Education Proposals: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator J. O'Toole on 28 October, 1987:

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.

Delete resumed on 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."

——(Senator McGowan.)

Mr. Ferris

As I stated in the House last week, the Labour Party have no problem in supporting in full this Private Members' Motion on the consequences of the Government's cutback in primary education. I reject out of hand the Government amendment which has been put down to the motion. If we frame everything we do in Government on the basis that we are conscious of the grave state of our economic and social life and recognising the Government's determination to pursue a fiscal policy, obviously the Minister will have failed at Cabinet to get what would be priority funding, particularly in the area of primary education. Regarding the well-known, infamous circular which the Minister has circulated to all schools, my party in another place will be calling for its withdrawal on the basis that it will create widespread problems for those people involved in education, particularly at the primary level. I am not just being political about this. Everybody in the country is now concerned about the consequences of the circular which the Minister has issued. I should like to refer to The Irish Independent, Tuesday, 3 November, 1987, which says that a bishop has entered into the campaign.

The Minister liked dealing with the religious institutions when in Opposition. They have now, unfortunately, turned on her and they have suggested that they will urge people to visit her at her clinics — and I am sure she has enough of people doing so already. The parents' associations will be visiting the Minister at her clinics as, indeed, will the Bishop of Cork, according to the newspaper article of yesterday. The Reverend Dr. Michael Murphy said that if the Minister did not change her plans the consequences for our children and for the teaching profession would be too serious to contemplate. That is a very strong statement from a bishop. When he was speaking at the celebration to mark the national school in Macroom he said that the class sizes were already creating discipline problems and making it difficult for teachers to attend to the special needs of weaker pupils.

We are all concerned about the damage that may be done to disadvantaged pupils, particularly at primary level, and to the weaker section of pupils. The Minister annoyed me by linking the amendment with the Programme for National Recovery. In that programme the Minister recognised the importance of the educational system in the promotion of equity in society. She said she would ensure the implementation of whatever adjustments were necessary in that sector because of financial considerations so that the burden of adjustment would not fall on the disadvantaged.

We, in the Labour Party, contend that exactly the opposite will arise following the Minister's circular and we are saying this on the basis of the Estimates as published. In the total area of education we have a reduction of £86 million in our budget and more than half of that cutback will affect the primary education area. There is a reduction of £42.7 million which in primary education is a reduction of 10 per cent over last year's funding. This is not dealing with problems of a reduction in the capital projects which the Minister has also initiated in her published Estimates. She has reduced the capital programme from £96 million to £54 million which is a drop of 44 per cent over last year's figures. I am saying all this in the knowledge that the Minister — and quite an able spokesperson she was for the Fianna Fáil Party at the time — when in Opposition took it on herself to campaign in the Houses of the Oireachtas and throughout the country and in meetings with teachers and others to actually put on the record her attitude towards a previous Government regarding their lack of funding in the whole area of education. It can be embarrassing to listen to the contradiction in terms nowadays.

In the area of job losses it is estimated and predicted that there will be some 2,000 jobs lost in the educational area following the Minister's estimate. There is an area of disagreement between the professional teaching organisations and the Minister. They have said 2,000, the Minister has said 1,200. It is obvious that apart from the area of disagreement about the figures, that when the students have finished their training and come on the market expecting to get teaching posts next year, the figure of 2,000 job losses or people without jobs will certainly be exceeded.

Looking realistically at the specific cuts the Minister has itemised, we consider that there will be a dramatic increase in class sizes resulting in classes, at times, of well over 40 pupils. Specific provision for administrative principals will be removed. There will be at least three to six pupils extra in every class. If we relate that to any of the schools in my constituency — in Cashel, Golden, Thomas-town or Tipperary — depending on which school I pick and depending on the number of teachers there will be increased class sizes. There will also be losses of teachers. This is contrary to everything that the Minister advocated in Opposition. In 1983 the Minister said that Dáil Éireann would condemn the Government for the present chaos and confusion in the school transport scheme inflicting hardship on many thousands of families. In 1985 the Minister said she deplored the major cutbacks in education and finances which have led to excessive increases in the size of classes, the unemployment of large number of teachers and many other serious problems in our schools. The Minister called on the Government to make full and adequate provision for education. On 4 March 1986 the Minister said in Dáil Éireann that that House condemned the arbitrary and precipitate decision of the Government to close down Carysfort College, I do not hear you saying a word about it at present.

Minister for Education (Mrs. O'Rourke)

Yesterday I spoke about it.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister said that immediate action should be taken to ensure that this great and valuable institution be retained as an integral part of our higher education system with a specific role in teachers' education. What are we going to do with the teachers who will be educated next year when they come onstream? We will not have jobs for them. On 15 April 1986 the Minister said that the Dáil, in view of the deep and widespread anxiety of the parents and pupils in regard to the holding of the school examinations that year, called on the Government to arrange for an immediate appointment of an independent mediator in the dispute with teachers. On 4 June 1986 the Minister condemned the recent excessive increases in third level fees of VEC colleges. This motion is dealing with primary education, so I will not go into other comments. Comments were made by some of the Minister's colleagues — whom I will not name but they are on the record of the other House — in the whole area of teacher class sizes. There is no doubt in any of our minds that once you start increasing the numbers of pupils whom teachers are expected to teach, look after and discipline, education will suffer and the disadvantaged in our educational system will suffer most. I am contending also that the figures published are a complete contradiction of everything that the Minister ever said in Opposition.

In 1985 the total amount estimated for building, equipping and furnishing national schools was almost £34 million. In 1986 it was £33 million. In 1987 it was £30 million. Next year it will be £15 million. In other words, now 50 per cent less is being allocated than was allocated in 1985, when the Minister commented that the figure then was not enough. The first provision for capital and equipment funding in 1987 under the present Ministry showed a drop of 10 per cent on the previous Government's allocations. The Minister was critical of that. She criticised the 10 per cent, considering it to be totally inadequate. It is important for me to find out that the reduction in 1988 over the previous figures will be about 50 per cent.

The capital grants towards operating national schools in 1985 were £13 million. In 1986 they were £14 million. In 1987 they were £14.5 million and in 1988 the Minister has decreased them to £14.4 million, a drop of 1 per cent. Teachers, pupils, parents, clerics and bishops are expressing concern. We, as a responsible group in this House are calling on the Minister to have a rethink. The members of the Minister's own party have said other things in this House regarding education. Senator Mullooly, made a very considered and responsible contribution on this motion last week when he stated the realities as he saw them as a teacher with experience, in the knowledge that the Estimates that were published would not be sufficient to do the job as he saw it should be done.

