Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jun 1990

Vol. 125 No. 6

Primary Education: Motion.

Mr. O'Toole

I move:

That Seanad Éireann—

concerned that Irish primary education now has the largest classes in the European Community;

noting the fact that Irish primary education has the lowest per pupil funding and the lowest level of ancillary support in the European Community;

recognising that approximately 2,000 Irish primary schools have no access to remedial teachers; requests that the Minister

(i) indicate her strategy to reduce Irish primary school classes and the Irish pupil teacher ratio to the European average,

(ii) outline the procedure she proposes to put in place in order to facilitate those primary teachers who wish to transfer or exchange from one European Community country to another,

demands the filling of vacant posts for caretakers and clerk typists in primary schools thereby avoiding the impending chaos arising from the inevitable collapse of the Social Employment Scheme for caretakers and clerk typists, being aware that the overlarge classes and poor funding are resulting in serious crises, not least in the area of discipline and literacy,

further demands a significant increase in the capitation grant for primary schools and the appointment of further remedial teachers and teachers in schools serving disadvantaged pupils, in order to give all our pupils a reasonable chance,

calls for the establishment of panels of trained, qualified supply teachers,

and urges the Minister to introduce an early retirement scheme for teachers.

I am pleased we have a full debate on primary education today and I look forward to the contributions. Whereas the Government amendment to the motion is one I cannot accept in its entirety as it is written inasmuch as it purports to delete totally the motion, I would be quite happy, willing and able to accept it as an amendment to the main motion should the Minister so indicate. In that way, we could all vote for each other and show a concerted approach and unanimity on primary education. It is an offer which the Minister might consider during the course of the debate. I do not have difficulty with many of the statements in the amendment though I do have with some. However, I am prepared to live with them if the Minister is also prepared to accept my motion.

The motion, as I have phrased it, simply sets out to state a position, to achieve a certain result and to get a certain response from the Minister. It also allows the Minister to outline her plans for primary education. The major problem in primary schools at the moment is the problem of class size. I have often referred to the Irish primary school education system as the Albania of European educational systems. In recent times, I have taken the trouble to have a look at the position in Eastern Europe. It is a well known fact, that Irish primary education has the lowest pupil funding and the lowest level of ancillary support in the European Community and it also has the largest classes in the European Community.

There has been much discussion recently about Eastern Europe and I have taken the opportunity over the past week or so to compare the class sizes in Eastern Europe with the position in Ireland. The sad reality — which is to nobody's credit — is that primary schools in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia and the USSR all have a more favourable pupil-teacher ratio and smaller class sizes than Irish primary schools. But the real embarrassment and the apology which I owe to Albania for misrepresenting them all these years is the fact that even Albania has a more favourable pupil-teacher ratio and smaller class sizes than the Irish primary schools service and classes in Albania tend on average to be about two-thirds the size of their Irish counterparts. That is something that needs to be addressed.

Without putting words in the Minister's mouth, I know she agrees with me that class size is a priority. What I would ask of the Minister this evening is not that she would say she will solve this problem once and for all but to indicate how she intends setting in train the solution to this problem and to indicate to us the early steps she intends taking.

Emigration is something that has concerned all of us for some time now. There are 2,000 fully qualified primary teachers teaching in US or UK schools, or maybe just working in lounge bars or selling burgers in burger joints or whatever it is they happen to be doing because we as a nation have refused to employ them in our primary schools. The Minister, as current President of the European Council of Education Ministers, will be well aware that there is a European shortage of teachers and that many countries are trying to secure teachers for their schools. There is a great problem in the UK at the moment which was created by the closing down of colleges of education and training colleges in the last decade. They are now reaping the reward for that sad and terrible decision. It is a mistake that was partially made here as well but we drew back from the brink at some stage.

I do not know if Members of the House are aware of the fact but teachers are now being offered sign-on money and "hello" money by some of the local education authorities in the UK in order to get them to sign a contract to teach in UK schools. There is a wide recognition that the quality of primary education here is probably among the highest in Europe and the quality of Irish primary teachers is among the highest in Europe. They are now being offered "hello" money and other sweeteners in the line of accommodation, support and so on in order to give a commitment to teach in other countries. We have, as the Minister will be well aware, the largest classes in Europe, east or west. We have also a spare capacity of teachers in Europe, the only country in Europe that can boost this kind of spare capacity of this quality of teacher.

We have a problem and we have the solution. The solution is a very simple one. It is that we should invite these teachers home, invite them back to do the job which they were trained and qualified to do in the first place and also to recognise that a situation where many Third World countries have a more favourable pupil-teacher ratio than ourselves is outrageous. It is something that must be addressed as a matter of urgency. I put it to the Minister that it is inexplicable and irresponsible that pupils in Irish schools should suffer when there is a resolution to the problem, simply a welcome home to our emigrant teachers who are seeking work and who can be accommodated. The return of those teachers would significantly improve the primary education service. It would certainly realise the huge investment of the Irish taxpayer and it would reduce the number of pupils in Europe's most overcrowded classrooms. It would certainly give our Irish pupils the same chance and opportunity as their European counterparts.

I wish to put a point to the Minister in terms of the cost and the economies we are talking about here. The training, education and preparation of these 2,000 plus unemployed teachers was at a cost to the Irish taxpayer of more than £60 million. That is £60 million of an investment which we have not realised. It is time we realised that investment by inviting those teachers back. I would certainly say to the Minister that after a decade of belt-tightening Irish primary education now deserves a chance and now deserves to share in the benefits of an improving and an improved economy. It has been demanded by all the interests in education, it has been paid for in advance by the taxpayer, it is needed by the children of Ireland and without a doubt it will be welcomed by the parents and the community.

The Minister on a number of occasions has referred to the importance of the infant classes in schools. With these 2,000 teachers out there, there is an ideal opportunity now to make a significant impact on the reduction of class sizes by looking in the first place at the infant classes. A strategy may be agreed so that we could perhaps halve the size of classes at infant level. Parents know the difficulty pupils experience of assimilating into the large classes when they start school at an early stage and the difficulty of maintaining a relationship with a teacher in classes of 35, 40 or whatever the number happens to be. This is an area in which we could make a start.

Just for the record I also looked at the class sizes in the European Community and I found that the average class size or pupil-teacher ratio, whichever figure we want to look at, is approximately ten better in the European countries. That is how far behind we are. Were we at this stage to implement in Ireland the same staffing regime and the same staffing schedules as are applicable in the North of Ireland at the moment we would require more than 4,000 teachers immediately into the system. That is how far behind we are at this stage. With all the talk of 1992 it is fair to ask that education — in this case primary education — should also be prepared to have the same standards as are available in other European countries. The level of support, spending, staffing etc. should be available to us.

