Might I remind Senator O'Shea that, as proposed, he has 15 minutes and each subsequent speaker will have ten minutes.
Education Policy: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move:
That Seanad Éireann—
(i) aware that the Minister for Education and the Government have made one of the most profoundly erroneous and damaging policy decisions in the development of first level education in the history of our country in relation to the pupil-teacher ratio at primary level; and conscious that the Minister has seriously under-estimated the amount of hardship and disadvantage that her Circular Letter 20/87 will cause; and mindful of the impact on social justice and future economic, social and cultural development of such a severe attack on primary education, calls on the Minister to cause the Circular to be withdrawn, and further calls on the Government to make a full and detailed statement immediately in connection with the proposed review of the primary education system;
(ii) conscious of the particular attack on the vocational sector represented by the cuts inflicted on the sector by the Minister for Education and the Government; noting in particular, the increase in the pupil-teacher ratio from a band of 17-19 to 20 to 1 in the vocational sector and an increase from 19 to 1 to 20 to 1 in the community and comprehensive sector with a reduction of 10 per cent in the teaching members; further, noting the halting of the building programme and conscious of the disproportionate share of the remedial teaching and special provision for the disadvantaged, carried by the vocational sector; calls for the rejection and withdrawal of the proposals of the Minister and the Government for the sector.
The motion deals, first, with primary education and second, with vocational education. At the outset I should like to read from the Programme for National Recovery, the first section from the introduction:
The Government, the ICTU, the FUE, the CII, the CIF, the IFA, Macra na Feirme and the ICOS, conscious of the grave state of our economy and social life, have agreed on this programme to seek to regenerate our economy and improve the social equity of our society through their combined efforts.
Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the education section which appear later in the document read:
15. 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.
16. There is a range of measures in place to assist disadvantaged groups. There is also considerable Exchequer support for travellers and the mentally and physically handicapped. Special attention will be given to identifying those with special needs and to provide measures designed to help these groups achieve their full potential.
17. The Government will continue to encourage and foster the participation of the disadvantaged at all levels of education. A particular area of focus will be to encourage more second-level pupils to complete the senior cycle. It is considered that this will be a key factor in encouraging more working class children to advance to third-level education.
Those are very laudable and praiseworthy aspirations enunciated in the Programme for National Recovery. Certainly the Labour Party would have no problem whatsoever in supporting them. The whole question of access to education in a truly equitable and universal way is central to all that the Labour Party stand for. Unfortunately, the reality between the aspirations which I have just read and what the Government propose constitutes the problem.
The essence of this motion this evening is to combat the wrecking of the primary and vocational sectors. Primary is the sector accessible to all children of the nation. The vocational sector caters for children of all abilities, in particular for the disadvantaged. These two sectors have been singled out for a particularly devastating attack. Regarding the primary sector, the Government have responded to the nationwide protest from all those involved in primary education. I believe the nationwide protest of parents in particular brought this about. The Taoiseach has announced the establishment of the primary education review body, the structure of which reflects the various interests in primary education. The INTO, of which I am a member, are keen to take part in this review. However, there is an inherent problem.
In a statement issued by the Government on 1 December last under the heading Primary Quota Review Committee it was stated that no change under the terms of circular 20/87 would take place before the end of the school year, in June 1988, and that notices arising from that circular were suspended. The statement also announced that schools which, in the ordinary course of events, would be entitled to make appointments under the normal schedules, may continue to do so. Department of Education Circular 24/87 formally set out that information. However, it has now transpired that these appointments are being sanctioned by the Department of Education on a temporary basis only. This is in contradiction of the previous undertakings given. The Department of Education are now stating that such appointments will be on a temporary basis pending consideration by the Primary Quota Review Committee. This is a somewhat unusual animal, and rather difficult to identify.
It was suggested previously that this committee should consist of two INTO representatives, two management representatives and two representatives of the Department of Education. No INTO or management representative has offered for membership of the committee. In fact, there is no such committee. There is a clear breach of the Minister's undertaking and of the precise terms of Circular 24/87. The Government are renaging on their commitments.
The impression was created by the Government, and was endorsed in writing, that no changes under the terms of Circular 20/87 would come into effect before June 1988. I call on the Minister to put into effect the terms of Circular 24/87 in all its aspects. If implemented Circular 20/87 would result in the suppression of 2,000 teaching posts. Let us stress here that we are not talking about teachers losing jobs. We are talking about pupils losing teachers.
As a national teacher at present on leave of absence I have had 20 years experience in national schools. I know, for instance, that we have the largest average class size in Europe. In the situation that would evolve we would have larger class sizes and many more split classes.
Something that needs to be taken on board as well is that, in quite a few of our urban schools where split classes are not a feature at present, such split classes would undoubtedly become a much more notable feature of our schools. Against all this background it is disadvantaged pupils who will suffer most. Under the terms of Circular 20/87 the system would further disadvantage the already disadvantaged at the very primary or foundation level. I must refer again to the education aspirations contained in the Programme for National Recovery and to Circular 20/87. They are absolutely and utterly incompatible.
A further point which must be made here is that gifted children would not be brought to their full potential either in a Circular 20/87 scenario. Teachers will experience a lot more strain and stress dealing with the middle stratum of the class, dealing with the disadvantaged pupils. Indeed the extra work undertaken by teachers, which has always been one of the most striking features of our educational system, where brighter pupils are brought along by such extra work on the part of teachers in the classroom, will be greatly diminished. As a nation, if we are not doing the very best for our gifted people, those same people will not make their fullest possible input into solving the huge problems we face today.
I will move on now to the proposed cuts in the vocational sector. If Circular 20/87 is to be implemented these cuts will further compound the problems of disadvantaged children who have been severly damaged already at foundation level.
The argument of bringing the pupil/teacher ratio in vocational schools in line with secondary schools sounds plausible on the surface but it should be remembered that we are not comparing like with like. The vocational sector provides second-level education for children of all abilities and has a much higher proportion of disadvantaged pupils than the secondary sector. Vocational schools provide practical subjects such as woodwork, metalwork, building construction and home economics which, of their very nature, require more space, more individual contact between teacher and pupil and, consequently, a lower pupil/teacher ratio. Previous cuts that have been introduced have caused already a move from the practical to the academic in schools of my acquaintance. As a member of two VECs and of the board of management of a community college I have had some experience in this area. I have seen this move away from practical subjects to academic ones as being to the detriment of disadvantaged pupils.