We realise there are funding problems in the Department as well as in other Departments. If the Government are not prepared to face their responsibility about ensuring that the money due to the various Departments, particularly the Department of Finance, is not collected from the people who owe it, then what hope have we of ensuring that there are sufficient funds available to the Government to carry out the work they have been elected to do, particularly in the area of primary education? Even in the most stringent budget situations it must have priority with any Minister or any Government. Knowing the Minister's tenacity, I had hoped she would have done better than this at Cabinet.

I am also suggesting that the total capital and revenue losses in this year's budget exceed the amount of money that could easily have been collected by people who owe it to the State. It has been confirmed by the Minister for Finance that money in excess of this year's cutbacks is still due to the State. What do we owe our people out there? We owe them at least the honesty to say that we failed as a Government to collect the money that was due in order to deliver the service. That justifies in some way our attitude to the primary sector in education which is one of the disadvantaged areas in education. The attitude seems to be that it is no longer a priority because we are unable to collect the kind of money due to us in order to deliver the service. We are failing in our responsibility to the young generation of people to whom we all had a commitment. The numbers are increasing everyday. In 1980 the number in education was 540,000. In 1987 it was 560,000. The numbers in the special primary schools have gone up from 8,168 to 8,471. There is an increasing demand in that sector. How can we have cutbacks when the need is greater and the demands on the teachers are greater? If we expect the teachers to respond we must show them that we have given them some priority in the allocation of what is recognised by everybody to be scarce resources.

I support the motion in full. My party will be calling on the Minister in another place to withdraw this circular. It is creating chaos in the educational sector.

Minister for Education (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I wish to thank the House for raising this matter last week and to say that I regret that at the time I could not be here because of a pre-arranged engagement from which I could not escape. I wish to explain that when I leave this House as I will have to do I will be going to the other House where there is also an educational debate in progress. Tenacious or all embrasive as I may be, I have not mastered the art of bilocation.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I do not blame you for leaving us.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I have never made a habit of interrupting people so I hope you will allow me to speak.

Mr. J. O'Toole

On a point of order, the Minister interrupted me four times during my last speech.

Acting Chairman

The Minister must be allowed to speak, without interruption.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I regret that I could not be here last week, but I did take the opportunity of getting all the transcripts of what transpired during the course of the proceedings. I found them most interesting and most constructive. Before I formally speak, I would ask Senator Ferris to convey to the learned bishop of whom he spoke that he would be most welcome to my home any Saturday. I keep open house from 8 in the morning till 12 at night. I look forward to seeing him.

In replying to this debate, there are two main considerations I wish to discuss. The first of these is the bearing which the general financial situation has in relation to the measures proposed. The second is a consideration of what is involved for schools and pupils in the pupil/teacher ratio changes.

In regard to the first of these — the general financial situation — I would like to begin with what I said in Dáil Éireann recently, namely, that in different circumstances, these measures would not have been introduced. I want to make that plain. There is absolutely no need for me to come here and to try to describe them as educationally advanced measures. I am quite up front about that. I see no reason to say otherwise.

Some of these circumstances I referred to in my contribution to the recent debate in Dáil Éireann on the general Estimates for 1988. I think it is no harm at all to repeat some of the points I made then. People have a habit of looking at the measures which need to be taken in particular areas entirely separately from the general financial situation which gives rise to them. Clearly, it is much easier to attack measures to effect savings and to highlight the inevitable sacrifices which are part and parcel of any measure of savings if the basic situation giving rise to the need for such savings is ignored.

A first point is the general financial position. As I stated in Dáil Éireann, the current budget deficit — as a percentage of GNP grew from 4.4 per cent in 1976 to 8.5 per cent in 1986. In the same period, the national debt increased almost seven fold, and now stands at £25 billion pounds. It is difficult for most people to comprehend fully figures of this magnitude. It is equivalent to a debt of over £7,000 in respect of every person in the land or of around £20,000 in respect of every person gainfully employed. The most immediately palpable effect of this is in the annual cost of paying the interest. At £2,000 million per annum this is equivalent to almost the entire present yield from PAYE and it is being added to each year. Something had simply got to be done to stop this development and action has been taken in the measures introduced in March of this year and now in the production of the estimates for next year. It is the first time ever that the Estimates, the budgetary arrangements and the allocation of moneys to various Government Departments have been available so early to the various agencies. It is an enormous advantage in the planning process.

Some people who accept that something had got to be done to bring down public expenditure nevertheless object to any of the savings needed being made in the education area, or in any other particular area. It is said that our young people represent the future of our country. Nobody will quarrel with that statement. It is when it comes to putting it into practice in a very difficult financial situation where funds are restricted that the disagreements arise.

The social services in the areas of health, education and social welfare represent, between them, in the current year, 65 per cent of gross expenditure on non-capital supply services. The three of those together represent 65 per cent. It is inevitable that any significant curtailment of public expenditure would have to involve cuts in these areas. Inevitably, also, any such cuts would be met by the objection that the health of the community was being endangered, that the proper education of our young people was being denied or that the poor were being made to suffer. On the social welfare front, the Minister for Social Welfare has pointed out that the Government, in pursuance of their announced policy of protecting the weaker sections of the community in any cuts, have in fact budgeted for an increase in the social welfare provision. In the health area, the Minister for Health is pursuing a careful policy of rationalising our health services. In the general circumstances I have outlined, funding for education has to make its contribution.

It is not enough to suggest, as was suggested here last week, that the money to fund social services including education could be found quite simply if all sectors of the community paid their full tax liability or paid more than is currently demanded of them. The Programme for National Recovery indicates clearly the Government's commitment to reform of taxation. Nevertheless, it is illusory to think that there are untapped hundreds of millions available to the Government almost “for the asking”. There have been many estimations in the past of what additional yields — again in hundreds of millions — could be got from farmers, or from the self-employed, or from business firms if only the Government applied themselves to the task. These are highly speculative suggestions, generally reflecting the interest group the speaker represents, and are an entirely unrealistic approach to our current difficulties.

Suffice it for me to say that the Government have applied themselves with vigour to the collection of outstanding taxes. Many Senators who represent, as we all do, a constituency or community, have had people in the past number of weeks in your constituency saying: "The Revenue are hounding me; the sheriffs are after me; can you do A, B, C or D?" We have all had those cases in our business. It is ironic that we are trying to do that and now the feedback is coming to us saying we must not do it. I understand that because it is part of the representative nature of the democratic process, but it is a fact that we are doing it. Most Senators in their clinics or meetings with their constituents, would have found that.

That being said, it is worth dwelling on what is, in fact, being spent on education. Figures and facts might seem to bore when they are put in statistical form, but it is worth bearing in mind — because I want to put on the record of the House the actual money spent on education — that no less than 6.5 per cent will go on education.