The Minister will certainly be aware that we are running into a serious problem as regards caretakers and clerk typists in primary schools. I want to look first at the numbers in the classrooms and the difficulty of dealing with problems within the school in the overcrowded conditions we are dealing with, apart from that basic question of ancillary support in schools. The question of caretakers and clerk typists for schools at all levels is something which has now created a serious problem. The fact is that there are schools which are at the moment being run down for the want of maintenance and support and for the want of clerk typists and caretakers. We have principals doing the work of caretakers and clerk typists in schools all around the country. A school principal recently said to me he would be quite happy to go into a school that was well heated, well lit with a full compliment of staff in the morning and he could handle everything else after that but unfortunately he spends half the morning opening doors and windows, checking that the toilets are working and that the yard is clean and so on, work that he or indeed any principal, is not paid to do.

We could provide a nationwide service of caretakers and/or clerk typists at a very low cost to the State. The position is that were we, for instance, to appoint a caretaker per 500 pupils in the State that would require approximately 1,000 caretakers nationwide. At present there are approximately 250 to 300 caretakers in schools. It would mean the employment of 700 more caretakers. It is a very simple sum indeed; 700 by £170 by 52 weeks in the year comes out at just over £6 million. That would be the cost and I want to put that cost in the context of the money that is available at present for maintenance and building of schools. That is approximately one-third of the amount of money that is being spent each year by the Department in the maintenance and building of primary schools. I maintain that a large proportion of that money could be saved were we to have a properly structured system of caretakers employed in the schools.

Much of the work that is being paid for by the Department is because of problems that have arisen through neglect and lack of maintenance by schools that did not have either the money or the staff to deal with them. Therefore, I ask the Minister to see that the embargo on the clerk typist and caretaker scheme be lifted and also to free the social employment scheme. In 1986 when the scheme was set up, the commitment given by the Government and continued by the present Government was that the scheme for full-time jobs as caretakers or clerk typists would not be replaced by the social employment scheme. Unfortunately that has not been the case. The position is that up to 200 jobs have been lost as caretakers or clerk typists and the Government have attempted to replace those by social employment schemes. That is not on and the unions who organise those works have made it clear to the Government it is not on.

I ask the Minister to realise there will be chaos in the schools in September with the social employment scheme being blocked because the Government have not kept their promise of not replacing full-time jobs as caretakers and clerk typists with the social employment scheme. That is the reality and I hope the Minister will have something very positive to say on that tonight when she responds to the debate. I ask for three things on that basis; the lifting of the embargo on the clerk typists and caretakers, the expansion of the social employment scheme and the proper development of a full-time permanent caretaker and clerk typist scheme. All these proposals could be phased in over X period of years but we need to have a strategy and we need to have a plan.

The question of stress is something that is now becoming a real problem in schools and in classrooms for staff and for school authorities. It is manifesting itself in many ways but it is a huge problem. Teachers are close to the top of the league of stress-related illnesses. The number of primary teachers who applied for disability pension to the Minister's Department this year was double the previous highest number. That is a reflection of the worsening class size, the very low level of ancillary support services, the discipline crisis, the overcrowded classes. All these combined to create unprecedented pressure and stress on teachers.

In many European countries teachers over the age of 50 are required to work fewer hours per week. It is something we could look at. One of the problems in teaching in Ireland at present is that there is not an outlet very often for teachers because the service has not been developed. We need to address matters such as policy areas, curricular development and areas like that where teachers might also be involved apart from classroom teaching.

I put it to the Minister that teaching and education is the only major area in the public service that does not have a welfare service for those working in that area. The Minister knows, being a teacher herself, and she will be aware from meeting teachers and from listening to people, that never was there a greater need for support, counselling and welfare services for teachers who run into professional, social, domestic or emotional pressures. The job of teaching, particularly at first level, is one that is very isolating. Teachers in the morning go into their classroom, they teach for the day. They do not get the normal cues and responses and supports of people who are working as a group. They are never quite sure how well they are doing the job no matter how hard they try. They very often need counselling and support and I put it to the Minister that the need for a welfare service is something which is urgently needed for teachers at all levels. This is something which has recently been conceded by the Government to the Garda. Six new welfare officers have been appointed to the force. It is something towards which the Minister on previous occasions has shown sympathy and she might consider responding in a positive way on that.

I will say two things on the subject of stress; the need to establish a welfare officer service and also the need more than anything else for an early retirement scheme for teachers. Teaching is a young person's job. It is not through accident and it is not just for natural reasons that people tend to have their families when they are in their twenties and thirties. If anybody wants to lock themselves up on a wet Saturday afternoon with 30 or 40 kids and try to inform, amuse and educate them over the period of the afternoon they will get some idea of what it is like to teach day after day after day.

People think that teachers have some great trick that other people do not have and that they do not come under the same stress and strain as other adults would in dealing with groups of children. Yes, they have skills to approach it differently. Yes, they have the talent to make it work and to guide but at the end of the day the pressures and stress are the same on teachers as they are on other people. It is not possible to continue to give to that job for 45 years as is very often the case at the moment. It cannot be done and the effects of burn-out of people who have given their all to the job is something of which we are all aware. We need to give teachers the option of leaving the service should they wish to do so. Various attempts have been made to do that over a period of years. Career breaks have been very very useful but we also need to look at the early retirement scheme.

Recently my colleague, Senator Jackman, raised the question of retirement for post-primary teachers at 55 years of age. That is something that is available to primary teachers at the moment. I would see this as a sort of peace time debate really, where we could talk about what we think should happen in education and indicate how it might be achieved. It may be over a period of years but let us decide first what we want and then see how it could be done. I would like to hear the Minister say tonight that she is in favour of retirement at 50 years for teachers and then let us see how we can make it work. At least it means we can all take on the Department of Finance and the Government and the people who hold the purse strings in a united campaign.

On the question of the substitute teacher service in primary education, I want to make a point here which has not been made before. Every day approximately 800 substitutes are employed in Irish schools. These are to cover for people who are absent on illness, maternity leave, jury service and so on. In the last two years there has been chaos when the report indicated that one third of these people are not teachers. When schools need substitute teachers they simply employ somebody to babysit for a period and they still have to be paid. It is a scandal that these substitutes are untrained but the problem lies in the current irregular and undependable payment procedure plus the low wages and the appalling conditions of service.