Another feature of the cuts at vocational level would be that remedial teachers — who cater in the main for those with literacy difficulties — would be going back into mainstream teaching, again very much to the disadvantage of the disadvantaged. The problem which arises for smaller vocational schools countrywide is that, if the cuts are effected, if the pupil/teacher ratio in vocational schools is brought up to 20:1, the range of subjects on offer at senior cycle will be much diminished. This will have an effect on the intake at junior cycle and, at the end of the day, may very well place the viability of such schools at risk.
The community college of which I am a member of the management board started in the early seventies in spare rooms in the local national school and local scout hall. That school at present caters for the disadvantaged right through to offering seven honours subjects at leaving certificate. The impact of the cuts on this school would be devastating inasmuch as subjects such as German, French and Physics as honours leaving certificate subjects would be placed at risk. Bearing in mind the promotion of the teaching of German by the Department and all that that offers in terms of employment potential for young people, such cuts are very regrettable.
At the other end there is the risk of the provision for remedial teachers being diminished also. There is also a problem vis-á-vis practical subjects. The school has absorbed cuts heretofore. For instance, the length of the classroom session has been shortened. The school day has been shortened. The problems arising from implementation of this circular can be dealt with in a number of ways. But, if we are talking about shortening class periods, in terms of shortening the school day, then that is indeed a very regrettable road to be travelling.
The Labour Party is concerned first and foremost with the whole area of access, particularly equitable access, to education. As was enunciated in the Programme for National Recovery we want to see more and more disadvantaged children progressing through second level education into third level. Present Government proposals are particularly regrettable when one remembers that a Minister of this Government, Deputy John Wilson, when Minister for Education, reduced the pupil/teacher ratio in vocational schools to 16:5. That same Fianna Fáil Party, now in Government, are in the business of bringing that pupil/teacher ratio up to 20:1. We are totally opposed to what is proposed and reject the amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and will speak to it at this point if that is in order.
My colleague, Senator O'Shea, in proposing the motion and as a teacher, has dealt with the effects of implementation of the proposals by the Minister's Department. I do not intend to cover the same ground.
This motion has been tabled as a result of what I might describe as the fiasco in another place before Christmas on a similar motion on behalf of our party. Had the spirit of that earlier motion been accepted by all the other political parties, with the exception of the Government party, it could have brought to an end this dilemma of whether the infamous Circular 20/87 had been withdrawn. We had put down a responsible amendment to the Fine Gael motion to the effect that if that circular was withdrawn we would ask all other parties to join with the Government in seeking a solution to the problem in the primary sector in particular.
Our efforts proved to be unsuccessful, all the motions cancelling one another out. At later stages in the debate and outside of the House the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education decided to have a review carried out, postponing a decision thereon until September.
All of the schools in my constituency — the same as that of the Minister of State present, are now in the unhappy position that they do not know whether they are coming or going. The are afraid that in September — when all the schools will be closed — the provisions of circular 20/87 or its successor will come into operation. They fear that teacheres will be lost in Golden, Thomastown, Cashel, Cahir, Rosegreen and Tipperary town. I have attended schools in all of these places. I know that the Minister present has attended some. This is the record put to us on those occasions. Indeed the statistics to back up such record without any brief being held political or otherwise on the part of the people who advance them. Many of the teachers publicly identified themselves as being supporters of the Government party but contended that from an educational point of view the proposals were inoperable. They described the proposals in various derogatory ways at public meetings. I have never seen teachers and parents in this whole area of the primary sector — which touches all of our families — so incensed. It must be remembered that all our children receive primary education. This motion affords the Minister an opportunity to say categorically now in this House — where there is not the same political hype as there is in the other House — whether Circular 20/87 or its successor is withdrawn. Are we now discussing realistically with parents and teachers proposals that might overcome some of the Government's financial difficulties?
In the time remaining to me I want to deal with the vocational sector. I was a member of a VEC for many years until the Minister's party decided to remove me from that body. Apart from that stroke, I made the contribution I could to the vocational sector. I might add that I am a product of the vocational sector, which is possibly an indication of its importance. Certainly I consider the vocational sector to be an important one. I know from briefings I have had with the remaining Labour Party members on the VEC in South Tipperary and from the document entitled IVEA Information published in December last by the Irish Vocational Education Association what these education cuts will mean in this sector. In that document they say:
Educational cuts have continued unabated in the vocational sector since 1983. Budgets have been drastically reduced, class sizes have increased and jobs have been lost. VEC second level schools, while representing only 25 per cent of second level provision, are being forced to carry almost 100 per cent of the cuts at second level.
That is a spectacular statement emanating from a responsible association — that the VECs, although they only deal with 25 per cent of that sector are expected to carry almost 100 per cent of the total cuts by the Government at second-level education.
I might refer again to south Tipperary. There is a vocational school in the Minister's town of Cashel. We are hoping to replace it in Clonmel, where there is a new school; in Cahir, where there is a proposal for a school, with an existing one; in Cappawhite where there is a small school really under threat; in Tipperary town, in Killenaule and in Carrick-on-Suir. All of those schools were represented in Athlone on Saturday last. I should imagine the town of the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke was chosen deliberately to bring home to her, on her doorstep, the absolute impossibility — at vocational level — of being able to implement some of her departmental proposals. To demonstrate how these proposed cuts will affect us in Tipperary, in particular, I would have to cite the experience of a representative school there. In that school in 1981 or 1982 the staff allocation to service 330 students amounted to just over 23 teachers. In 1987-88 with an enrolment of 390 students, the allocation would constitute a small increase but, with those additional students, which mean a reduction in teachers; that typical school would lose up to four teachers. This would lead to larger classes, restriction on or no choice of subjects, possible loss of subjects, the abolition of some courses, a reduction in remedial and guidance services at vocational level, a shorter student day which, from an educational point of view, is totally unacceptable. There would be enrolment restrictions and total closure of senior cycle and small schools.