Before 1979, we are spending less than 5 per cent on education. In 1986, 16½ per cent of net Exchequer expenditure on non-capital services was spent on education services. In 1988, even with the savings measures proposed, 18 per cent of such expenditure will go on education services. In other words, out of every £100 which the Exchequer will spend in 1988 £18 will be spent on paying for the education system. With the many other demands on the public purse, we simply cannot afford to divert a larger slice of our resources to Education.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I propose that we adjourn for ten minutes if the Minister has to leave for a division in the other House.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I think I will have to stay, because I am on in the other House at 7 o'clock.

Mr. J. O'Toole

What we have heard so far has got nothing to do with the motion. In fairness, I believe the Minister has not read the motion. Is there an acceptance of the Motion? Are these the reasons for it? Is that the position?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not intend to engage in a rat-a-tat. I am sure the Chair would not allow it, anyway. I am here in the House at the request of the Seanad to reply formally to the motion. I intend to do so in the terms which I have outlined and will not accept dictation as to the type of words I should use.

The point was made here last week that our expenditure per head of the population is significantly lower on education than in a number of other European countries. This overlooks the basic fact as stated in the Programme for National Recovery, that GNP per head of population here is only X of that of the EC countries generally. It is easy to be selective in using statistics. It is, of course, even further below the more well-off countries. Again, a big factor in this is our dependency ratio, the ratio of total population to the working population. This is significantly higher than many of our European neighbours. This is particularly relevant in regard to education.

Our high dependency ratios is mainly due to the fact that family size in Ireland is large in comparison with European countries. This means that we have, proportionately, a much larger population of children and young people for whom education has to be provided. In fact, close to one million of our population of just under 3½ million, or between one in three to four people in our population, is a child or young person attending school or college.

Sitting suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Ryan

The debate will now conclude at 8.10 p.m. rather than 8 p.m.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I regret that I had to leave the House. Please excuse me. We were talking about the plight of big families and the number of people in Ireland in education. Both our lower per capita GNP and our higher dependency ratio impose an enormous burden on us in providing education services for our young population. Nevertheless, as 6.5 per cent of our GNP and at 18 per cent of non-capital Government spending, we are as good as most advanced European countries and ahead of many.

This reflects itself in the actual levels of expenditure on education services. In 1988, we will be spending £1,129 million on current services. This may seem like a reduction of 2.8 per cent on the 1987 provision. However, because January 1988 begins with a bank holiday and a weekend, a pay issue for national teachers which would normally fall in 1988 will be a charge on 1987. This means we need about £37 million less to pay the same salaries in 1988 as in 1987. When account is taken of this one factor, the £1,129 million to be spent in 1988 is a decrease of less than 1 per cent on what was provided for 1987 but in fact a small increase of 0.4 per cent over the outturn now being projected for 1987. I do not think this has generally been adverted to or appreciated.

If I could turn now to the measures in hand to effect a saving in education spending, I would like to refer to the composition of the primary education budget in the present year. This is as follows:

	£million
Teachers' salaries and allowances	357.9
Pensions (less contributions)	28.6
Colleges of education running costs	7.3
Grants to schools for operating costs	14.5
Apportionment of school trans- port costs	19.00
School building grants	30
Other costs	9

This gives a total of £466 million. It will be noted that teachers' salaries and allowances comprise 75 per cent. If pensions are added as a cost relating to employing teachers, the pay and pensions bill amounts to over 80 per cent of expenditure, leaving all other expenditure including other pay provisions to come from the balance of less than 20 per cent. I know that some people will claim that this is because not enough money is allocated to expenditures other than pay and pensions. Nevertheless, in view of the very heavy cost to the public purse of the education services generally, it would not be reasonable to expect that this situation should be changed by spending further large sums on these other areas.

Might I say at this point that, as funds are limited, there is much to be said for the option that is represented in the relative percentages of spending on pay and pensions on the one hand and on other headings on the other. If our resources are less than we would wish, it is better to have spent them on ensuring a high quality of teacher in our schools. There are other educational systems which, perhaps, have placed less esteem on their teachers. It is not an adequate consolation for a lowered quality of teaching if more generous provision is made for non-teacher costs. I say this because there is currently creeping into this whole debate an aspect which I do not wish at all to contribute to because of the genuine high regard in which I hold teachers and will continue to hold them. I refer to what I might call an insidious element by some section of the population of wishing to apportion to teachers some sort of idea that they should decide to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the savings to be accounted for. I heard such a view expressed on a radio programme after 5 o'clock and I thought what a crazy turn of events the whole debate is taking. That is why I wish to take the point there.

Because, in our situation, so high a proportion of total spending goes on pay and pensions the proportionately smaller segment of non-teacher expenditures cannot sustain reductions in funding of an order large enough, in toto, to yield the savings that are necessary. There will be some reduction in the costs of running colleges of education, particularly because of the phasing out of Carysfort College. It has been necessary, in the coming year, severely to restrict the capital allocation. However, any lesser amounts than have been provided would be insufficient to maintain the colleges of education and the capital programme must have enough money to meet commitments. Managerial bodies have made strong pleas in regard to the level of grants for operating costs of schools and it is impossible to contemplate any reduction in the grant rate. Relatively little of the savings to be effected on school transport are likely to be met from primary school transport. The “other costs” comprise grants towards the cost of school books for necessitous pupils, the special educational projects for disadvantaged areas, the costs of child care assistants in schools for the handicapped and of caretakers and clerical assistants in ordinary schools, the costs associated with providing in-service courses for teachers and for assisting teachers' centres throughout the country and various minor expenditures in the form of incidental expenses and miscellaneous grants. These expenditures could not reasonably be further curtailed and, even if they were, the sums realised thereby would not be substantial. I am making this point because people often — and quite rightly: I appreciate the trouble they take — write to you or meet you and make a suggestion about how savings could be affected in one or other area of education. Quite genuinely they would have thought through the idea. Mostly these suggestions would be in writing. I always ask someone to look at these suggestions and see if there is anything in them, if a saving could be made in the area referred to. Invariably I have found, often going through such suggestions and looking at them very carefully that they would not yield any savings. Occasionally there would be one or two points worth considering but mostly they would be entirely irrelevant and would not be sustainable in the light of the type of savings that we are looking for. In saying that I do not wish in any way to stifle the creative ideas that people have or the points they make.

Because of the circumstances I have outlined, there was no alternative but to consider a significant reduction in pay costs and, practically speaking, this could only be done by reducing numbers in the teaching force. This, as the House knows, is being done through two measures, the increase from 35 to 38 in the number of pupils required per teacher and the withdrawal of specific provision in the schedule of average enrolments in respect of non-teaching or administrative principals.

The increase from 35 to 38 does not necessarily mean an extra three pupils in every class nor does it mean that the pupil-teacher ratio goes from 35 to 38. I hope you do not think I am labouring this point but so many erroneous ideas and so many misconceptions have grown up that I do intend to emphasise it. The pupil-teacher ratio is in fact currently 26.8 to 1. This is expected to increase to 29.1 following implementation of the measures. The pupil-teacher ratio means what it says, namely, the total number of pupils divided by the total number of teachers.

