitude and they have to call in yet another expert from outside whose views are well advertised about who should suffer, whose views are well advertised about who should pay, whose views are well advertised about who should not pay, I have to say that the Fianna Fáil that I grew up in, the Fianna Fáil for which I had, as late as the last election, a considerable respect have abandoned what they used to stand for.

Before the last election if anybody asked me how I was voting, I made it quite clear. I said I was voting for the left wing parties and I was transferring to Fianna Fáil because Fianna Fáil were no angels but I thought they had values and commitments and principles beyond which they would not go because of where they came from, where their loyalties lay and, at the very fundamental, where their votes came from. What I have discovered since that election is that they have no loyalties, they have no values, they have no principles. What they have is a total capitulation to people with whom they would not be seen or be associated less than ten years ago.

That is the most shameful, sad and painful part of what this country is going through. It is the sight of a great party with a great history and a great tradition betraying everything they stand for in the interests of I know not what. That is the most painful part of what is going on and that is why I feel so angry and so betrayed. I had come to expect it from the Fine Gael Party. It was their history, it was then their tradition and it was where their class loyalties lay but I had come to expect from Fianna Fáil a moderate pragmatism of the centre, recognising at least where their support came from. It appears now that in their new found zeal and conversion, Fianna Fáil no longer recognise those sort of things. I must say I wish members of Fianna Fáil in this House and in the Dáil would sit back and think of what their party are supposed to stand for, what they learned about their party because most of them, like myself, come from a background of a particular set of political convictions.

Having thought about it they should then think about what they are doing and think about why our children have to pay when we have the lowest levels of capital taxation in Europe, why our children have to pay when we have the lowest levels of corporate taxation in Europe, why our children have to pay when agriculture still pays a pathetically low level of income tax, why our children have to pay when we have the most inefficient system of tax collection in Europe, why our children have to pay when we have an extraordinarily ineptly organised indirect taxation system, why our children have to pay while we still give out massive grants to encourage agriculture to produce more and more of the goods nobody wants to buy and sell them at a price that nobody wants to pay, why our children have to pay for all those things.

I invite the members of Fianna Fáil, or at least those members of Fianna Fáil who remember what Fianna Fáil used to stand for, to reflect on what they are now supporting because it has got nothing to do with some set of objective realities that cannot be avoided. It has got to do with choices about who you are for and who you are against, choices about who you will tax and who you will not tax, choices about who is on your side and who is on the other side. They are the choices this party I used to have such enormous respect for have now begun to make. That is the context in which these decisions have been taken and that, to my mind, in many ways, in political terms, is the saddest part of the choices that have been made. There are a series of consequences of these decisions which are even at variance with the objectives which the Government claim to be setting for themselves. Let me explain what they are.

We are going to push pupil/teacher ratios in primary schools up to what can only be described as astronomical levels. This will have a number of effects, one of which in my view will be to generate a large number of qualified unemployed teachers. When you have a large number of qualified unemployed teachers and astronomically high pupil/teacher ratios, you are going to generate private primary schools. There is something particularly shameful in Fianna Fáil becoming the party of privilege, of private education, of fee-paying primary education which the rich will use to escape the 50:1 pupil teacher ratios that are going to be generated in many of our schools.

Many of us are very proud of the fact that we have a classless primary education system in which people from different backgrounds of different abilities and income levels mix together in a very good, though pathetically under-funded, primary education system. What we are now going to create is a parallel system — one for the rich who are prepared to pay and one for the rest who are neither able nor willing to pay because they do not have the resources to do so. That will be Fianna Fáil's legacy. Even more so is the other part of their legacy, that is, the fact that we are supposed to be developing in this country a culture of innovation and of enterprise. I will say that the fundamental prerequisite for enterprise, for innovation and for anything like that is imagination and if you think that an education system which is starved of resources, which turns classrooms into control environments where the simple and only job a teacher can do will be to keep order and teach by rote, is going to create the sort of imaginative young people who are going to generate enterprise and innovation, you can only be deceiving yourself.