This is what is happening in the Minister's constituency. There is no better way to understand the problem than to realise how it will affect each of us. That view was confirmed at a recent meeting in Clonmel attended by parents, teachers and representatives of the Vocational Education Committee, chaired by Councillor Josephine Quinlan. Those attending that meeting concluded that if the cutbacks were to continue as proposed it would involve a reduction of four teachers in the institute in Clonmel, to be effected by the termination of any post that might be temporary, part-time, by voluntary redundancy — this glorious solution now accepted universally as the panacea for all our problems — early retirement, or transfer to another school. This could constitute a way of threatening members of the staff that if they did not move to another school they would not be eligible for voluntary redundancy having acted contrary to or in breach of their contract. That would lead to a total reduction in class numbers from about 25 down to 22 and a reduction in class hours per week, to approximately 960.
I suggest that when these Government proposals have been tried out on the ground and vetted by the professional people who will have to operate them, particularly when parents realise the consequences for their children, they will be found to be unacceptable, and inoperable, without any justification whatsoever on social or educational grounds. One can argue the economics for putting forward these proposals. But if Government priorities do not include primary and second-level education, particularly at vocational level — certainly at second-level which it is to be hoped most children will attain — what hope is there, in an economically harsh period for the survival of any of the social services we consider to be so vital? One thinks immediately of health, social welfare and job creation. Education is fundamental to every argument advanced from any side of the House.
In seconding this double-edged motion it is our belief that there must be an alternative way of revaluing this problem. The Fianna Fáil Party suggested at election time that there was another way. We should now be told of that other better way. Certainly balancing the books is no way to treat students or their parents who are concerned about them and certainly not our teachers who have given tremendously loyal service to the State since its foundation. They were never consulted by any Government on how these proposed cuts would be implemented on the ground.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after Seanad Éireann and substitute the following:-
aware that the education services account for £1,031.946 million, approximately 18 per cent of net Exchequer expenditure on non-capital services and recognising that the sum provided for education in the current Budget will ensure the maintenance of the education service at its existing high level
endorse the action taken by the Government with a view to making the education service more cost-effective and so enabling it to continue to make a vital contribution to the economic and social development of our country.
When I read the motion submitted by Labour Party Senators I was amazed and appalled at its extravagant and emotive language. When Senator O'Shea was proposing the motion he used the phrase, the wrecking of the primary and vocational sectors, a further example of the intemperate, emotive and extravagant language being used in relation with this motion. Certainly the manner in which the motion is worded is not conducive — or perhaps I should say was not intended to be conducive — to a reasoned, constructive debate on the issues involved. Furthermore, the motion attempts to give the impression that cutbacks in the educational sector started only in the lifetime of the present Government.
I noticed, before Senator Ferris rose to speak, that he had a copy of an IVEA Information document in his hand and that he did not read for us the first sentence of that document which refers to education cuts. I will now read that first sentence which reads:
Education cuts have continued unabated in the vocational sector since 1983. Budgets have been drastically reduced, class sizes have increased and jobs have been lost.
I might point out that cuts in education spending did not begin with this Government. Indeed, it might be no harm to remind ourselves of some of the cutbacks that took place under the Coalition Government in which the Labour Party was a partner. For example, there had been cutbacks in the free books scheme, in school transport, school building and maintenance, in the provision for teaching aids and equipment, in the provision for remedial education and for career guidance. There were also cutbacks in vocational education scholarships to regional and vocational colleges.
The reason I refer to these cutbacks which took place during the lifetime of the Coalition Government is to expose the dishonesty of the Senators who have proposed and seconded this motion. I am not saying these cutbacks did not have an adverse effect on the quality of the education service, I believe they had and I accept that the cost-cutting measures proposed by this Government in the area of education have created problems for people involved in education at every level. I have never tried to deny that. I am as conscious, as is any other Member of this House, of these problems.
When I spoke in the Seanad on 28 October last year during a debate on a similar motion I conceded that it would be extremely difficult to maintain the quality of the education service in the present very difficult economic circumstances. At paragraph 898 of the Official Report of Seanad Éireann on 28 October 1987 I said:
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.
The Government, however, have to have regard to the overall range of services which have to be provided and the limited resources which they have at their disposal for the provision of these services.
The priority which the Government attach to education is underlined in the Programme for National Recovery which was agreed with the social partners last year. In the section dealing with education there are four paragraphs which outline the Government's priorities in relation to education. I do not intend to quote this section because the proposer of the motion has already quoted extensively from it but I want to emphasise its main points.
First, the Government recognise the importance of the educational system in the promotion of equity in society. The Government are committed to ensuring, that whatever cutbacks or cost cutting measures have to be taken, the burden of these will not fall on the disadvantaged. The Government are also committed, the section tells us, to assisting disadvantaged groups and to providing considerable Exchequer support for travellers and the mentally and physically handicapped and also to providing measures which will help these groups to achieve their full potential. The Government are also committed to fostering and encouraging the participation of the disadvantaged at all levels in education. Then, of course, there are the various vocational preparation and training courses which are extensively subsidised and assisted. So this section of the Programme for National Recovery indicates the very high priority the Government give to education.
However, we have to consider the provision for education in the current year against the background of the serious economic problems which this Government have begun to address so successfully. Indeed, I might point out that many of these problems were created by the previous Government. If I had time I would quote again from the introduction to the Programme for National Recovery where we are given an outline of the various difficulties which the Government have to confront. Everybody now accepts that we could not continue to borrow at the rate at which we were borrowing in order to provide and maintain the various services irrespective of how desirable these services might be. We must recognise that a huge amount of money is still being provided for education. In the current year 6.5 per cent of our gross national product, that is 18 per cent of non-capital Government spending, is being spent on education so that the amount of money being provided for education is, in anybody's language, huge.
Circular 20/87 has been referred to. I am pleased that the implementation of this circular has now been deferred. The Government, in consultation with the INTO, have established a review body to review all aspects of primary education. This is a 21 member body which will be chaired by an eminent former president of UCD, Dr. Tom Murphy. I want to congratulate the Minister for Education and the Government on having established this review body. I believe this is one of the most important developments that has ever happened as far as primary education is concerned. I often heard it said that, sometimes out of evil comes good, and I believe this will be the case in this instance. If Circular 20/87 had never been issued, this review body would never have been established. I believe that, in due course, this review body will come to be seen as one of the best things that has ever happened as far as primary education is concerned.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Your time is up, Senator. Would you conclude please?