This, however, is not the same as average class size. Currently, average class size is approximately 30.5. When the measures proposed have gone into effect, average class size will rise to approximately 33.

The difference between pupil-teacher ratio and average class size resides in the numbers of remedial teachers, of concessionary posts in disadvantaged areas and of teachers of special schools and classes. These are included in calculating pupil-teacher ratio but not in calculating class size. But the difference between the two figures does illustrate the extent to which we have allocated the available teaching force to remedial posts, to posts in disadvantaged areas and to special education.

Overall, it is estimated that the measures will result in 1,800 posts becoming surplus. The teachers holding these posts may, in the general case, opt to have their names places on panels for redeployment. It is expected that some 500 teachers will be redeployed through vacancies arising in the normal way either through retirements, through teachers leaving the service other than through redundancy and through other adjustments arising from the operation of the career breaks scheme. This will leave an estimated 1,300 teachers who it is envisaged will apply and be accepted on the basis of the voluntary redundancy scheme.

I would like to explain further the operation of the measures. In regard to the number of pupils being increased by three — from 35 to 38 — for each teacher, this does not mean that the pupil-teacher ratio is going from 35 to 38. What I have explained about average class size shows this. Some of the reasons why average class size is different from the 35 to 38 pupils needed per teacher lies in the position at the beginning of the schedule of average enrolments for appointments. If there were strictly a 35 to 1 ratio, say, then the principal teacher would count as the first teacher. However this is not so and the first assistant — who is therefore the second teacher — is currently appointed at an enrolment of 33 — or 36 as it will be after 1 January. Thus class size in a two-teacher school with an enrolment of 36 is 18 to 1. This feature of the first point on the appointments schedule moderates the class size in smaller schools. In larger schools class size approaches 35 to 1 at present and will approach 38 to 1 from next January. But when we hear talk of classes of 50 resulting from the new measures, it is useful to bear in mind that an additional number not exceeding 38 will entitle a school to another teacher.

The reason why we hear of very large classes is in fact the choices schools make for organisational reasons. For example, a school with 300 pupils will, under the new schedule, have eight teachers — a principal and seven assistants. This gives an average class size of 37 to 38. In such a school, if, say, there happen to be 45 pupils in 4th standard, it is open to the school to group a number of these pupils with either 3rd standard or 5th standard. This is a common situation in all small schools. For example one-, two-, three-and four-teacher schools, which comprise up to 2,000 out of 3,300 national schools, must combine standards and do as a matter of course. However, the 300-pupil school in my example may prefer to leave all 45 4th standard pupils in one class rather than divide the group. This is a practice from which my Department have in the past tried to dissuade schools and it is the chief reason for the existence of over-large classes.

Mr. J. O'Toole

That is rubbish and untrue.

Mrs. O'Rourke

There are many Members who are finding this fascinating and I intend to speak on it. At any rate, it means that the new schedule need not lead to the over-large classes that have been alleged if schools are willing to give due consideration to matters of organisation.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Read the Motion Minister.

Mrs. O'Rourke

In the case of smaller schools, most of them will not experience any change in numbers in class. Thus currently the third teacher in a 3-teacher schools is retained on an enrolment of 65. Under the new schedule, an enrolment of 71 will be required. Thus three-teacher schools with enrolments of less than 71 will become two-teacher schools. However, under the existing schedule, the requirement for appointing a fourth teacher is 105. Thus all the three-teacher schools with enrolments between 71 and 104 will experience no change whatsoever. Similarly, the retention figure for six teachers will go up from 175 to 190 and six-teacher schools with between 175 and 189 pupils will become five-teacher. However, as the requirement for appointing a seventh teacher under the existing schedule is 210, six-teacher schools with enrolments between 190 and 209 will experience no change.

Of course, all larger schools will lose one teacher and very large schools more than one. But, again, this will be proportional to the new measures increasing the appointment requirement by approximately one-twelfth — from 35 to 38. Thus, as a consequence of this particular measure, large schools will lose approximately one post in 12.

The reason why the reduction will be greater in large schools is the additional measure affecting the administrative principals. Without this measure, it would have been necessary to introduce a sharper increase in enrolment requirements from the increase decided, namely, from 35 to 38. It was, in the circumstances, preferable to withdraw the concession in the existing schedule which facilities a school organisation which frees the principal of a large school from teaching duties. The new regulation does not forbid a school so to organise classes that the principal continues to be free of class duties. It does, however, withdraw the facilitating concession, as I have said, and leaves the school with the choice of whether the principal will remain administrative, non-teaching with the consequence that class sizes will be bigger.

Despite the fact that this measure will not be welcome to principals, it must be noted that large schools also have vice-principal teachers and, generally, in schools of eight teachers or more, one or more teachers with posts of responsibilities. In many very large schools, there continue to be employed clerical assistants as secretaries; despite the fact that recruitment under that scheme has been terminated, phasing out is a very slow process and in many schools they have availed of the SES scheme to employ both caretakers and school secretaries on an annual basis. I am confident that the existence of these facilities will enable principals of large schools to make satisfactory arrangements in regard to the necessary administrative and clerical duties in their schools.

In the earlier part of this debate last week, Senator O'Toole listed many schools which would lose posts. At this point, my comment would be that it would be a matter of surprise if a measure to reduce numbers did not have some such effect. He also made much of the situation in north Dublin. Many of the schools in that area are large. It would, again, not be a matter of surprise if such large schools were to lose more than one post. I suspect, however, that in some such instances the kind of down-turn in enrolments which is a feature of housing areas of a certain age is a factor. In other words, some of the schools in his sample might have been going to lose posts in any event, due to a down-turn in enrolments, even without the introduction of the new schedule.

Finally, he regarded this as striking particularly at disadvantaged areas.

What he means here, I think, is the effect I have already described of the measures on large schools, particularly in view of the non-teaching principal measure. However, not all large schools are in disadvantaged areas nor are all schools in disadvantaged areas large. Moreover, remedial teaching posts tend to be more commonly placed in schools in disadvantaged areas. I cannot agree with his discounting of the fact that neither remedial posts nor the concessionary posts for disadvantaged area schools as such are being reduced in numbers.

The most I can say to Senator O'Toole at this point is that, if the figure of 1,800 posts proves to be an underestimate and if there are particular situations of unusual difficulty, I would be prepared to look at individual cases on their merits.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Facts of life.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Indeed when I met with Senator O'Toole and his union this morning at a very full and discursive meeting I made that very same point.