The Minister and her Department have recently conceded and negotiated improvements in the conditions and wages of substitute teachers. This means that the system of payment has been changed, the actual daily rates have been improved significantly and the conditions of service are about to be improved in terms of increments and superannuation credit. Therefore, next year paying substitutes in Irish primary schools will cost the State approximately £8.5 million. An average of 800 of these teachers are needed per day. I would put it to the Minister that if she were to say to 800 of those teachers who are in Brent or wherever they happen to be: "Come home and we will employ you next year as supply teachers in Irish primary schools" the cost would be 800 times approximately £12,000, an extra £2.5 million to provide a service everybody agrees is in a critical condition. It would mean that a teacher appointed as a resource teacher to a school would work in that school as a resource or a remedial teacher or whatever until such time as one of the local schools in the network needed a substitute teacher, and they would fill in for the absent teacher there. It is a clean system, it works in other places but it is now available to the Minister at a very cheap cost. Those 800 real jobs could be created at a cost of less than £5,000 extra for each job per year than she is paying now. That is value for money. If the IDA could do that they would be streaming into the country.

There are 3,500 primary schools in Ireland. Approximately 2,000 of those do not have any access to remediation or to remedial teachers. The majority of those schools are rural schools, small schools or minority religion schools. The Minister last year lifted the embargo on the remedial teachers with a small but nevertheless welcome increase in the number of remedial teachers when she cleared the appointment of approximately 35 remedial teachers and did, in most cases, try to assign them on a shared basis to small rural schools around the country. That is the model for the future. We need to be able to say to our teachers, parents and the community whether in a small or large school that their access to remediation should be determined not simply by the size of the school but by need. In moving into the whole area of remediation we will need to look, right through the next decade, to the response to the needs of the pupil. The system obviously has to focus on the needs of the child. The children with special needs are really going to be the ones who need a response over the next few years.

I am conscious that the things I have outlined are not going to come cheaply. Quality product wherever we get it is going to cost. Improving the primary education system will not come cheap. The Minister and I, and everybody else, will have to say this loudly and clearly; education deserves an investment; it is an investment that will be well rewarded and reaped but it is an investment that has to be made. Having said that we then have to make the case to Government and demand that the resources be pushed in this direction. It is not going to be cheap, it has to be done.

I want to deal with the question of funding. The Minister lives in a community the same as everybody else where the local primary school is forever looking for more money. Whether it is the sale of work or the sponsored race or whatever it is, she is always buying tickets and has to make a contribution the same as everybody else in order to give to the local school the necessary equipment and grants it requires at a particular time. Recently I carried out a survey of about 10 per cent of Irish schools and found that nine out of every ten are involved in voluntary fund raising activities. It is not just for the frills that they are fund raising but for the basics. Schools are not able to operate, are not able to provide basic maintenance service, without fund raising and calling on the local community. This kind of fund raising is no more than a local education tax. Somebody recently in my own union referred to it as a roll tax and that is basically what it is beginning to be.

It is well understood that post-primary schools are not overfunded. The Minister has worked in one herself and she knows that. Could she explain why post-primary schools receive a capitation grant of £150 per pupil — there is a certain salary increment involved in that so let us call it approximately £110 per pupil per year — and the primary schools receive a grant of £28.50 per pupil per year. What happens between sixth class and first year that people are expected to run a primary school on £28.50 per pupil per year when the reality is that secondary schools cannot operate on £110 per pupil per year? The vocational schools would be far better funded than that again. The grant per pupil per year in primary schools is £28.50; the grant per pupil per year in post-primary schools is £150.

Post-primary schools would have other needs in terms of the variety of subjects which would certainly make the case for a greater level of grants but there is no possible justification for the discrepancy between £28.50 and £110. The reality is that if the per pupil capitation grant to primary schools were to be trebled there would still not be enough to meet the needs of the schools. We should put it clearly on the record tonight and simply demand an increase in the capitation grant, and then deal with those people who say it is not worth it.

In terms of Irish primary education in general it is fair to say that it is the worst funded in Europe. I must have a little joke at the Minister's expense at this point and refer to her amendment. Major spending in education per pupil etc. through her education budget and the provision for net Government expenditure on primary education for 1990 represent 7.9 per cent of the total provision compared with 6.7 per cent in 1988. I accept that point to be absolutely clear but I want to remind her what she used to tell us some years ago. I see her smiling which will not appear on the record but it will now. She knows the answer to that argument as well as I know it. She knows it has nothing to do with percentages.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I remember a Dáil question.

Mr. O'Toole

It had to do with per pupil spending and that is what it is when we are running a system. It is not how much we are putting in as a proportion of the total, it is how much you have to deliver a service. However, I know Governments have to respond in the way the Minister did, but it is as well to remind ourselves of the way it used to be when she was sitting on the other side of the Chamber.

The sad reality is that we cannot run a primary education service or, indeed, any kind of an education service while we have the lowest per pupil funding in Europe. The Minister may feel that I am besieging her with the European comparisons but I am not doing that with any sense of menace or anything else. I am doing it because I think it is important that, as she is the President of the European Council of Ministers at present, we would be aware of these things and also because I hope she will bring to Cabinet the needs of primary education and also bring that point back to them. The reality is that our education service is the worst funded system in Europe. We spent less per pupil than any other country in the EC. Within the State we are appallingly under-equipped and under-resourced at primary level, with the largest classes in Europe, with a code of discipline which is unproven and untried — and that is the kindest thing I can say about it — with discipline problems which nobody seems able to solve at this point, with the least possible legal protection, the highest quality and most productive primary teachers in Europe working for the lowest salary and the longest incremental scale in Europe providing a quality education against all odds. That should be recognised and put on the record.

Mr. B. Ryan

There is such a cosy relationship between Senator O'Toole and the Minister that I hate to interject my slightly more contentious remarks but maybe this cosy relationship needs to be undermined a little.

I was going to begin with an entirely favourable commentary on the quality of primary education because I am in the position, like many other people, of having two children currently in the national school system and a third about to start. They all go the local national school and I have absolutely no complaints about the quality of the people who work in that system. They do an extraordinary job. Senator O'Toole said that any of us who doubt it ought to try to take 38 six year olds on a wet Saturday afternoon and keep them quiet, not to say interested and enthusiastic, to appreciate it. I want to endorse what Senator O'Toole said about the stressful nature of teaching and the idiocy of not recognising that, because people will retire out of such a stressful job, either in a formal procedure of early retirement or on medical grounds, the cost will end up in cash terms being almost the same to the Minister. It will be the human cost and pain of those who are forced to bring themselves to a position of such physical and mental decline that they will be able to persuade the doctor that they need to retire.

To underline something Senator O'Toole said, I want to say that, while the quality of the personnel is undoubtedly excellent, the quality of the resources that are available to those personnel are nothing short of disgraceful. My own children, going to an ordinary national school, are required to provide their own toilet paper because the school cannot afford it. If they have the misfortune not to bring the toilet paper with them to school a small personal crisis can well develop because they are required to produce it themselves. It is not the school's fault; it is the fault of Governments, particularly the present one, which has chosen to reduce funding, not to increase funding, and to under-fund primary education.