Underlying everything here is the fact that education is not a current expenditure in the way that the fancy economists would have us believe. Education is an investment in human capital and the most valuable resource any community has is not its land resources, its mineral resources, or its marine resources, it is its human resources. It is quite astonishing that rather than taxing capital, or agriculture, or anything else, we will withdraw investment from our most fundamental resource. When we do that, we cannot expect any return. The investment is being taken out of the most important resource, the one that can create enterprise and innovation.

Therefore, in terms or what this Government claim to stand for, which is to create enterprise, innovation and wealth creation in this country, the idea of withdrawing funds from education is a contradiction of that objective, which simply brings me back to the fact that I have to believe that this Government do not believe in that, that they have capitulated totally to one objective, which is to satisfy the lunatics in the Stock Exchange who can shift dramatically by 25 per cent in a week the price of shares because, in the words of The Irish Times, their own greed and fear dictate it. The idea of a nation determining its policies on the basis of the creation of confidence in that sort of an element in our society says something about the values of our Government and our society. What we need is a Government who are willing to make us all pay for the price of the excesses that perhaps we have indulged in over recent years, although I think that is a doubtful argument.

What we need are a Government who are prepared to recognise, first of all, that we are one of the lower taxed nations in Europe. This is one of the big lies that the economists have foisted upon us. We are not overall a heavily taxed nation. One part of our society, we the PAYE payers, are heavily taxed. Damn near nobody else in our society is heavily taxed with the result that overall we are a relatively lowly taxed nation. We need to increase taxation on those who pay nothing or on those who have avoided paying. That is something which Fianna Fáil in their heyday would have had no hesitation about doing. In the thirties when Fianna Fáil were a radical party, capital taxation represented nearly 4 per cent of Government revenue. It now represents half of 1 per cent. To return to the position of the hungry thirties would generate about £300 million for this country. They are the sort of figures which this country needs to avoid penalising our children and, in the process of penalising our children, stifling imagination and creativity and in the end stifling what this country needs most which is enterprise. All I can say to the Government and to Fianna Fáil is: "Shame on you for the way you have betrayed what you used to stand for."

Mr. McGowan

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words down to and including "to" and substitute "That" and to delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute "conscious of the grave state of our economic and social life and recognising the Government's determination to pursue a fiscal policy which faces the financial realities notes the provision for Primary Education in the estimates for 1988 and welcomes the assurance outlined in Section IV, paragraph 15 of the Programme for National Recovery that the Government recognises the importance of the educational system in the promotion of equity in society and will ensure, in implementing whatever adjustments are necessary in that sector because of financial considerations, that the burden of adjustment does not fall on the disadvantaged.”

I will start my contribution by commenting on Senator O'Toole's remarks about the admiration he had for Fianna Fáil and the hopes and aspirations that Fianna Fáil people had prior to the election.

I compliment the Minister. She is a courageous lady. She walked into a situation where no funds were available to do anything. She had to effect economies. Not only to continue the educational programme, not only to ensure the future of those we were trying to educate but to keep the programme going, it was necessary to effect economies in the programme for education. No Government ever took office in such a bad situation. We were living in Utopia; we were not informed of anything. I said on numerous occasions in this House, even before the last general election, that the brochures went out with no restrictions on expenditure. We were spending money. A hospital was being built in Sligo costing £43 million. We were turning on the tap costing £7 million in my region in the north west. The ordinary man in the street had to wake up.

The Coalition Government were able to sign a contract for £43 million and had millions for everything. The next day we had to lay off teachers, nurses, road workers, ordinary labourers installing telephone lines around the country and forestry workers. Is it that the Government are so stupid or so bad that the situation is completely slewed around? The ordinary man in the street realises that we were drifting into space with no control. If the corrective measures were not taken the youth of this country had no future. I come from a county where 20,000 young students are leaving secondary school with no prospect of employment. No public representative with any grain of responsibility could take it other than very seriously. There is no future for the young school leaver.

The Government have taken very unpopular but determined measures to correct the economy. If those measures were not taken, I would understand people being alarmed about where we were going and what we were doing. The Minister for Education walked into an office and took control. She has rationalised and restructured the Department and she will effect economies because, prior to the Government taking the corrective measures, the Department were spending money. I am a member of the vocational educational committee in Donegal. We got money to furnish a school that was not built. Money was allocated to the County Donegal Vocational Educational Committee by a Department who did not know the school was not built. That happened.