I will conclude by complimenting the teacher unions and the parents' associations on the very responsible, dignified and effective way in which they have conducted their campaigns against the education cuts. It is important that the general public, as well as the Government, should be made aware of the feelings of those who are most closely involved in the education service. Every teacher and every parent wants to see the greatest possible provision for education and over the years teachers have always campaigned for improvements in the service.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will the Senator conclude on that note because we are very short of time. I apologise for not reminding you when you had one minute to go but you have taken a minute's injury time. I call Senator Peter Kelleher.
I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this motion even though some of it is a repetition of a similar motion on education which we had in October last year introduced by Independent Senator Joe O'Toole. This motion is more comprehensive, of course, because it deals with more than Circular 20/87. It deals also with the very damaging cuts in the vocational sector, the halting of the building programme, etc.
I spoke at length last October on the 20/87 circular and I intend to speak very little on it tonight and to confine my remarks to the section dealing with the vocational sector. Circular 20/87 and the 1988 Estimates for Primary Education represent a vicious and unprecedented attack by this Minister for Education on the primary school system with a staggering £43 million being removed from primary education. Many changes have taken place since last October and obviously this was not going to be tolerated. I welcome the setting up of the primary review committee. I believe that, under the terms of reference this review could take up to two years which would mean that Circular 20/87 could be suspended indefinitely which, to me, is a retreat on the Government's initial position.
The behaviour of this Government in the education area since the publication of the 1988 Estimates is a record of blunder, confusion and retreat. We now see the bitter results of decisions taken last summer which have caused massive disruptions and discontent. Last Saturday, in the Minister's own town of Athlone, over 12,000 people turned out in a major protest against the proposed cuts in the vocational system. Teachers and parents, representing 38 vocational educational regions around the country, turned up. My home village of Ballyvourney and Ballingeary in the Macroom area were very well represented in Athlone last Saturday. They warned the Minister that she could not take 700 teachers out of the VEC system, that it would be a retrograde step and that the development and expansion of the vocational sector was necessary for economic recovery and development.
The TUI president stated that the public sector third level institutes are one of the outstanding educational successes of the past 20 years. Government proposals will curtail their development and will reduce access for students and deprive the nation of the rich contribution which the staff and students can make.
The Government must rethink their decision to take some hundreds of teachers out of the vocational, community and comprehensive schools from September 1988. This is a socially regressive step, an attack on the section of post-primary education least able to bear it. The vocational schools provide a range of practical subjects requiring equipment and, necessarily smaller classes.
However, they also take children regardless of social standing or intellectual ability. They have contributed beyond measure to education and social progress in Ireland.
I, like all other public representatives, have been receiving deputations from the INTO, from the vocational sector, from the TUI, teachers and concerned parents. Recently I had one from a group in my own area where they were concerned that if the cutbacks were implemented one or two of the subjects in that school would be cut out completely. They were referring to subjects like metalwork or commerce. Metalwork is very important for anybody who wants to enter into a trade in a rural area or even for somebody who might want to take up farming as a livelihood.
To survive in any walk of life one needs to be self sufficient and that would certainly mean a knowledge of metalwork in the farming sector at the moment. Needless to mention, commerce is also a very important subject. Accounts are important in any walk of life whether it is business, farming or otherwise. It is therefore very important to retain both of these subjects in the vocational education system. I agree with the comments by Senator O'Shea that because of the nature of the subjects being taught in the vocational system, which include metalwork, construction and woodwork, that more individual contact is very necessary. Obviously a lower pupil-teacher ratio is vitally important.
The Government cannot ignore any longer the direct contradiction which these cuts represent to the stated aim of the Programme for National Recovery. In that document they stated:
The Government will ensure that the burden of adjustments does not fall on the disadvantaged.
This has been pointed out again and again, but the Government and the Minister have turned a deaf ear. There is a mechanism established in that programme, the Central Review Committee, which can be convened by the social partners to review the progress of the programme. I call on the Government to convene that committee in order to re-examine the contradiction which the vocational cuts represent and to find a better balance between public service numbers and pay as they affect vocational education.
Since the Government came to office we have seen the establishment of no less than four major bodies, committees or commissions. The Curriculum Advisory Council, the Primary Curriculum Review Body, the Primary Quota Review Committee, the Review Body on Primary Education, and now there is talk of yet another review body on post-primary education. Is this not making a joke of education policy and planning? The decent concerned people who have been invited to chair or sit on these bodies are being asked to mop up after the unholy mess created by this Government and the Minister for Education since they came into office. It is time above all to see if the present political leadership in education is capable of not only putting right the damage done already but of bringing forward the kind of dynamic policy which is needed so desperately for Ireland's hope for the young people.
It took a defeat of this Government on the education motion to bring them to their senses. We in Fine Gael have been pointing out to them that they have been wrong in their approach to the cutbacks in education. My party's position on this motion before us is to vote against the Fianna Fáil amendment to the motion as we do not believe that the sum provided for education in the current budget will ensure the maintenance of the education service at its existing level. We will be abstaining on the Labour Party motion which is divided into two paragraphs: on paragraph (i) because we feel that the primary review committee set up to examine Circular 20/87 should be given an opportunity to report back with a firm conclusion and on paragraph (ii) because we feel that the Minister is about to make another retreat on the vocational cuts. This we welcome and we want to allow her and the Government ample room to implement this retreat.
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 boards two days before the general election. Fine Gael's minor cuts were described as devastating and it was said it would be completely counterproductive to implement them. Fine Gael's prudent and caring management of the education budget is now being seen for what it was.
I would like to say at the outset that the Government welcome the opportunity which the motion before the House gives them to bring the House up-to-date on developments in the area of primary education.
The announcement of the proposals in relation to pupil/teacher ratio changes in national schools generated considerable controversy when it was made last October. I am not going to deny that the proposal was a controversial one. The Government were aware that the very significant reductions needed in public expenditure, if the national finances were to be restored to a healthy condition, were not going to be able to be made painlessly. It was to be expected that any measures in any area of public spending which would have substantial effect would give rise to strong opposition.
Nevertheless, the controversy generated has been of value in helping to clarify for people the issues in question. It has enabled people to realise that getting the public finances under control is an aim of the first importance and of immediate urgency but one which cannot be achieved without sacrifices. The question then is, what sacrifices have to be made and how do we measure the sacrifices which have to be made against the benefits to be obtained. The debate has helped people to be clearer on these matters and it will be towards that clarification that I will devote what I have to say.