Underlying the assault on primary education is a presumption on the goodwill of primary school teachers which is pushing them towards the limits of their tolerance. They will do one of two things: they will either get out or they will rebel. Neither of these things will do the education of our children any good; neither do I think either of them will do the quality of primary school education any good.

There are a number of extraordinary things. I contend that if we could get somebody to go into the so-called local contribution, we would find it is unconstitutional. There is a constitutional guarantee of free primary school education and to insist on a local contribution, as the Department do, is, in my view, a flagrant breach of that constitutional guarantee. But when you spread it around among hundreds of parents it seems so small that nobody will go through the rigours of a High Court and Supreme Court action to demonstrate that it is unconstitutional; but it is a less than worthy operation by a Government Department to attempt to circumvent the Constitution in this way. There is a guarantee there. It is not qualified; it is not diluted. There is a guarantee to free primary education and I cannot reconcile that guarantee with the operations of the Department of Education on the local contribution.

It is an indication of the way Government support for primary education has deteriorated that my own experience is that perfectly good schools in terms of what they used to be are now desperately trying to prove that they are schools that are predominantly serving disadvantaged children because they realise that that is the only way they will be able to get back to a decent level of funding, even to the level they had a number of years ago. You have the ridiculous inverse situation where schools are competing with each other to prove that they are socially disadvantaged, or that the majority of their pupils are socially disadvantaged, in order to get back to a level of funding which should be the right of all schools and where, on top of what Senator O'Toole would describe as reasonable funding in primary schools, we should be putting additional funds over and above that into those schools where there is an excessive level or proportion of children from a socially disadvantaged background.

It is absolutely meaningless and utterly pointless to produce a few bob here and a few bob there as a gesture towards the socially disadvantaged when the whole system is so appallingly under-funded as to be close to a national disaster. It is meaningless to talk about particular provision for the socially disadvantaged in an education system which is itself so inherently and so extraordinarily disadvantaged. The real beginning has to be, as Senator O'Toole quite rightly said, in one thing and one thing only, hard cash.

Our education system has a lot wrong with it, but one of the things that is wrong with it is that it contributes to one of the most extraordinarly unequal class based societies in western Europe. May I refer briefly to the Economic and Social Research Institute's paper on Social Mobility in the Republic of Ireland, a Comparative Perspective. Without wanting to launch into a long list of statistics — I am aware that the Minister will probably have one, two, three, four, 15 or 20 to give back to us in a few moments — we might as well get a few of the statistics on the other side on the record. On page 6 of that report it states:

Despite socially substantial increases in participation rates, educational inequalities are of such a scale as to induce scepticism that there has been a significant reduction in association between education level and class origins.

Just to emphasise the difference in class origins, let me quote from page 4 of the same report. The model which they use in this shows:

...that the chances of men born into the higher professional and managerial class staying in that class rather than falling to the semi-skilled and unskilled manual class are over 240 times greater than the chances of men born in the semi-skilled and unskilled manual class rising to the higher professional and managerial class.

That is Ireland, with those sort of statistical and social barriers built up against social disadvantage. It is not inevitable that that should be. It is neither inevitable in this country, nor is it the case in Europe. They go on to say:

Thus, on a scale of "openness", allowing for structural differences, Swedish society lies at one extreme in Europe and Dublin lies at the other with France and England occupying intermediate positions.

We have created a society of social inequality, of structural class rigidity unparalleled anywhere in western Europe. The Minister may ask what has this to do with the present debate. It has to do with the fact that the country I just referred to, Sweden, with the most open and the most equal society also by some extraordinary coincidence happens to have one of the most magnificent education systems in western Europe. With the number of pupils significantly smaller as a proportion of population, they spend twice as much as a proportion of their hugely greater gross domestic product on primary education than we do — for a much smaller number of pupils. Because they do that all through their system they manage to guarantee a comprehensive, well-funded state system of education. Over 99 per cent of children in Sweden go to state schools. Their system provides proper social mobility which is manifested in the statistics which demonstrate that it is the most socially mobile society in Europe with the best possibility of children from relatively disadvanaged backgrounds moving up to positions of relatively high levels of income and professional standing within one generation.

That is the achievement of a good education system; ours fails. That might sound like a litle bit of well-intentioned social engineering. But, of course, the consequence of our class inequality is to exclude large numbers of talented and able people from their proper level of participation in the workforce and to cement the participation of perhaps relatively well off but relatively incompetent people who, because of their class advantage, rise into positions that are well beyond the levels of their ability.

The other thing that needs to be said about Swedish society is that it is remarkably successful in enterprise, in wealth creation and in developing the sort of society that we aspire to. It is important therefore to remember that increased educational expenditure is not something to be hoped for after we have economic growth. Increased educational expenditure, particularly and primarily at this stage at primary level, is a necessary prerequisite for economic development. Let us not forget that two of the countries that have gone down the road that the Minister would have us go down, which is the road of underfunding, poorly resourced education — Britain and the United States — are now running into serious educational crises because their own industrial workforces are liable to be unfit and unskilled to do the jobs that will be necessary in another ten or 15 years.

There is no way we can develop the sort of skills, creativity, imagination and approach to enterprise that, I am sure, the Minister, the Government and various Governments would tell us they desire, if we land our children in the early years into enormous classes where even the best teacher is driven into a situation where in a four or five hour day the most they can give to any child is perhaps five minutes individual attention. In a system that has to be rigidly structured, rigidly ordered and rigidly disciplined simply to keep order in such an enormous class, how can you allow or encourage the development of the qualities of imagination and creativity, the sort of skills that this country needs? There is no excuse and no policy basis for postponing necessary funding of primary education until there is some great panacea around the corner.

What we need now are the fundamental resources, the transfer of resources out of other areas where Governments reward their friends, into areas where there are no friends; there are only children. The children are the most fundamental resources. There are tax breaks and grant breaks and all sorts of other breaks for people to be enterprising. The real basis for enterprise is the equality of the people, of their ideas, of their imagination and of their creativity. We destroy all of that in an under-funded, understaffed, overstressed, overstrained primary education system. While it might simply sound like a nice social aspiration, the reality is that, if we are going to develop the sort of knowledge based, information based industrial skills that we will need to develop, expand and extend our economy, there can be no such development, there can be no such expansion and no such forward looking taking place in this country in the sort of primary education system we have, which is so hopelessly under-funded. If we are going to change, then we have to change it. There is no simple solution. The only solution is dramatically increased resources resulting in proper provision of equipment, support services——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Harte)

Could I advise the Senator that he did not formally second the motion? Would he do so before he sits down, just in case somebody says that the motion is not officially before the House?