Mr. J. O'Toole

It will not happen again.

Mr. McGowan

It will not happen again. The Senator is right.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McGowan is in possession.

Mr. McGowan

I will have to claim injury time. Certainly no one could claim it is a popular role for a Minister, a Minister of State, or anybody associated or connected with the present Government's campaign to put the finances of this country right. Nobody envies the task of those who are involved. As I said at the beginning it does not matter what language you use or how sensationally you describe the situation, you will not deflect those who are very committed and very concerned. They can read and they can understand. You can list how many teachers might lose their jobs and you can list all the schools. I could get a list from the schools and submit it to the unions. I could read out the list and crocodile tears could be shed from Cork to Donegal. That could be done but it contributes nothing because we do not get money out of the ground. We have very little mineral wealth in this country. We have no oil and we have to find enough funds to pay for the expansion in education. The Government have no difficulty in convincing the people that we are on the only course that is open to us.

I compliment the Minister and congratulate her and tell her to keep going ahead and to make reductions where she finds it necessary.

I attended a meeting in Carrick yesterday. We have been waiting for a small extension to a vocational school in Carrick for six years. We had all the posturing. We had different contractors but there was no movement. The Minister for Education came to Killybegs two weeks ago and there was a deputation out to meet her to present their case. At the end of the day people have to realise that the Minister started with no funds and her budget is totally committed.

This motion was put down with one intention: to be as destructive as possible in the Seanad and to take this important area of education into the political arena. I do not think it will cod anybody. It is crystal clear that the only hope is to get our finances right. Then there will be a future and a possibility of building up and starting again. Signing contracts when there were no funds to meet them was leading us to disaster. I want to compliment the Minister on her courageous work. She has taken on a difficult job. Like the fellow taking over the pub with no beer, that was where she started.

Mr. Kelleher

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this motion and to broaden out the subject to cover the educational aspects which incorporate the cuts in the Estimate. I would like to point out my party's position in relation to education and the work done by the previous Government in promoting education. I disagree with a number of the comments made by Senator McGowan. I hope to give an opposite viewpoint during the course of my contribution.

Fine Gael, in Government and out of it, have a distinguished record in education. The recent history of our party in this area began with the work done in Opposition from 1977 to 1981 by a special party committee who produced a comprehensive policy document called Education in the Eighties. Now in Opposition we have the opportunity to look back and, more important, to look forward. There was an active and productive period for education until earlier this year, a period when a broad range of desperately needed reforms and innovations were set in place. The emphasis was on three things: (1) reform; (2) innovation; (3) special care for the disadvantaged.

There are many areas at primary, second level and third level which cry out for reform and renewal. My party, fully aware of the huge strain on the national finances nevertheless believe that education can be developed, can be cherished, can be given special attention within reasonable bounds. We have always been straight with all the partners in education which is only now being seen and being appreciated. In the Estimates for education spending is down by 7 per cent which will obviously lead to bigger classes, higher fees, redundancies and so on. The education service at all levels will be cut this year by a staggering £87 million. Over half of the savings will come from the primary schools sector. We see cuts in pay of £42 million in the primary sector. An unprecedented attack on our primary schools is made clear from these figures. This in unbelievable coming from a Minister who on more than one occasion said she proposed to give priority to primary education and that the primary focus of any educational authority or any education department must be on first level education. It is now very obvious that all this has changed.

Never before has there been such a betrayal of trust and such a cynical misuse of democracy as the performance of Fianna Fáil in the education area before and after the election in February 1987. For four and a half years the Minister opposed every measure the former Government took to improve the efficiency and logic of education spending, and called for more spending in every area. That is totally in contrast to what Senator McGowan has been saying. I am trying to point out to the House that we were very careful about how we spent money on education. At a time when we were doing all in our power, with restricted resources, the Opposition spokesperson, who is now the Minister, was calling for further spending. In particular she championed the cause of teachers' pay and led the call for giving a full £75 million to teachers.