My last point would be to situate the present measures in the context of developments in pupil-teacher numbers over a period. This began with a revision of certain appointment figures in 1960. Under the 1960 arrangements, an enrolment of 245 was required to retain a 5th assistant teacher and 465 to retain a 10th assistant. The new figures from January next will be 190 and 380, respectively. In 1960, an additional 45 pupils was required for each additional teacher.

Over the years since then, regular revisions of the schedule have been made. However, of particular interest is the 1974 revision from which I propose to quote a few examples and compare them with the figures from January, 1988. This 1974 remains until 1978. When we hear comments or remarks that we are back to the hungry thirties——

Mr. J. O'Toole

Thirty years ago, we were dealing only with 28.

Mrs. O'Rourke

——we are dealing with the schedule which obtained less in the very late 1970s. It is worth remarking that talking about the hungry thirties and bringing in such a figure is quite unnecessarily scaremongering. The statistics for assistants are as follow: The appointment, the retention, the appointment and the retention and you have the speeches in front of you.

	1974	1988
	Appointment	Retention	Appointment	Retention
2nd assistant	80	70	74	71
3rd assistant	115	110	114	109
10th assistant	390	380	380
11th assistant	430	420	418
15th assistant	590	580	570
16th assistant	630	620	608
Each additional teacher	40	38

This schedule continued in operation until 1978. Two points may be made about this. First, if our situation as a nation living beyond its means indicates that we must get back to one where we provide ourselves with services only at a level we can afford, then the situation schools were in in the mid-seventies is not far from being a true reflection of what we can currently afford in fact. If we are all honest and cast our minds back to the mid to late seventies — and I do not fault any particular Government; I fault all political figures in this — it was maybe at that point that we started to go wrong. Secondly, it will be said that the present curriculum cannot be taught if class sizes increase. This curriculum was introduced in schools in 1971 and the enrolment schedule now being introduced is, at almost every point, far more favourable than that which obtained in 1971 when the new curriculum was introduced.

As I mentioned earlier, much is often made of the more favourable position in relation to the pupil-teacher ratio obtaining in other European countries. If it is borne in mind that most of these countries are wealthier than we are — we cannot deny that — then the remarks I made at the beginning still stand. The proportion of GNP we are spending on education is high and we, as a Government, have made up our mind that the current economic situation just cannot be allowed to continue. The fact that we have addressed it in the 1987 Estimates and in the budget and now continue to address it in this motion does not rule out that we are conscious of the various measures which have had to be taken in the various Government Departments so that we could come to grips with the economic situation.

My purpose — and I am very glad of the occasion of the debate here in the House tonight — in coming here was first to thank the proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment for giving me the opportunity of coming to the Seanad and for placing on record the facts of the case.

As I said at the beginning, the economic situation dictates the measures and the positions which we have had to take on various issues. I am concerned, as Minister for Education, and will continue to be concerned that the provision we make — and it is a hefty provision — for the running of the educational services in this country will continue at the very high level it obtains. I put on record, as I have always done, my appreciation of the continuing high quality of teachers we have in our schools. When we look across the water and we see the type of teaching that is operating there we are very lucky. I know we cannot underestimate the benefit of our teachers in our schools. I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh for the courtesy of allowing me to speak and the House for hearing me.

Mr. Manning

The 15 minutes which are available to Fine Gael will be divided between Senator Kennedy and myself. My intervention will be extremely brief.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I formally congratulate Senator Manning.

Mr. Manning

May I say very briefly that Fine Gael will be supporting this motion but not necessarily for reasons which will find favour with the proposer. Like the proposer we believe the attack on education, and especially on primary education, is severe and unsustainable. The circular in question is deplorable and its effects are potentially very damaging. We believe that the most vulnerable in the educational system will be the ones who will suffer most. We also believe that in the Programme for National Recovery the unions were sold a pup by the Government. No sooner was the ink dry than the Estimates appeared with the inevitable large-scale job losses included in them.

We believe — and I am merely stating the position now because this will be the subject of a major motion in the other House and, hopefully, in this House at a later stage — that the unions and the Government should renegotiate the wage settlement element so that money can be fred from salaries to services. Our priority is the safeguarding of the services especially in primary schools. We believe this priority is shared by many people including many of those who would benefit from the wage increase. We will formally be proposing this in the other House. I want to give notice to the House this evening that it is on that basis we are supporting the motion.

I listened with great interest to the Minister's speech. I listened to it as somebody who understands, and who understood over the past four or five years, the nature of the problems facing our economy and facing this country. It is difficult to sit and listen — in spite of the very nice remarks of the Minister to me — to a speech which was a mixture of patronising and lecturing which was given as if the past four years did not exist. I welcome the conversion of the Minister but deplore the heavy-handed way in which she is going about implementing her policy. It is difficult to sit through a speech like that and remember the slogans, the taunts and the jibes of the past four years when there was a better way and when there was no problem. However, I leave the content of that to my colleague Senator Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy

I would like to support this motion that Seanad Éireann rejects the proposals contained in circular 20/87 from the Department of Education and calls for the immediate withdrawal of this circular by the Minister for Education because, as the motion has indicated, the implementation of these proposals will have the following inevitable and damaging consequences: (1) larger classes, (2) less pupil-teacher contact, (3) a worsened pupil-teacher ratio, (4) thousands of redundant teachers, (5) later recognition and diagnosis of learning problems, (6) no prospects for those in colleges of education and (7) a damaged school administration structure.

Circular 20/87 and the 1988 Estimates for primary education represent a vicious and unprecedented attack by this Minister for Education and by this Administration on the primary school system, with a staggering decrease of £43 million in the allocation for primary schools. There will be a 50 per cent reduction in the allocation for primary school buildings, reduced from £30 million in 1987 to a mere £15 million in 1988, and a massive disimprovement in the pupil-teacher ratio. Thousands of teachers will go on redeployment panels so that in a matter of two years about two thousand teachers will be wasted out of the educational system.

Even under existing conditions we have the largest classes in western Europe and the worst pupil-teacher ratio. We have a pupil-teacher ratio of approximately 27.1 as compared with 10.6 for Denmark, 15.2 for Italy, 21.1 for England, 21.9 for West Germany and 23.4 for Northern Ireland. This Government and this Minister for Education who came into power with a commitment to reduce class sizes are proposing to penalise the children of Ireland in every school, to bludgeon down the numbers actually teaching thereby making our primary classrooms the most crowded and chaotic in the western world. As well as that, schools with more than eight teachers will lose their non-teaching administrative principal who will be required to go back to the classroom leaving the school without guidance, supervision, care and direction. This drastic and intolerable situation which would result from the implementation of circular 20/87 is summed up in a statement issued from Tom Honan, President of the Irish National Teachers Organisation on 13 October 1987 when he said and I quote:

A massive reduction in the number of primary teachers and a swingeing cut in the moneys for the building and maintenance of primary schools represents the worst attack on the educational service since the hungry thirties.