Mr. B. Ryan

I will. As I was saying, we cannot develop our economy if we do not get a properly funded primary school system. No matter who says what, it may look better and sound better, the newspapers may write more about it, but if we do not enable all the resources of all of our young people, of all of our children, to be developed properly, there will be no economic development in this country. With that, I formally second the motion.

Mr. Mullooly

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes— that almost 20 per cent of the overall provision for net Government Expenditure on Supply Services for 1990 is devoted to Education

That provision for net Government expenditure on Primary Education for 1990 represents 7.9 per cent of the total provision as compared with 6.7 per cent for 1988

and commends the Government

for increasing the level of State expenditure on Primary Education

For the initiatives taken by it

In establishing the Primary Curriculum Review Body

In establishing the Primary Education Review Body and

In co-operating with the OECD Review of Educational Policy in Ireland with particular reference to teacher education and supply

as a basis for formulating a comprehensive and coherent strategic plan for the development of Primary Education, and

for the provisions in the Programme for National Recovery drawn up in consultation with the Social Partners enabling priority areas in Primary Education to be tackled in the short term and for the developments that have taken place under the Programme, particularly in relation to schools serving disadvantaged areas."

The motion and the amendment refer specifically to primary education and they provide the Seanad with its first opportunity for a detailed discussion of this very important topic. I believe there will be a great degree of unanimity in relation to the very many issues of relevance to primary education which will be referred to during this debate. I also welcome the fact that the debate is taking place in a relatively calm atmosphere. There is no major controversy in relation to primary education at present.

I am delighted, too, that the Minister is present. I would like to compliment her on the excellent job she is doing as Minister for Education and I look forward to hearing her contribution later on in the debate. I am also pleased that I have the opportunity to refer to a number of developments which I regard as particularly welcome and of considerable significance as far as the future of primary education is concerned.

Shortly after the present Minister was appointed Minister for Education in 1987 two review bodies were established, one to examine the primary school curriculum and the other to look at the structures and organisation of the primary school system. The reports of these two bodies, together with the OECD report, which is also due to be finalised this year, will provide the background against which a comprehensive and coherent strategic plan for the development of primary education will be formulated as we approach the 21st century. The primary curriculum review body have just issued their report.

Time does not permit me to comment in any great detail in this debate on what is a very comprehensive and, indeed, a very excellent document. I am sure it will be the subject of much discussion over the weeks and months ahead. I would, however, like to quote the first two sentences of the foreword to the report:

Primary education provides the foundation for all subsequent advancement in the education system. The most formative years in a young person's development are spent at primary school.

I believe that this is the perspective from which any examination of the primary education system, or any debate on primary education, must be approached.

The report proceeds to consider the aims and objectives of the 1971 curriculum and the effectiveness of its implementation in relation to these aims and objectives. It then goes on to examine the principles on which the curriculum is based and it looks in detail at the various subject areas. The specific recommendations of the review body in relation to each of the matters examined are set out very clearly at the end of each chapter and I know that they will provoke a wide-ranging discussion on the part of all the interests involved in primary education.

Chapter 10 of the report is entitled "Implementing and Resourcing the Recommendations of the Review Body". This chapter highlights a major difficulty which has always obtained in relation to primary education but which has been identified and tackled by the present Minister with a greater resolve and with a greater degree of success than was the case with any of her predecessors. This problem is the inadequate resourcing of primary education. The review body acknowledges that further additional resources will be required for the implementation of its recommendations and it goes on to state, on page 95, that particular attention should be given to reducing class sizes, initially in infant classes; making a remedial education service available to all schools; improved support ancillary services in schools; a review of the role of the school principal with particular reference to the duties and responsibilities of teaching principals.

I believe that this report will be widely welcomed and I commend the Minister on the establishment of the primary curriculum review body, which brought in this report. I am confident, now that they have issued their report, the Minister will be giving urgent attention and consideration to the implementation of their proposals and recommendations. I know the Minister is committed to securing the maximum allocation of resources for the whole education service and, indeed, also for primary education, and I believe that this report will strengthen the Minister's hand in that regard.

I might point out that in the current year the budget allocation for education services is £1,334.229 million, or approximately 20 per cent of net Exchequer expenditure on non-capital services. This compares with a total of 16.2 per cent in 1986, which was the year before this Minister took up office. The provision for net Government expenditure on primary education for 1990 represents 7.9 per cent of the total provision as compared with 6.7 per cent in 1988. These figures underline the commitment of the Minister and of the Government to increasing the level of educational provision to the greatest possible degree. Indeed, this commitment is specifically referred to in the Programme for Government 1989-1993.

In relation to primary education, this document specifically commits the Government to a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio in the context of demographic decline and to a continuing review of the pupil-teacher ratio in consultation with the central review committee with regard to the feasibility of a further reduction under a new Programme for National Recovery. It also commits the Government to consider, in consultation with the central review committee, ways to recognise and assist pupils in disadvantaged areas by providing extra teacher allocations, including additional remedial teachers and the establishment of pilot projects for a school psychological service for primary schools.

The document also states that efforts will be made to improve the level of funding for capitation grants to primary schools as resources become available.

Already the Minister and the Government have begun to deliver on these commitments and they have begun to deliver on them in a very significant way. The special fund for disadvantaged schools has been trebled this year to £1.5 million. In the school year 1989-90, 95 ex quota additional posts were granted to schools serving disadvantaged pupils and 30 new posts for remedial teachers were established. The creation of these 125 additional full-time permanent posts was worked out under the Programme for National Recovery.

The allocation of extra teachers to schools serving disadvantaged pupils is, I believe, very important and I welcome the fact that the Minister has recently announced that a similar number of posts will be allocated to such schools again this year. However, the allocation of extra teachers is only one element of the Government's programme in the area of disadvantage. The special fund also enables the schools in question to purchase books, teaching aids and teaching equipment and also to facilitate home/ school/community liaison initiatives. These elements of the programme are also very important. The appointment of the 30 additional remedial teachers to which I have referred increased the number of remedial posts in primary schools to 887.

I know it would be the Minister's wish, if resources permitted, that all children who have learning difficulties would have access to remedial education. I believe that one way in which we could possibly make progress towards the achievement of such a situation would be, as suggested by Senator O'Toole, through the establishment of panels of trained qualified supply teachers which the motion calls for. The establishment of such panels would eliminate the present unsatisfactory situation which obtains in relation to the provision of substitute cover for teacher absences. The teachers on such panels could be given in-service training in the area of remedial education and they could be deployed as remedial teachers when they would not be required to provide cover for teacher absences. This is a proposal which should be given serious consideration because I feel that its implementation would deal with two pressing needs which exist at the present time.