A few weeks ago the Government undertook to increase the pay of everyone paid out of the public purse. This will cost some hundreds of millions of pounds over the next few years. Did it not occur to anyone, to put it mildly, that it was grotesque that small children starting an educational experience should be sacrificed in order to pay increases to everyone in the public service, including the teachers?

I find it cynical to say the least that Senator O'Toole put down this motion expressing concern about the pupil teacher ratio, larger classes, less pupil teacher contact, thousands of redundant teachers and so on, when his union, the INTO of which he is an executive member, sat down with the representatives of the Government and agreed on the terms I have outlined, costing millions of pounds, knowing that every pound awarded to the public service had to come from cutbacks in other areas. They have now got their answer. With an £86 million cut in education, and the vast majority of it coming from the primary sector, it is clear that the small children of this country will suffer.

Following the publishing of the cuts the President of the INTO said:

The massive reduction in the numbers of primary teachers and cut in money for building and maintenance was the worst attack on the educational services since the hungry thirties. The cut in teacher numbers would mean thousands of children being placed in classes of over 40 pupils and cuts were a betrayal of the children of the country.

I cannot honestly accept that the INTO and, indeed, the other teaching unions are totally blameless in all of this. They lambasted the last Minister for Education, Deputy Hussey, and indeed Deputy Cooney for not giving in to their demands. Postcards were posted to every Oireachtas Member by their members— I got them and so did the Leas-Chathaoirleach prior to the election — blackmailing them into supporting their cause. They have now succeeded in getting their way but, in my opinion, at a huge cost. I cannot believe the teachers considered this a fair bargain. I am sure the parents do not and, as for the bewildered children who will squeeze themselves into the classrooms to try to learn through the bedlam, they will never learn until it is too late that a deal was done in 1987 with their future because the Government needed to conclude a pay deal called national recovery.

I appeal to the unions concerned in the pay deal to go back to the table with the Government and restore their credibility by finding this money elsewhere for the sake of the children of this country. I am asking that there be no disimprovements in the pupil-teacher ratio at primary level and that school principals in large schools continue their essential development and administrative role. I support the call in this motion for the immediate withdrawal of the circular 20/87. If my interpretation is correct, in a ten teacher school, for example, a further 55 students over and above last year would be needed in order to retain the tenth teacher.

Speaking broadly on general education policy, I have another concern in regard to the provision for adult literacy programmes which have been annihilated by this Government. Has the Taoiseach, the Minister or any other member of the Government ever taken the trouble to talk to the people involved in this programme? Have they any idea of the trauma suffered by people who reach adulthood and find that they can neither read nor write? Have they any idea of the tension involved in the constant search for ways to avoid the simple business of filling in an application form? They clearly have not; otherwise they would never have reversed the decision of the former Minister, Deputy Hussey, to support in a realistic way the provision of adult literacy services.

Another major area which demands explanation is the £6.5 million cut in school transport. This implies not only further increases on a massive scale in charges but also far reaching changes in eligibility. In plain language the parents and youngsters need to know if they will have a bus next year and, if so, how far they will need to walk to get to it and how much will it cost them. There is great concern among parents and pupils alike that, when the small print is finally read, many pupils, now being bussed to school, will be walking next year.

It is my belief that education has taken a sudden and massive blow under this Government. This is all the more despicable because of the guarantees given to the education world by the Taoiseach two days before the general election. He described Fine Gael's minor cuts as devastating and said it would be completely counter-productive to implement them. On March 31, budget day, Fianna Fáil's failure to understand the education area was exposed when £11 million extra over and above the minor cuts we had proposed was taken out of the system. We are talking tonight and we will be talking tomorrow of taking a further £86 million out of the system for 1988. I do not have to press the point any further as the facts speak for themselves.

Fine Gael's prudent and caring management of the education budget is now being seen for what it was. It was a realistic and expert development of essential service for a massive young population. This year must be the worst year in the history of the State for young people and their parents who care about giving them a good start in life.

Mr. Mullooly

During the course of last week's Dáil debate on the 1988 Estimates the Minister for Education, referring to the cost reducing measures which have been decided on for the education area, stated and I quote:

In different circumstances, these measures would not have been introduced.