Because this same matter of the pupil/teacher ratio in national schools was already the subject of debate in this House at the beginning of November and again in Dáil Éireann later in that month, I cannot deal adequately with the question without, of necessity, going over again some of the ground then traversed.
The principal areas which I intend to touch upon, although not in the same depth as in the earlier debates are, first, that relating the pupil/teacher ratio changes to the general issue of curtailing public spending and secondly, that describing what is involved in the pupil/teacher proposal itself. In the course of this I will bring the House up-to-date on the present situation.
I have already explained that our starting point is the need to curtail public spending. By now, people do not any longer need to be persuaded that this is a first priority. It is, however, significant to note that even with the limited curbs on public spending which this Government were able to introduce last year, total national debt still climbed by more than a further £900 million to over £26 billion in 1987. This represents a slowing down but it does mean that the growth of debt has not yet been halted, let alone reversed. It is with the aim of halting this growth that the further major reductions, amounting to nearly £500 million, have been made in the current year's Estimates.
As pointed out before, this is not, as some have alleged, a matter of bookkeeping only, of putting balancing the books before people. In the first place, the servicing of the debt is eating up the equivalent of close to the whole PAYE, tax yield, thus soaking up resources which could be used elsewhere, including the improvement of the level of educational provision. In the second place, the effect of the debt burden is to be found in high levels of taxation and high levels of interest, both of which have had a significant effect in discouraging investment for employment purposes.
Granted that the national debt situation must be brought under control, the question now is how it is to be done. I am well aware that one of the elements in a general strategy for doing this is to broaden the tax base. I shall not go into that issue here; Members of this House will have ample time to discuss it in the budget debate and, later on, on the Finance Bill. However, I think it should suffice to say that tax reform is a matter of concern to the Government and the Minister for Finance in his budget has set out the steps which are being taken in this regard in the current year.
Tax reform is not a panacea, however, and the main work of reducing the national debt must fall to public expenditure reductions. There are two points to be grasped in regard to the relation of public expenditure reductions to the question of pupil/teacher ratio reduction. The first of these is that two-thirds of non-capital supply services spending goes on the areas of social welfare, health and education. Curtailment of public spending cannot happen without curtailment of spending in these areas overall and, within these, education cannot expect to escape at the expense of social welfare and health.
The second point is that four-fifths of spending in education is on pay. In primary education, teacher pay in 1988 will amount to 80 per cent of the total Primary Education Estimate. We simply could not make significant savings in the education area without reducing the amount of money going on teacher pay.
One way of doing this would have been to have curtailed teacher pay. Effectively, this is what the main Opposition party was suggesting last November when it proposed that the pay provision in the Programme for National Recovery be revised downwards to provide the money which would be saved under the proposal on pupil/teacher ratios. For reasons that I do not propose to go over again, the Government rejected this approach. The alternative was to reduce the total number of teachers in the schools and that is what the Government measure is aimed at accomplishing.
It is at this point that the misunderstandings begin to arise. The proposal in Circular 20/87 is stated in the form of a revised schedule of average enrolments required for the appointment and retention of teaching posts in national schools.
The first misunderstanding relates to the question of over-large classes. The impression was given in some quarters that, as a result of these measures, classes of 50 or over would become quite common, if not the norm. This was wildly inaccurate. The average class size throughout the country is currently 30.5. The Department of Education has calculated that, as a result of the pupil/teacher ratio changes, this will increase to 33.
The second thing is that the existence of exceptionally large classes must be related to a school's choices for organisational purposes. Thus, for reasons which have to do with the age and distribution of pupils, there may be one grade in a school with a significantly larger number of pupils than other grades. For example, there may be 45 pupils in 4th grade. This is, obviously, a regular occurrence at present. There are ways of dealing with this kind of situation. Some of the pupils may be put with a smaller 5th grade. Or 4th and 5th grades may be reorganised to give two mixed classes of more even size.
This is not at all an unusual practice. Almost two-thirds of our schools have four teachers or less. In all these schools, teachers have to work with classes composed of two or more grades. Even in larger schools, the number of grades does not always allow an even matching with the number of teachers. In many apparently homogeneous single-grade classes, some of the pupils may be a year ahead, and others a year behind, in, say, reading ages. The teacher's solution to this is grouping within the class. Grouping together of, say, pupils whose reading age is ahead of a 4th grade is not so very different from putting these pupils with a 5th grade class in respect of that area of curriculum.
Some schools would, of course, prefer to retain a larger than average number of pupils in a single class than regroup.
This is a choice the school makes itself and it is within the competence of the principal teacher, subject to the authority of the board of management, to come to the best arrangement in the circumstances of each school. Nevertheless, there are limits and the Department in a circular issued in 1978, for example, asked schools to limit class sizes to a maximum of 40. Despite this many schools continued to operate organisational arrangements which left them with classes of over 40 pupils.
Nevertheless, in order to meet the concern expressed by many well-meaning people, the Minister announced before Christmas that she was setting up a quota review committee, following a precedent set earlier in relation to post-primary teachers, to look at the effects of Circular 20/87 in detail. The purpose of the committee would be to see how, within the limits of expenditure laid down in the 1988 Book of Estimates, the best possible arrangement could be made in the deployment of teachers, the size of classes and the organisation of primary schools generally. In particular, the committee would concentrate on any difficulties which might arise in certain schools following the issue of Circular 20/87 where the implementation of the circular would create unacceptably large classes.
The guidelines prescribed for the committee were as follows:—
(1) problems would be examined on a school-by-school and class-by-class basis.
(2) the maximum size of any class would not exceed forty; where, because of exceptional circumstances, it was impossible to adhere to this limit, the permission of the review committee and the Minister would be required;
(3) the effects on schools of population changes would be taken into account;
(4) special consideration would be given to schools in disadvantaged areas;
(5) special consideration would be given to the remedial needs of schools;
(6) existing remedial posts would not be affected by the changes under Circular 20/87 nor would special posts in disadvantaged areas; and class sizes would be appropriate to the actual size of the classroom.
Pending the committee's beginning work, officials of the Department have visited all schools where a post or posts would not be retained under the terms of Circular 20/87. Most of the schools cooperated by making available school records to the departmental officials.