The introduction of an early retirement scheme for teachers has also been referred to and I would agree that this is something which would be very desirable. Furthermore, I hold the view that the financial implications of introducing such a scheme would not be as great as some people in the Department seem to fear or to believe that it would. If the option of early retirement were introduced I believe only a small percentage of teachers would avail of it. But it is an option that should be there for that small minority of long-serving teachers who are no longer able to cope with the stress and strain of working day after day in the classroom. I feel that the introduction of such an early retirement scheme would benefit this category of teachers. But, not alone would it benefit those teachers, it would also benefit their pupils, it would benefit their colleagues and it would offer a means of introducing more new blood into the profession at a time when, because of the declining enrolments in schools, the normal rate of replacement of the teaching forces is slowing down. Again, I know that the introduction of such a scheme is something that the Minister is sympathetic to. I would appeal to her to continue her examination of ways and means of introducing such a scheme because it would greatly benefit the education system.

I have already referred to the fact that the Programme for Government confirms that efforts will be made to improve the level of funding for capitation grants to primary schools as resources become available. This is indeed also a very welcome commitment. Like everybody who has worked in a school, I, too, look forward to the day when the capitation grants to primary schools will be sufficient to ensure that an adequate standard of heating, cleaning and maintenance and equipment can be achieved. I hope that the improving economic situation will ensure that that day is not far off.

I had hoped to deal with some of the other issues referred to in the motion and referred to by Senator O'Toole, especially the position in relation to the employment of caretakers and clerk typists, but time does not permit. However, before I conclude I would also like to compliment the Minister on the fact that over 240 building projects will have been undertaken in the primary sector in the years 1987 to 1990. I welcome the commitment she has given that within the next three years she intends to have all major building problems resolved at primary level. I would also like to say how pleased I was that earlier this year substitute teachers received a substantial pay increase and that the Minister has confirmed that arrangements are being made for the direct payment of substitute teachers by the Department for the coming school year. I thank the Minister for having agreed to introduce this new arrangement.

We can face the future with a great deal of optimism as far as primary education is concerned. The success of the Government's economic policies and the priority which now obtains in relation to primary education and the commitment which the present Minister has to the primary sector will see the level of provision being brought into line with the levels to which Senator O'Toole referred and which I accept from him obtain in other European countries.

Acting Chairman

As the amendment is from the Government side it does not require to be seconded but I understand if there is a desire to second it that can be done.

Mr. McKenna

I second the motion but I reserve the right to speak at a later stage.

Mrs. Jackman

In supporting the motion which encompasses the current problems inherent in primary education, I suggest to the Minister that in any startegy she might devise to reduce the size of primary school classes and the pupil-teacher ratio, her first priority would be to increase employment for unemployed graduates qualified since the early eighties. Education systems will have a very bleak future if the Minister refuses to take into employment those graduates with integrity and vocational commitment, people who cannot at this stage, as Senator O'Toole said, be found in any European country.

Of course, one will question the cost. I argue that there is very considerable financial waste when our richest resource — the talent of our young teachers — is being squandered in a wanton fashion. Perhaps the Minister thinks that the current problems will be masked by the recommendations of the primary curriculum review body, but these recommendations will be no more than hollow aspirations that cannot be put into effect unless the pupil/teacher ratio is reduced and there is a fresh, intake of teachers into the system. What is happening is that recruiting officers and inspectors from local education authorities, in Britain particularly, are recruiting in our teacher training colleges. They remark and laud the high standard and calibre of our teachers. The Minister could also review the primary school sector and advance proposals for the streamlining of rules and regulations in primary schools.

In 1971 when the new primary school curriculum was introduced, it was followed by the introduction of 8,000 new Batchelor of Education graduates right through the seventies. Therefore, any success it enjoyed must be attributed in part to the fact that the new teachers brought a fresh vitality to the system. The recommendations of the review body will be moribund without a fresh intake. At such a cost to the Exchequer the investment will not be realised unless we provide venture capital to keep at home the professionalism of our young graduates to the benefit of future generations. By the year 2000 with the projected fall in population, university places will be freed up significantly but our young students will not be able to avail of these places if the foundation in the system is frayed. Looking ahead, social life will be far more complex. What we really need now is a new brand of education with a new suite of intervention programmes as schools are required to go deeper into the community, with emphasis on parenting skills and home school links.

The children of today are the parents of tomorrow. At the moment they are experiencing a sense of alienation and isolation within an over-stretched primary system and this sense of isolation will be continued into their adulthood. With a reduced pupil/teacher ratio these problems would not exist and the demands for remedial education would not be as great. I will refer very briefly to Dan Murphy's minority report within the primary review which refers to the increasing problem of illiteracy in the Dublin area. It is an introductory document but if the research was extended to Cork, Limerick and Galway it would reveal similar findings. This is something to which the Minister will have to respond.

After 25 years of free post-primary education, why have we growing illiteracy problems? The fact is that for a number of our young people the sum total of their education for life is what they manage to glean within the primary system. These young people lack certain basic skills. They have not mastered the three Rs and in reality what we are looking at is State money being thrown at them whether they are in dole queues, social welfare recipients or are participating intervention programmes through FÁS schemes. They are unfulfilled and, dare I say it, some may be involved in crime.

The annual cost of keeping a young prisoner in Mountjoy is £34,000. That would be the equivalent of employing two teachers at primary level. Which is the better investment, £34,000 to keep a young prisoner in Mountjoy or employing two teachers at primary level? What kind of entrenched conservative, materialistic society are we creating? We need teachers at primary level. The teacher can never be substituted by computers, overhead projectors and so on. I asked a number of primary teachers what they wanted, and they said what we really want are teachers. They are people on the ground and that is what they are looking for. The Minister should forget the home liaison money, and spend it on an extra teacher or on pupils. That is straight talking.

The Government's amendment enables priority areas in primary education to be tackled in the short-term and developments in schools serving disadvantaged areas. There was no initiative there for the Limerick area. We got eight concessionary teachers but no remedial teachers. There were 30 nationally but none in the Limerick-Kerry area. There was nothing for us.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Jackman without interruption, please.

Mrs. Jackman

There is no real systematic appointment of remedial teachers. It is sporadic and Senator O'Toole referred to that a short while ago. This brings me to the question of measuring educational disadvantage to give an equal chance to all schools. There is an agreed report from the working party on educationally disadvantaged schools. Perhaps it will recommend that we fill in a form with X points gleaned from medical cards, etc. to reach a certain criteria. How will the Minister assess educationally disadvantaged schools? Will it be based on the number of medical cardholders?

Brief reference was made to the need to increase the extremely low capitation grant of £28.50. Senator O'Toole referred to the post-primary figure which is between £110 and £150. We know post-primary students need specialist rooms and so on but the grant of £28.50 is unbelievable. It is a Dickensian figure really. Without school walks, sponsored walks, sponsorship, etc. to supplement the school budget the situation would be dire. In middle class areas the money is there but in poorer areas it is not.