That was from the President of the INTO, not from any opposition politician in this House. All this comes from a Minister for Education who said on 8 April 1987 and I quote:

I propose to give a particular priority to primary education. The primary focus of any education authority or any Education Department must be on first level.

The same Minister said on the same day in the Dáil and I quote: "I am not a woman of empty promises." I think her speech here tonight epitomises the type of lady we have in the Minister for Education. This is the lady who for four and a half years, as education spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, opposed all and every measure taken by Fine Gael Ministers to improve the efficiency and the logic of the educational sector.

Never was there I believe, such a betrayal of trust. Never was there such a cynical misuse of democracy as the performance of Deputy O'Rourke before and after the General Election of February 1987. It is now clear that the children, parents and teachers of Ireland have no champion at the Cabinet table and that the special protection given to the young people of Ireland and their parents by successive Fine Gael Ministers in Government was indeed caring and resolute.

Recent surveys conducted by the INTO indicate that the revised staffing formula proposed by the Minister for Education will mean that practically every parish in the country will lose at least one teacher. Every school with 11 teachers or more will lose at least two teachers. This considerable loss of teachers will result in tens of thousands of children being placed in classes well in excess of 40 pupils. The results of a survey on the effect of the Minister's proposals reveals that 179 teachers will lose their jobs in the North Dublin area. This area is bounded by Santry on the south to Balbriggan on the north, Blanchardstown on the west and Howth on the east. If the Minister's proposals are implemented, one in eight of the teachers in the Dublin North area will be losing their jobs and 14,000 children in 320 classes will be in classes of more than 40 pupils, and many of them in classes of more than 45 pupils.

Mr. Doyle

The INTO now know their friends.

Mr. Kennedy

The survey concludes and I quote:

This increase in class size will have a damaging effect on the education of all the children involved but, in particular, it will have implications for children in schools in disadvantaged areas such as Darndale and Ballymun where every class will be affected by the new appointment schedule. In the larger schools if the Minister's proposals to suppress the post of Administrative Principals were implemented school discipline, parent/teacher contact, school administration and the overall organisation of the school would be seriously affected and would make the implementation of the primary school curriculum next to impossible. Some Church of Ireland schools and other minority religion schools would be wiped out.

In the Limerick city area which has approximately 49 schools and 500 teachers, 72 teacher posts will be lost in 31 schools, 55 of these teachers from 1 January 1988. In the course of an interview on the "Day by Day" programme on RTE radio following the announcement of the Education Estimates, the Minister for Education referred to the highly taxing and stressful nature of teaching. These comments are in sharp contrast with the damaging effects of her proposals to increase class size, to reduce the number of national teachers, to abolish effectively the post of non teaching administrative principal in many schools and to cut in half the provision for primary school buildings.

Michael Drew, the vice-president of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation speaking at the conferring of the B. Ed. graduates at St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, on 16 October 1987 said:

The Minister, as a former teacher, will realise that larger classes will automatically make the task of teaching children more taxing and stressful. The revised schedule will result in an increase in the number of children in every classroom in almost every school in the country. Larger schools of 10 teachers and over will lose at least 2 teachers and schools with 20 teachers or more will lose up to 4 teachers. Teachers, parents and management are shocked by the severity of the proposed increase in class size.

For all these reasons I support the motion that Seanad Éireann rejects the proposals contained in circular 20/87 and calls for the immediate withdrawal of these proposals which would have such damaging consequences for primary education. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr. Farrell

I will have to speak loud and clear because the last few times I spoke in this House one would think from reading the report that I had ignored the Chair. I do not ignore the Chair, so for some reason or other I had not been recorded.

First of all, I would like to pay tribute to the Minister who has just left for putting the facts straight. Quite honestly, a lot of what has been said here was based on assumption up to now.

A Senator

That was before the General Election.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order please.

Mr. Farrell

I do not know the Senator's profession. I only expected school teachers to heckle me like that and we have been heckled by one man already.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must not invite interruptions.

Mr. Farrell

We must face up to the fact that we have a financial problem with which we must to grips. It is the old story: no matter what one side does the other side could do it better. The end result must be to get our finances right. All the emphasis here, unfortunately, seems to be on the job losses, not on the higher motives. I am not convinced that we are talking from the higher motives or worry about our children. The words that are continually coming forward are "job losses" which means that we really have a vested interest. We have to talk about the interest of the country as a whole. Therefore cutbacks have to be made.

Over the past 20 years largely under Fianna Fáil Governments, but indeed under all Governments, we had a revolution in education. We had many advances in secondary schools, primary schools, free school transport, technical colleges, regional colleges and so on.

It is a sad indictment of our educational system that, according to experts, today we have more children illiterate than we had 20 years ago. We have more children roaming the streets uneducated and uncontrollable than we had 20 years ago. Unfortunately, despite the fact that we thought that by having a good educational system we would be able to provide employment, for some reason we are not able to provide the employment we should be providing. I believe that 99.9 per cent of the teachers are very dedicated and hardworking. They will answer the call of patriotism to take three extra pupils into their class. That is all we are asking them to do, to cater for three extra pupils in primary schools.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order.

Mr. Farrell

If those other gentlemen want to go ahead I will wait and I am prepared to come in after them. There is no problem.

When the voluntary redundancy is operated nobody will lose their jobs except those who wish to retire from the profession. This may well create more jobs for many of the young teachers coming out of our colleges. We have in this country today the best teachers and the best training colleges in the world.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Hear, hear.

Mr. Farrell

It is interesting to note too that we also have the best paid teachers. We are paying our teachers something like £2,000 a year more than they are getting in England. For a small country of our size that is not a mean achievement.

Mr. Ferris

They have more cash in their hands over there.

Mr. Farrell

Those are facts. We have some emigration but we had emigration before and we solved it and turned the tide. We did not start the deficit budgeting in this country.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator to continue without interruption.

Mr. Farrell

We are talking about children and I suppose some Senators have childish mentality.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must not invite interruption.

Mr. Farrell

We have to foot the bill. We changed the pattern of emigration and brought people back into this country. Unfortunately they have started to slip away again. Emigration did not start when Fianna Fáil were in power; it started before we came into power. John Fitzgerald Kennedy said that our emigrants left our shores with a mixture of hope and agony. Today thanks be to God and to good teachers and good Fianna Fáil policies in the past——

Mr. Ferris

All in agony.

Mr. Farrell

They are leaving our shores today — teachers, electricians, engineers, technicians, and so on. They are taking their place in the mainstream of the societies of the countries they are going to. I think this is very important.

A Senator

There is hope for all of us.

Mr. Farrell

The sad feature is that most of the people who are giving employment today are those who graduated from the university that I graduated from, the rural technical school.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order please.