I understand that it has been alleged that the circular will continue to effect further reductions in the times ahead. This is not so. The circular was designed to have a "once-off" effect. Further reductions in teacher numbers could, of course, come about as a result of a decline in pupil numbers. This, however, would lead to a loss of teaching posts in any event without the intervention of Circular 20/87.
A final misunderstanding relates to the timing of the implementation of Circular 20/87. Many people thought that the teachers whose posts would be rendered surplus under the circular would be without jobs from 1 January 1988. However, the Minister stated, when announcing the quota review, that no change under Circular 20/87 would take place before 30 June 1988.
I have dwelt at length on the misunderstandings in the public perception of what Circular 20/87 means in order to show that the impact of the circular has been exaggerated and that the strictures contained in the motion are not well-founded. The Government believe that, in setting up a quota review committee with wide terms of reference and in offering representation on this committee to the various interests concerned, they have shown that it is intended to apply the circular in a reasonable way and taking into account any special difficulties which individual schools may have.
If I might turn now to the call in the motion for a statement in connection with the proposed review of the primary education system, I would like to refer to the Minister's recent announcement in this regard. In that announcement she indicated that the terms of reference would encompass a wide-ranging review resulting in a report which would be submitted to the Government. The areas to be covered would include the structure of primary education, demographic trends and their implication, the quality of primary education and school organisation.
Dr. Tom Murphy, former President of University College, Dublin, has agreed to act as chairperson and the Minister has invited representation from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, the managerial bodies, the National Parents' Council, the Association of Secondary Teachers, the Teachers' Union of Ireland, the Colleges of Education and the Primary Curriculum Review Body. The Department will also be represented on the review body and the Minister proposes appointing two nominees of her own. The Minister intends to launch the review formally very shortly, as soon as she has nominations from all the bodies to be represented.
In announcing the review, the Minister stated her belief that it was timely and expressed confidence that the report of the review body would greatly assist the Government in the task of planning for the future of primary education in this country.
In the context of our discussion today, I would like to refer to one area in the review, namely, that of demographic trends and their implications. All available evidence points to a very substantial decline in enrolments in primary schools up to the end of the present century. The needs of the system, including the staffing requirements of schools, can be considered in the light of the declining demand which the drop in pupil numbers will make on our resources. I am confident that this will be in a situation where the various measures now being taken by the Government will have enabled the crisis in the public finances to be surmounted and where Government policies will have led to an improvement in the state of the economy generally.
While the present position of the public finances has necessitated Government measures of an unwelcome kind such as we have been debating to-day, I believe that the situation in this respect will improve according as the steps we are taking have effect and according as the pressure on demand on the educational system eases with the decline in pupil numbers. It is in this context I would expect the review body to carry out their deliberations.
The vocational education system has been one of the cornerstones of the Irish education system since 1930. Over the past 50 years it has made a major contribution to the development of Irish society and will continue to do so in the years ahead.
The 1930 Vocational Education Act in establishing the vocational system stated that it would include "general and practical training in preparation for employment to trades, manufactures, agriculture, commerce and the industrial pursuits and also general and practical training for the improvement of young persons in the early stages of such employment". This clearly outlined the specific purpose for which vocational education was established.
The successful training of young people in various skilled trades and occupations was of central importance to the development of the economy of the country in the years following independence. That this objective has continued to be achieved in the intervening decades is substantiated by the number of technically skilled young people leaving school each year and in the current competitive success of our apprentices at international level each year. The development of regional colleges and other third-level technological institutions reflect the success of vocational education.
The introduction of free post primary education by the late Donogh O'Malley in the late sixties brought with it sweeping changes in the whole area of education provision. Student numbers increased from 55,000 in 1965 to 200,000 plus in 1986 and the education budget itself increased from £19 million in 1965 to £1,269 million in 1988. That radical initiative resulted in substantial changes in the post primary education system. Secondary schools extended their programmes to cater for pupils with different abilities and aspirations.
The vocational system also broadened its horizons by the introduction of intermediate and leaving certificate programmes and a wide range of adult education programmes. Gradually new types of post primary schools also emerged: comprehensive schools, community schools and more recently vocational schools established under section 21 of the 1930 Act i.e., community colleges. This has resulted in a more complex administrative system but one which is broadly similar in its curricular provision.
The majority of all post primary schools now provide a curriculum comprising of both academic and practical subjects and cater for a wide range of ability levels. Nor is size any longer the monopoly of any one sector of education. For example, there are virtually as many small secondary schools as vocational schools, 138 to 139. In that overall context the Government is of the opinion that this developing equalisation of education provision should be reflected in the allocation of teaching posts at post primary level.
The Government indicated their continuing commitment to the area of disadvantage in the Programme for National Recovery and have again made provision in this year's budget for the maintenance of literacy programmes, prison and traveller education which is under the aegis of the vocational education committees. The Department of Education have also acknowledged on an ongoing basis the involvement of vocational schools with disadvantaged students by consistently allocating over the last nine years the substantial majority of remedial and resource posts to the vocational sector and will maintain that provision again in 1988.
Reference has been made to the question of the post primary building programme. This is now closely linked to the whole question of demographic trends. Every single project must be carefully analysed in the context of a declining pupil enrolment pattern. All developments in building will be assessed on a rationalisation-community basis. To do otherwise would be a gross waste of existing resources. Within these parameters and the limited financial resources available, some initiatives will be taken during the 1988-89 academic year.
At a time of great economic stringency this Government have clearly shown their commitment to education by maintaining provision for all our young people from primary to third level. The Government's strategy of controlling the public finances has been proved in the financial year 1987 to have been an outstandingly successful one. Public expenditure is down, interest rates are down, borrowing is down. The Government cannot and will not jeopardise the progress that has been made to date in achieving economic stability and are confident that they have the full support of the public in realising that objective.