I want to refer briefly to the 200 jobs lost in relation to social employment schemes. Unions will not want short-term contracts instead of permanent posts and I hope the Minister will lift the embargo on recruitment. We have a supply of trained and qualified teachers and what they need is to be based in a school and deployed to cover all absences. There is nothing as bad as a principal ringing around and finding out that she cannot get anybody to come in and substitute for a teacher on a particular day. That is the reality in many areas. If no substitutes are required the teacher becomes a resource teacher in the base school but there is a certain amount of streamlining there to facilitate immediate substitution. The area of teacher mobility is a very difficult one.

There is a cultural context to teaching. In order to teach in the EC it is essential to have the first language of the country in question. When teachers came from Northern Ireland and Britain in the sixties and seventies they had to go to specialist schools. We can learn Italian, French and German, though even if we had German it would not give us entry to German schools because you need to be a civil servant and in order to be a civil servant in Germany you need to be born in that country. So, it is not as easy as one might think. The Minister should consider developing a language policy — not just for students but also for teachers. Irish teachers are very welcome in Britain because of the quality of their teaching expertise. There are comprehensive orientation courses available for their benefit. This is very much needed in a multicultural environment. We cannot equal that. Women are definitely welcome in boys national schools but apparently there is no welcome for male teachers in convents whether it is all-girl national schools or mixed schools. That is the situation in Limerick. We need male role models for both boys and girls but apparently in Limerick there is little welcome for that. I hope the Minister looks into that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

For males?

Mrs. Jackman

Yes. In relation to job sharing there should be a full debate on this not just for young teachers but for people over 50 so that they can relax a little and teach fewer hours. I do not believe that any Minister, particularly a Minister for Education, should adopt a stop and start approach when he or she takes over as Minister. Education is evolutionary and whatever scheme is started by a previous Minister should be continued. A five year plan is essential, regardless of who is in power.

As regards early retirement for teachers, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, said it would cost £30 million but he gave that figure as if all of us wanted to leave teaching. Not everybody will take early retirement but they want the option. In 1979 5.8 per cent of primary school teachers were on disability. Today the figure is 20.3 per cent or one in every five. That is something we cannot ignore.

We could have a model system for Europe but it is being dismantled by default, by calculated neglect and a failure of moral courage. We will not be disarmed by the mock assurances of the Minister. We should have a sound, firm, vibrant and innovative primary education system which will steer our young people into the nineties and into the 21st century as first-class Europeans with the highest educational standards.

Miss Keogh

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I am in a bit of a quandary because there are many things in the motion I would find favour with but——

Mr. O'Toole

The Senator can vote for it. A little bit of moral courage on that side of the House is very much to be welcomed.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is the price of coalition.

Miss Keogh

The amendment commends initiatives and expenditure with which we in the Progressive Democrats feel we have been identified. We have consistently identified education as a priority in policy-making and in the agreed Programme for Government we identified specific areas of concern within the education system and secured commitments on several of those areas.

Naturally, I echo the sentiments of concern about the size of primary school classes. There is no doubt that the large numbers which teachers have to cope with mitigate against the high standards of teaching which our children deserve and contribute to the problems of stress, illiteracy and so on. This having been said, there is a commitment by the Government to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio at both primary and post-primary level in the context of demographic decline. I ask the Minister to elaborate more on this and to indicate how we have improved the situation It was agreed with the Central Review Committee that the Government would implement a reduction of one point at primary level starting in September 1990. Naturally we would like to see this position improved and look forward to the continuing review of the pupil-teacher ratio in consultation with the Central Review Committee with regard to the feasibility of a further reduction under the new Programme for National Recovery. There is nothing unusual in this. Everybody wants to see that. It is a question of the allocation of resources.

The amendment to the motion notes the percentage of expenditure on supply services for 1990 devoted to education and that the provision for net Government expenditure on primary education for 1990 shows an increase from 6.7 per cent in 1988 to 7.9 per cent in 1990. The level of funding for capitation grants, as noted in the agreed Programme for Government, has seen an increase of 5.7 per cent per pupil. I ask the Minister to ensure that the commitment in the agreed Programme for Government to improve the level of funding for capitation grants will be realised as resources become available.

It has also been set out in the agreed Programme for Government that in consultation with the Central Review Committee, ways to recognise and assist the needs of pupils in disadvantaged areas would be identified and extra teacher allocations, including additional remedial teachers, would be made and that pilot projects for the establishment of schools should be set up. We have heard some of the progress in relation to this area but it is one which is in great need of development. We all agree that the diagnosis and identification of early learning difficulties should take place from the very early years of primary education. It should then be addressed rather than taking the problems through to second level with consequent difficulties. It further underpins the necessity for the provision of remedial teachers along with the need to reduce class size.

The Government are commended in the amendment to the motion for their initiative in establishing the primary curriculum review body and the primary education review body. I know the report of the review board is something we will all want to debate very thoroughly. Our whole problem is one of the allocation of resources. Education is one of the big three with regard to Government spending and 80 per cent of the spending goes directly on salaries. We do not have much room to manoeuvre.

Mr. O'Toole

You could have £3 million from Century.

Miss Keogh

That is a licence fee, not an education fee. The primary capitation fee of £20 million does not give the schools much room to manoeuvre and, without over-simplifying the situation, it is true to say that in the development of the curriculum there is a divergence in emphasis between teachers and parents. Teachers are favouring a greater development in the scientific and mathematical fields and there is the whole consequent emphasis on computer studies and so on. We can find favour with that emphasis. Parents want a greater emphasis on languages, perhaps with a consequent downgrading of the Irish language, something I would not like to see. The fall in numbers in primary schools threatens the range of the curriculum particularly in smaller schools. It is important to sustain as broad a curriculum as possible. Teacher numbers cannot be allowed to decline in proportion to the fall in pupil numbers. A result of this would be that teachers would have to cope with multi-grade classes with all the inherent difficulties in planning and developing suitable curricula and maintaining high standards at all levels.

I support the idea of more emphasis on audio visual learning and understand the reluctance of teachers to become involved in areas in which they have had little or no training, such as teaching foreign languages. I also take on board the challenge that teachers have when faced with smaller classes in giving more individual attention where the needs of slower learners can be attended to and where there is a developmental role for the teacher in exploring a deeper understanding and thereby enhancing the educational experience of the pupil. The cliché, of course, is that our children are our nation's future but we must build on very strong foundations.