Mr. Farrell

Most of them are the people who are creating the jobs. It is a pity that all the brilliant people who came out of our universities and colleges are not using their brains and enthusiasm to generate confidence and create jobs. Instead of that, they are telling us when they come out of their colleges and universities: "The country owes us a job; you provide the job for us". No Government can keep producing jobs.

The Government are elected by the people to do a job and they do it. We in Fianna Fáil are doing a job and as the Minister said it is not pleasant to have to ask primary teachers to teach three extra children in their class. That is all we are asking them to do. That is not too much.

Mr. Kennedy

That is not true.

Mr. Farrell

Those are the facts and we cannot get away from them. We must give great credit to the Minister for Education who was a teacher, a very caring and able teacher, and who is also a very caring mother.

Mr. Kennedy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Farrell

When she was introducing those little cuts she thought very carefully and she did not make the weakest suffer. There is no cutback for the underprivileged or the neglected. There is no cutback for the remedial teachers. I do not agree with Senator O'Toole that roughly 10 per cent or one in ten would need remedial teaching. That is not a fact; not in rural Ireland. There is no way that 10 per cent of our children in rural Ireland are in need of remedial treatment in the classroom. We have a very caring Minister, a very understanding Minister, and one who thought hard and fast before she made her decisions. We are not crippling the weaker sections. We are helping them by keeping the same number of teachers to deal with those classes.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I call Senator O'Shea by agreement and I understand he has have four minutes.

Mr. O'Shea

As a national teacher who is on leave of absence I feel I can speak on this subject with a degree of knowledge and also a degree of detachment and objectivity now that I am no longer facing the daily stress of the classroom.

In 1981 corporal punishment was abolished in our schools and since that time national teaching has become a much more stressful occupation. Up to now no proper effective sanction has been put in the place of corporal punishment. The number of disruptive children in our schools is increasing. The emotionally disturbed child who does not benefit from remedial education would not benefit from the special schools. There is really no place to send that child under the present system.

There is a suspension procedure which is cumbersome and does not deal with the child quickly and effectively. These children are kept on in the classrooms and teachers do the best they can in those situations. To compound that problem now we have this untoward increase in the pupil-teacher ratio. The disadvantaged pupils have been dealt with but I believe that there is another factor here, that is, the gifted children. In order to give special time to the gifted children the pupil-teacher ratio needs to be reduced. Any nation who does not give its full resources and its full help to its gifted children will suffer thereby.

With regard to this redundancy package which is on offer to teachers, and for which no provision has been made in the Estimates, one wonders whether as some reports say, the Government will raid the Central Bank, or whether at the Ogra Fáil Conference next weekend we will be informed of a package of privatisation of semi-State bodies to fund it. One wonders where all that money will come from. As a teacher I believe this will have a profoundly bad effect on teaching.

In conclusion I say to my colleagues on the other side of the House — and I do not seek to score any cheap political point here — that behind all the bravado, the bluster and all the tricking around with figures they must, when they troop through the lobby tonight to vote against this motion, feel a sense of shame and a sense of guilt about what they are doing to a generation of young Irish children and to our teachers who are facing so much stress. Teachers now have their own voluntary invalidity scheme.

The Government can say quietly to themselves that these teachers who will be exposed to so much stress will have their invalidity pension scheme to fall back on. There are 2,000 teachers out there to take their places. That is my brief comment and I thank Senator O'Toole for facilitating me.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I call on Senator O'Toole to conclude the discussion on the motion.

Mr. J. O'Toole

As the only speeches that were made on the motion came from this side of the House I do not have a lot of summing up to do on what happened on the other side of the House. There is one thing that I am absolutely clear about. I am absolutely clear that my colleagues on the Fianna Fáil side of the House have been absolutely misled, whether deliberately or otherwise, on the effects of these cuts. I got to know Senator Farrell since I joined this House and I know him to be a man of integrity. I know there is no way he would have said what he said if he did not believe it. However, what he said was untrue. There will be no job losses in the sense that teachers who are in full time employment at present will not be out of work. We have never said so. There is no shilling involved in this for teachers' pockets and let it go on the record. Some of my colleagues on the Fianna Fáil side have another view.

With regard to the Minister's position and her long speech on the gross national product and the per capita spending on Education in this country compared with other European countries which Senator Farrell said were the facts, I want to give the Minister's own response in November 1985 on precisely the same point. Deputy O'Rourke, Opposition spokesperson on Education said:

The Minister gave the figures for the proportion of GDP spent on education. That is irrelevant to our position. The figures given by the Minister referred to another time. Is the Minister satisfied that Ireland occupies the lowest rung of the ladder in regard to per capita spending on education? It is the lowest in Europe.

That was the position that Deputy O'Rourke took in Opposition. As Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke seeks to give a different argument tonight. I think that is unfair, misleading and unacceptable. It is also right to read into the record what she said about Fianna Fáil:

What will Fianna Fáil do is the question asked in debates time and time again? If Fianna Fáil were in power what would they do? The Government asked how we would go about doing what we say we want done. 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 and improved.

That is the position that the Minister took in Opposition. Furthermore in the Fianna Fáil election manifesto of 1987 was the following statement:

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

These are the facts I put in front of you — not open to discussion, not open to argument, taken from documents and the Fianna Fáil manifesto. That is the position we stand on. There is no question but that the Senators have been misled if they believe otherwise.

As regards the question of it not affecting the disadvantaged, I want to reiterate what I said last week, every school in Finglas, Darndale, Ballymun, Corduff will lose teachers. That is the fact of the matter. If the Minister can stand up on hearing that and say the disadvantaged will not suffer, then she seems to be operating a line of logic that is totally incomprehensible to anybody else. I see the Minister of State looks somewhat bemused. I ask the Minister of State on his weekend at home to drive up the road to Athenry, which is right beside him, and he will find that of the 24 teaching jobs there will go. That is the position in rural Ireland. There is a view that we are only talking about north Dublin. Go further afield and look at Counties Mayo and Galway. I see Senator Cassidy shaking his head but they will lose 11 jobs in Castlepollard.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Toole is entitled to reply to the debate on the motion.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I was wondering how I would cope with these irrelevant interruptions which have no bearing whatsoever on what we are discussing tonight but I do not blame the Senators.

The Minister referred to a meeting which we had with her this morning and I would like to respond to it. The figures I gave here last week, were the results of the survey in the Dublin area and this would leave around 2,500 jobs being wasted to primary education in Ireland. In applying the figures to rural Ireland— the west coast where the Minister said they would have least effect — we will have approximately a 10 per cent drop. It means, in effect, that the numbers of teaching jobs suppressed will certainly be over 2,000.