A Chathaoirligh, representing the university graduates — a great majority of whom are probably teachers — I have no choice but to express my support for the motion. There is really no time to add to the debate. I would rather use a minute or two to make a specific plea for one severely disadvantaged class of pupils. I would cite specifically an education institution in Cork which is at the receiving end of the cuts in their worst aspect, the Cork Spastic Clinic and School of the Divine Child. I am told that they represent the kind of school which caters for severely handicapped children who need daily education, treatment and therapy. They are being particularly affected by a change in the transport system of bringing these children to school from widely scattered points. The new system apparently of offering a capitation grant per family or per child is simply not comparable at all in its effect to the public collection system which was hitherto operated. I should be glad if I could be informed of the Department's policy on this matter. If we are talking about the disadvantaged these, surely, are the most pitiable of the disadvantaged and even in the most draconian climate some regard must be had for these very special cases.
Having used very little time I would ask you, with great respect, a Chathaoirligh, to extend some of my theoretical time to my colleague, Senator O'Toole, who has a primary responsibility for this area.
I will not take up too much time on this part of the debate. I am grateful to get in on it. I thank the Minister for coming along. I am not sure if the Government reshuffled a place during the day or if he is merely standing in for the Minister for Education.
I want to deal with one point that the Minister raised. It is important to get it cleared and out of the way. He went to great lengths to describe for us the primary quota review committee, and presented it in the most reasonable terms, as parents, teachers and the Department examining schools on a one by one basis and deciding what would be done in the schools. He took great pains to go through the Minister's statement of, I believe, 9 or 10 December last, which covered the guidelines for the primary quota review committee. It seemed that the problems and effects would be examined, and that the committee would appear to solve the problems within the schools. If the Minister were to propose to us that parents, teachers, management and the Department would sit down with the power to make decisions for each school, we would not be wasting any time about getting in there. We are not idiots this side of the line.
What was left out very conveniently in the document which the Minister was given to read was the next few lines which indicated that when the committee had examined each school they would then make a recommendation to the Minister, which the Minister could choose to carry out or not carry out. It further added that the Minister would also take representations from other groups and interested parties, at which time Fianna Fáil TDs all over the country began to sprinkle documentation to their local primary schools along the lines of "Please tell me the problems in your school so that I can make representations to the Minister in order to sort out the difficulties within your school". In other words, what that seemingly innocuous document was doing was creating the greatest recipe for political graft that I have seen in my whole experience of primary education.
The Minister was taking into her hands the giving and the taking by her gift of 1,300 teaching jobs. It would be totally unacceptable in a situation in primary schools where appointments are made strictly on the basis of enrolment and where there is no room for political interference. In all fairness political public representatives do not want to be involved at that level, because it creates more problems than it resolves. That is the problem with the primary quota review committee.
I am glad of the opportunity to make it clear to people that if the Minister were setting up a committee where parents, teachers, management and the Department in equal numbers would sit down and examine each school and make recommendations that would be binding, that would be a horse of a different colour. It was not that that was being presented to us here. Last term there was a lot of what was referred to by other people as campaigning against the detrimental effects of the proposed Circular, 20/87.
At the height of that crisis, campaign and organisation the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, made a statement at the Fianna Fáil presidential dinner — if I recall rightly on 10 December — and he referred to the particular difficulties in primary education of the time. He spelt out the importance of primary education and the need that it should be properly resourced. In very clear and unambiguous terms he invited various interested parties to participate in a review of the whole primary education system by what was later called the primary education review body. He said that within that body, through the procedures of that body and through its recommendations we would find — and I quote —"the solution to the current problems and difficulties" as well as looking at the difficulties which would be created in the future. It was on that basis and on that very clear invitation of the Taoiseach that this body was set up which was, as the Minister has said, responding and reporting back to the Government.
I believe in the Government's good faith in this matter. For that reason both the parents, as represented both by the National Parents Council and also by the Christian Brothers Schools Parents Council and the INTO, representative of the teachers, decided to suspend their public campaign until such time as a resolution of the difficulties could be found within the review body. It is within that situation that we are at the moment. I would also draw to the Minister's attention that during that period of time and also on 9 December the Minister issued Circular 24/87. In fact, the document the Minister read from was part of it. It said that from 1 January until the end of the school year appointments would be made in primary schools as per the normal schedules. Just for the record, that is not happening.
The Minister has taken the decision unilaterally that all appointments in primary schools from 1 January have been temporary, pending a review. In other words, the Minister is in breach of her own rules and regulations because, as the House will be aware, a circular changes the rules. The Minister has the power to do that. The Minister said to management, to schools and to teachers on 10 December "You will now make appointments as per normal schedules and Circular 20/87 is suspended". That is not happening.
I shall not take up any more time because it would be inappropriate for me to go into details, particularly because of the sensitive negotiations taking place. I want to stress that the Government offered an invitation which teachers and parents are happy to accept, recognising the difficulties in a reasonable, honest and fair attempt to find a resolution. It is in that way that we should go forward. It is a pity that the Minister should be harking back to other issues here tonight. I believe in taking a more positive approach. If the formula for a resolution is presented we should seek to find a resolution within that formula. It is with that progressive and positive statement that I will now sit down.
The motion before us must be put in context. It is before us because, realistically speaking, expenditure cuts were necessary across the board when the Government took office. We are in a very difficult situation in the circumstances of the late eighties. The national imperative is the control of the public finances. There will be differences in emphasis and approaches and so on as to how this can be achieved but it is a fact that, when the Government took office, the national debt had doubled to a figure of £25 billion. That was extremely serious and had to be tackled. The economy was practically at a standstill and confidence was at a very low ebb. This meant that little new investment had been made when the Government took office last March. Putting the public finances on a sound footing is vital to everything to which we, as a people, aspire. That has meant tackling, at times in a painful way, expenditure in various Government Departments. Education, therefore, could not escape. The most detailed thought and attention was paid to the cuts in each Department to make them as equitable as possible in a difficult situation.
I want to refer very briefly to international comparisons that are made in the educational field. Our population of young people of school going age is very high in comparison with other countries. Consequently our capacity to pay for given levels of education is that much less, especially in times of economic stringency. Nonetheless, the percentage of GNP spent on education in Ireland is one of the highest in Europe. For many years past the numbers of children of primary school age have been rising. At the same time, the number of teachers has been rising even faster. The result is that the pupil-teacher ratio and class sizes are right now better than in the past.
I would like to make this point. At present the average class size is 30.5, compared with 35 some 20 years ago. We all would like to see the pupil-teacher ratio somewhat lower, but the Minister has scotched the speculation and rumours about classes of 50 or more being the order of the day under the proposals. That is obviously not so.