That one sentence sums up the difficulties faced by the Government not alone in relation to the education area but, indeed, in relation to every other area where Government expenditure has had to be curtailed. In different circumstances there would be no need for these cost reducing measures. In this country today there are very few people who do not concede that the situation is very serious and that the problems of the economy are so grave that the Government have no choice but to continue on the course they set themselves when they assumed office on 10 March.

We as a nation have accepted that we have been living beyond our means. We have accepted that we gave ourselves a standard of living and a level of services that we could not afford and which we were not able to pay for. The high public spending on the provision of these services had to be paid for by borrowing. This resulted in high interest rates, high inflation and high taxation. It resulted in an erosion of confidence, in a reduction in investment and in the outflow of capital, capital which could have been used for productive investment in the country over the past number of years. There was no question but that the country had to change course. This Government have taken a decision to curtail public expenditure and to reduce borrowing.

The Programme for National Recovery which was agreed recently between the Government and the social partners recognises the grave state of our economic and social life. In paragraph 4 of the introduction to the Programme for National Recovery the following factors are identified as giving an indication of the extent of the difficulties which have to be confronted. I quote from paragraph 4, page 5 of the Programme for National Recovery:

(a) A gross domestic product per capita which is only 64 per cent of the European Community average,

(b) A National Debt of over £25 billion which is equivalent to more than one and one-half times of our Gross National Product and the servicing of which consumes annually one-third of Exchequer tax revenue,

(c) An Exchequer borrowing requirement of 10.7 per cent of Gross National Product in 1987 to finance both current and capital expenditure. This is among the highest budgetary deficits in the European Community,

(d) High nominal and real interest rates which are a barrier to investment,

(e) An unemployment rate of 18.5 per cent of the workforce amounting to 242,000 persons, of whom 73,000 are under 25 years of age. This is one of the highest rates of unemployment in the European Community,

(f) Employment in agriculture which continues to decline steadily at a rate almost twice the Community average,

(g) Net emigration estimated currently at close of 30,000 and which is equivalent to the natural increase in the population,

(h) No overall growth in the volume of investment in equipment over the past 5 years compared with an increase of 20 per cent in the European Community.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 read:

1. A fiscal policy which faces the financial realities is the key to putting the economy back on the path to long-term sustained economic growth. The situation that has been developing in recent years in which the National Debt and its servicing have been growing out of proportion to our ability to sustain them will be ended. The National Debt/Gross National Product ratio will be stabilised in the course of the Programme.

2. This will involve reducing the Exchequer borrowing requirement to between 5 per cent and 7 per cent of GNP, depending on developments in economic growth and interest rates. To that end, the measures taken by the Government to control and curtail public expenditure will be continued.

The 1987 budget was a first step in controlling and curtailing public expenditure. It is clear today that the vast majority of people accept that the resolute way in which the Government have been tackling the country's problems has already shown results. Financial targets have been adhered to. Interest rates and inflation have come down. Industrial production and exports are showing a significant increase. The outflow of capital which has been a feature of recent years has been reversed.

These are encouraging signs but the country is still faced with massively high unemployment and a totally unacceptable level of emigration together with a huge national debt figure, the servicing of which, as I stated, absorbs almost the total amount of revenue collected from PAYE. As well as that, taxation levels are nothing short of exorbitant and these are the problems which face the Government. It is against that background that the Government prepared their Estimates for 1988. The Government's stated objective in the preparation of the Estimates was to secure a significant reduction in public spending while maintaining essential services at the best possible level.

I am satisfied that the preparation of the Estimates involved very many difficult and unpalatable decisions for the Government as they sought to distribute the burden as fairly as possible across the board while, at the same time, protecting the weaker sections to the greatest possible extent. It was inevitable in these circumstances that education, in common with every other service, would have to carry its share of the burden. This was recognised and acknowledged in paragraph 15 of Section IV of the Programme for National Recovery which states:

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

That paragraph recognised and acknowledged that adjustments would be necessary in the education sector because of financial considerations. I regret, as I am sure every other Member of this House does, that because of the economic situation the Government found it necessary to provide for a reduction in overall expenditure on the education service in the Estimates for 1988. I regret also that the provision for primary education has to take its share of the overall reduction.