We have told the Minister we will sit down and discuss our figures. The Minister referred to a sample we took but we are not taking any samples, we are going school by school. It is a total population survey. There is nothing to hide. If our figures are wrong they are there for the Department to investigate. We have offered to sit down with the Department and discuss the figures on a county-by-county or school-by-school basis. Let us compare our results with the Minister's. Let us get the facts straight and clear. If we are wrong I will stand up in this House and say so. I am absolutely confident that we are not wrong. There are no mistakes in our figures as we are judging on a day-to-day basis.

One of the great difficulties in this whole business is the lack of honesty of response. I do not blame Members who have to live with these changes. I do not wish that any Member on the Government side should have to stand up here and try to defend them. I do not blame the Minister who finds the first eight pages of her script more relevant to the Estimates debate because it has nothing to do with education. There may be valid arguments but have nothing to do with the motion I put forward. The Minister should not have been allowed to make that speech but at the moment I am not in the Chair and I have no control over that.

We explained to the Minister this morning the impact that these cuts would make. On the first point, the new schedule on numbers, the Minister told us in the media on radio, television and newspapers a fortnight ago that there would be 1,300 jobs wasted to the system is now saying the figure is 1,800. That is a difference of 500. She is also saying that 500 more of those jobs will be taken back into the system. That could be right: I do not know because we cannot go that far down the line. I want to make it clear to people that 500 being taken back in are being taken in under the new schedules and to compare like with like there will be 1,800 fewer teachers for the same number of pupils. That is the fact of the matter which is not adverted to at all. To those who ask casually what is three extra in a classroom, I would ask that they take three extra kids into their house for a week and come back and talk to me about it. Multiply that by 13 and you have some idea what it is like on a daily working basis. People think it is somewhat easier on teachers to deal with extra pupils but that is not the case. What time will be available for parent-teacher contact? There will be no time.

This Minister has failed at Cabinet table to deliver to education, and particularly to primary education. She has created devastation. Were the facts ever explained to the Cabinet? I do not believe they would have take these measures if they knew the facts. We have been trying to find out the effects of these cuts and measures on primary education for the past four months and we have failed to do so. We have failed to find out the effect of a proposed redundancy package. The Department are not aware of the full facts. The Department are not aware of who it will apply to. The Department cannot tell me that there are 800 temporary teachers in primary schools at present who could be out of jobs on 1 January if the Minister were to impose this on 1 January and to say that temporary teachers should be the first out in order to make a space. The Department do not know this. They cannot say if principal teachers will be offered the redundancy terms.

They cannot say because they have not heard from the Department of Finance, according to the Minister. The Department of Education have to wait to be told by the Department of Finance how much they are going to have in the Estimates for next year. They now have to go back to the Department of Finance and ask "how do we spend the money?" This Minister has ceased to govern. This Minister has ceased to look after education. The Department of Education is not being run by the Minister for Education, whoever else is doing it. It is an utter travesty. The Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry spoke on education cutbacks on RTE radio last Friday week at 5 p.m. He said:

Let me say on teachers generally, there are huge numbers, hundreds of teachers in supernumerary jobs that do not have classrooms, that do not have full time jobs, at the moment just sitting there getting paid. Is anybody going to suggest they should be left so?

If there are people sitting around and not doing their work, chuck them out. The teacher unions will be the first to support them. We have not the space in education for people who are not going their jobs.

That situation does not exist. It is supposed to advert to the position of administrative principals who are supposed to be part of the discipline and structure within a school. If there is a problem within a classroom they are supposed to be available to deal with problem children. They are supposed to be available to counsel children with difficulties. They are supposed to be available to administer the schools. They are supposed to be available to support and to advise staff. They are supposed to be available for the implementation of the curriculum. They are supposed to be available to parents and to let them know what is going on in the school. They are supposed to be able to plan and implement remediation strategies.

These are some of the jobs they have to do, and they do not have any chance to do otherwise. If they have a minute to spare during the day, that is unusual, It shows a total lack of understanding by the Government of what is happening in primary education. I would like to take the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke and the Minister for Finance into a number of primary school classes for a couple of weeks and let them see what life is really like on the other side of the table. The idea of trying to divide equal numbers of pupils into classes is not on.

The Department of Education do not know the effects of the proposed cutbacks in terms of revision and whether they will apply to temporary teachers or otherwise. They do not know whether the administrative principles will be left cope with schools. The Minister for Education made the extraordinary statement that the Department management accept there is an eight year backlog in the building programme. The Minister claimed that, by halfing the amount of money available, in some way she can shorten the backlog. If it takes eight years at present, with half the amount of money, it will take 16 years in the future. People at school at present who are waiting for improvements in their schools will be sending their own kids to school before there is any sign of money being spent on the place.

The Department cannot answer questions on redundancy and early retirement. On the question of the primary curriculum review which the Minister set up and which we welcomed and people were appointed to it. It is unfortunate that the INTO had to withdraw from that because it was a totally hypocritical, irrelevant exercise in the light of what the Minister intends to do — to devastate primary education. There are no job losses. This case is for education, for educational service, for the sake of the investment made over generations by teachers, Ministers, departmental secretaries. The Minister's forebears and the forebears of the Minister of State at the Department of Education worked hard in the area. We have invested years of intellectual capacity and serious commitment in education. It is incredible that any Member of this House could walk into the lobby and vote against this motion. A vote against this motion is a vote against the education service and against those who are least well off.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would like to point out that Ministers have a constitutional right to be heard in the House and, therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Chair to confine him or to restrict him in any way.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 17.

Tá

Bohan, Edward Joseph.
Byrne, Sean.
Cassidy, Donie.
Cullimore, Seamus.
Doherty, Michael.
Eogan, George.
Fallon, Sean.
Farrell, Willie.
Fitzsimons, Jack.
Hanafin, Des.
Haughey, Seán F.
Hillery, Brian.
Hussey, Thomas.
Kiely, Dan.
Kiely, Rory.
Lanigan, Mick.
Lydon, Donal.
McEllistrim, Tom.
McGowan, Patrick.
McKenna, Tony.
Mullooly, Brian.
Mulroy, Jimmy.
O'Callaghan, Vivian.
O'Connell, John.
O'Toole, Martin J.
Ryan, William.
Wallace, Mary.

Níl

Bradford, Paul.
Bulbulia, Katharine.
Connor, John.
Cregan, Denis.
Daly, Jack.
Doyle, Joe.
Fennell, Nuala.
Ferris, Michael.
Harte, John.
Hogan, Philip.
Kelleher, Peter.
Kennedy, Patrick.
Manning, Maurice.
O'Shea, Brian.
O'Toole, Joe.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Ross, Shane P. N.

Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators J. O'Toole and Harte.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Lanigan

It is proposed to sit at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 November, 1987. I should like you to inquire as to whether anything can be done about the heat and the air in this House. In that respect the conditions are deplorable.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Nov 1987