We must also look ahead at educational policy. The recent DKM report on population projections underlines a trend. The numbers in primary schools are projected to fall by some 80,000 or 14 per cent by 1996. Educational planning must take account of these trends. The establishment by the Minister of an overall review body on primary education is, therefore, timely and relevant. The Minister has also recently established a comprehensive review of the primary school curriculum. Efforts are being made by the Minister to accommodate what we hope will be a temporary, very difficult financial situation and simultaneously some important measures have been taken to plan for the future.
It is 7.50 p.m. and I should call Senator Brian O'Shea but I understand he is giving three minutes to Senator Brendan Ryan.
I want to talk about vocational education in particular because that is where I come from. The union I belong to represents people in the vocational sector. I was not here, but I read the Minister's script. May I say that, if this Government had the willingness to deal with cutbacks so that those who could most afford to handle the cutbacks would be the ones penalised, there would be no need to penalise particularly vocational education at the second level which in this city and in my home city deals with the oppressed, the poor and the children of the poor and the oppressed. Vocational education at second level has a remarkable record. The record is even more remarkable given that in this city and in Cork it tends to have to take the people who are rejected by private secondary schools which operate invidious selection procedures which are meant to be tests of ability, but which tend to work out as tests of social background.
There is, of course, the solution to the problem of cutbacks in education. I will invite the Minister to think about it. It is to get rid of almost £20 million or £30 million a year which the State provides in subsidies to private fee paying secondary schools to finance the education of the children of the privileged. The payment of salaries for teachers in schools who choose to charge fees to their pupils is a national disgrace. There is no justification for State subsidies for the parents of families who choose, for no justifiable education or reasons other than pure snobbery, to send their children to private fee paying schools. There is £30 million a year of our money being devoted to finance the education of the elite of this country, those who have notions of their own superiority, those who have notions that their children should not mix with our children, those who have notions that somehow these private schools — the vast majority of which, incidentally, are run by agents of my Church which is a disgrace to my Church and to our society — should be subsidised by the State.
If people want private education let them pay for it as they have to do in primary education since the foundation of the State. Let the State take away the £30 million that is paid every year to private fee paying secondary schools. Let that be transferred to the public sector and there would be no need for any cutbacks. I invite this Government who, incidentally, by and large are not the product of private schools, to take on that particularly powerful vested interest, which is the Catholic Church and its allies in the religious orders, and to take away the money they quite unjustly get, and to give it to other areas of education. Then there would be no need for cutbacks. Let the rich pay for their elitest education, if they wish.
I would like to refer to the comments made by Senator Mullooly at the beginning. He stated that the language in the motion was intemperate. I reject that allegation. Any reasonable reading of it would not call the language intemperate. He used another term which I found more objectionable, and he used it in the context of my colleague Senator Ferris and myself and that was that we were dishonest.
Politically.
Politically dishonest is a different kettle of fish from dishonest. I reject that we were either dishonest or politically dishonest in presenting this motion. No other Government in this State have tried to introduce policies to take 2,000 teachers out of the primary sector and 900 teachers out of the vocational sector. Cuts were made previously and nobody is denying that. But how horrendous these cuts are. I do not withdraw the words Senator Mullooly found objectionable "wrecking the primary education system" and "wrecking vocational education".
I believe that is the pattern that is emerging. I have strong feelings about it. I am a teacher; I am a parent; I am involved in management at vocational level. What I say I say with conviction out of my experience, out of the various patterns I see emerging. On one hand we have rampant emigration. Our young people are leaving our shores. Hopefully, those who are going are educated to a level where they will be getting employment which is a lot more appropriate to people in the 20th century than our emigrants got in the past.
In the script read by the Minister there was nothing essentially new. There was one point that still remains unclarified for me. It is proposed to set up two committees. One is the primary education review body, the larger body, which is reporting to the Government. That is a very important point. It is a broadly based committee with a broadly based mandate. The INTO are keen to play their part there. The other committee which I refer to is the Primary Quota Review committee. There is no such committee. The INTO and management indicated that they were not going to take part in any such committee.
In spite of commitments, in writing and verbally, before Christmas, when it was stated that appointments under normal schedules in national schools would go ahead as heretofore, that has not happened. All appointments are being made on a temporary basis, subject to their being considered by this non-existent committee. I am accusing the Government here of backtracking. This, to my mind, is a dishonest role and not in keeping with the impression created both verbally and in the written word before Christmas to defuse a situation which was existing in every parish in Ireland when parents, without exception, were saying: "We will not have this. Our children are not going to be the victims of Fianna Fáil financial rectitude." I do not dispute that the national debt is a problem. It is a problem that has to be grappled with. That is accepted.
The problem that really exists relates to who suffers. In spite of lofty and weighty aspirations in the Programme for National Recovery the sector at second level which caters for children, one third of whom have learning difficulties, is singled out for special attack. The primary sector, the one that has universal and utter accessibility to all the children of the country, is also being singled out for special attack. I agree that intemperate language should not be used, but strong language should be used.
We in the Labour Party stand four square in every sense with the disadvantaged. Financial rectitude was the essence of most of what we heard from the Opposition side, but it is a question of priority. It is a question of people. More important, it is a question of our disadvantaged people. We have a lot of empty aspirations and pious platitudes in that document; the Government are coming out and doing the very opposite.
In conclusion, I learned nothing new from the Minister's speech tonight. As a matter of fact, some clarification which I sought was not forthcoming — the whole area regarding the two committees. Until the non-existent one considers something, we cannot have the new appointments in primary schools sanctioned on a full-time and permanent basis. In conclusion, if this is the road we are travelling to disadvantage at primary level first of all, our least advantaged, our least able people, and if we are then going on into the vocational sector to compound that problem, no argument of financial rectitude or any other argument can justify that because that is counter to all social justice.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connell, John.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Cregan, Daly.
- Daly, Jack.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators S. Haughey and Fallon; Níl, Senators Harte and O'Shea.
Amendment declared carried.
Is the motion, as amended, agreed to?
Senators
No.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
Senators
Vótail.
On the question: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to" a division has been challenged. Will the Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Five or more Senators stood.
The division will now proceed.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connell, John.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Murphy, John A.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Senators S. Haughey and Fallon; Níl, Senators Harte and O'Shea.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 tomorrow morning.