In order to achieve this reduction a revision has been made in the schedule of average pupil enrolment figures required for the appointment and retention of teachers in national schools. I understand that the revision in most cases will raise the pupil teacher ratio from 26.8 to 29.2 per cent. The schedule does not provide specifically for non-teaching principals. There seems to be some disagreement as to the number of schools which will be affected but it would appear that the number will be somewhat less than half of the total number of some 3,300 national schools.

While I accept that this decision will to some degree adversely affect the quality of the education service for many pupils, I welcome the fact that there will be no reduction in the number of remedial posts or in the number of concessionary posts in disadvantaged areas. I understand also that pupil teacher ratios in special schools and special classes are not being revised. These decisions will ensure, to some extent, that the burden of adjustment will not fall on the most disadvantaged of our primary school numbers. However, as someone who has taught in the national school system for over 30 years I am saddened that the day has come when a Government would even have to contemplate an increase in the overall pupil teacher ratio in national schools, not to speak of having to implement such a decision.

The increase in the pupil teacher ratio will undoubtedly result in larger classes in some schools. In every class there are some pupils who require or can benefit from individual attention. This is particularly true of those schools and those classes which do not have the benefit of a remedial teacher or of a remedial service and this is the case as far as the vast majority of small schools are concerned. Indeed, it is true of many of the larger schools also.

During all of my teaching career I have taught in small schools which did not have the services of a remedial teacher. Therefore, those pupils who in another situation would have the benefit of a remedial teacher were, in effect, dependent on the degree of individual attention which I could give them. This is the case in most such small schools. Indeed one could say that there is no pupil, no matter how advantaged or disadvantaged in terms of ability, who will not benefit from some level of individual attention. This is the main reason practising teachers have always campaigned for, and I am sure will continue to campaign for, smaller classes so that they can give the degree of individual attention to their pupils which they consider desirable. It is regrettable that the national economic crisis which this Government are addressing — and addressing in the only realistic way possible — is of such proportions that the education service and, in particular, primary education has to suffer some of the consequences of the fiscal measures which have to be implemented.

As a result of the cost reducing measures which have been decided on by the Government in the primary education sector the onus of maintaining the quality of the service, as far as it is humanly possible to do so in such circumstances, will fall on the teachers in those schools which will be affected by these measures. In recent years for a variety of reasons teaching which was always a very demanding occupation has become even more so. This is borne out by the numbers of teachers who even at a very young age become the victims of stress related illnesses. Discipline, too, is a problem in very many schools. Indeed, there is incontrovertible evidence that the number of seriously disruptive pupils in our schools is on the increase. All these factors have resulted in recent years in a growing work load on all teachers. Everybody must recognise that a lot of dedication and sacrifice on the part of teachers will be required if there is not to be a significant adverse effect on the educational achievements of the pupils in our schools.

I conclude by saying I can only hope that this Government who have done so much in the past to improve the quality of the education service will be successful in their efforts to overcome the present economic difficulties and that resources which are so necessary will again be provided in the education area at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Ferris

On behalf of the Labour Party I want to say categorically that we have no hesitation in supporting the resolution put down by the Independent Senators. We reject totally the Government efforts to amend it. This indicates the total incompatibility of everything uttered by them when they were in Opposition and promised the electorate that they would do it differently. We on this side of the House have now reversed positions with people like Senator Mullooley who, unlike some other speakers from that side of the House, made a very constructive contribution. At least he has some experience and he admits that the Estimate for education as published is totally inadequate for the primary sector. Some previous speakers put on the record their affiliations and the various political houses — mixtures of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael — they were born into.

Mrs. Bulbulia

Hybrids.

Mr. Ferris

Yet, they have all admitted to be socialists. I can confirm that I am a socialist. I was born in a socialist house and my father was born in a socialist house.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator like to move the Adjournment?

Mr. Ferris

I welcome the Minister of State. The issue of primary education is fundamental to the Labour Party and we will be putting our position on the record of the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr. W. Ryan

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 28 Oct 1987