I refer briefly to part of the motion which calls for the establishment of panels of trained, qualified supply teachers. This is something I support. The motion then goes on to urge the Minister to introduce an early retirement scheme for teachers. Senator Jackman referred to the fact that not all teachers want to retire. There is the problem of mobility — and I experienced this myself having been a teacher. There is enormous difficulty within any career structure where there is a lack of mobility because there is a consequent lack of initiative. I am not saying that early retirement is the answer but it is one area which should be addressed. Teachers are under stress. There is no doubt about that, even though I sometimes wish that the school holidays were a lot shorter. That is speaking as a parent and not as an ex-teacher. There are many cases where it would be feasible for teachers to take early retirement. Consequently, there would be more mobility and more room to manouevre with regard to the employment of teachers. I have great sympathy for those well qualified young people who have to go abroad to find employment. There is no argument about this. I know that this sympathy exists on all sides of the House.

There are sections of the motion that we all support. On reflection, I commend the Government for the strides we have made in primary education and I look forward to a great deal more being done in the future.

Dr. Upton

I thank the Minister for kindly acceding to the request that I, with other public representatives in Dublin South-Central, made to her to approve an extra teacher in Scoil Iosagáin in Aughavannagh Road. It is much appreciated by the people in that area.

Primary school education is the only type of education which is experienced by every member of the population. It is also the form of education which provides the basis, the foundation stone, for those who go on to second and third level education. For these reasons it is imperative that the very best facilities and resources are devoted to make it as good as it possibly can be. Primary school teachers are top class. I cannot find fault with the people who teach my children. They are from the top drawer and their commitment to the education process is beyond what would be par for the course. There is no doubt about that; and I am sure they are typical of the rest of the teaching profession.

In relation to resources, we seem to be falling down in this area. There are also problems in relation to discipline. I understand teachers have tremendous difficulties with discipline in primary schools because we have not properly formulated an adequate code of discipline. There are also legal difficulties, anomalies and uncertainties in relation to how discipline can be imposed. While I acknowledge and am grateful for the amount of progress which has been made, further progress is required and I sincerely hope it will be made.

Senator O'Toole made it clear that we have the largest class sizes in Europe, and that is entirely unacceptable. Speaking as someone who is not primarily an educationalist, I see class sizes as a fundamental factor in determining the success or failure of the primary education system. If the class is too large that could have a knock-on effect on discipline and literacy problems will be exacerbated. I appreciate that the class size will inevitably fall because of demographic changes but there is a great need for further investment to provide resources for more teachers in order to reduce the class size to levels which would be compatible with the highest standards of education at primary level.

Great problems are experienced by pupils in disadvantaged areas. It is estimated that something like 25 per cent of all pupils come from disadvantaged areas and that adds up to one million of the population being poor. There are of the order of 170 schools which would be designated as being in disadvantaged areas. That is unacceptable and is by no means adequate to meet the problems and difficulties experienced by pupils in disadvantaged areas. If we are to aspire to treating the children of the nation equally, or have any broad ideas in terms of social justice and fairness and giving people something that approximates to a fair chance in life, it is imperative that a greater effort be made to rectify the imbalances that exist in disadvantaged areas. Even if disadvantaged schools were given the best resources there would still be children suffering from the disadvantage of an inadequate income in the home and so on.

I was pleased to hear Senator Mullooly say that the number of teachers who would seek early retirement is relatively small. If that is the case, it simplifies the difficulties that an early retirement scheme would present for the Minister. I am sure the Minister being the very astute politician she is, will be only too ready to seize the opportunity that presents, and I hope she will be able to come up with an attractive early retirement scheme which would solve the problem for those small numbers of teachers who are unable to cope with the burdens of teaching as they get older.

The whole system of substitute teachers on panels has been in an appalling mess over the past number of years. It is very unsatisfactory and entirely unjust that teachers should not have holiday rights. Something of the order of 3,000 teachers are unemployed. That is awful. It is dreadful for young people who have gone through the whole education process, with all the investment and effort involved in getting them to the stage where they were fully qualified teachers, that the best we can do with them is allow them to drift to Britain or the United States selling ice cream and hamburgers for the summer or throughout the year. That is an appalling commentary on the way we run our business.

The initiatives which have been taken in relation to the curriculum review are to be welcomed but they only go so far. The curriculum review will only be as good as the amount of money and resources that will be put into making the curriculum review work. If class sizes are not reduced, then the curriculum review will be another contribution to the enormous amount of waste paper we have accumulated. I recall a dreadful rhyme of a very dear friend of mine who spoke in terms of a spot of writing she had done which was rejected by the editor and she said: "if you can write do, but if you cannot review"— in this case it is, "if you can fund do, if you cannot review".

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Upton

I did not realise I had touched an exposed nerve. To give another example of the problems of the disadvantaged in relation to teaching, I read in a newspaper article sometime around Christmas that there was a school in Dorset Street where they were wondering if they had enough money to keep the heating system going and one may contrast that with a school on the southside where they were having agonies about whether they should have French or German added to the curriculum in primary school. I am all in favour of these type of agonies for all schools, but it is appalling that there should be that level of contrast, where on the northside in an inner city school they have to struggle to make it through another day. The best of luck to them on the southside. My objection is that the people in the inner city on the northside do not have their standards raised to the same level as the people on the southside.

Mr. Neville

What about Clare and Limerick?

Dr. Upton

There are good examples of the advantages of Clare, Limerick and Kerry all over the place.

Mrs. O'Rourke

And Westmeath.

Dr. Upton

The level of capitation grants at £28 per pupil is totally inadequate. A lot of the funds are simply being raised through draws, raffles, quizzes and so on. That is not an acceptable way to do business if we are serious about meeting our commitments. In those areas which are privileged, the parents can come up with the money, either directly through contributions to the school or through this type of fundraising but in disadvantaged areas the parents simply have not got the money to come up with the extras which are very important in terms of making the whole system effective.

A survey published sometime last year showed that half of the schools did not have a television, half of them did not have a video recorder, one-third of them did not have a telephone. I would have thought that in this day and age a telephone is a very basic necessity for any type of organisation even if it is for nothing other than security or emergency services so that if something goes wrong in the school the teachers would have the capacity to either call the Garda, the ambulance services and so on. Twenty per cent of the schools did not have a photocopier and other schools did not have facilities for speech, drama and so on.

Another survey compares schools from the North of Ireland with their southern equivalents. I will just quote a few figures from it picking two schools in the diocese of Derry, one in County Donegal and one in County Derry. I have taken a school which has a pupil size of 250. The school north of the Border gets £13,000 a year more from public funding. The difference per pupil of State funding is £49.94 coming into the school in the North of Ireland compared with its equivalent in the south. With regard to the equivalent in relation to staffing the school in the North has two teachers more than the corresponding school in the South.

In relation to audio-visual grant aids and so on, the school in the South gets nothing while the school in the North gets £573. The school in the South gets £900 in the free books grant and the school in the North gets £4,092. The same goes for various other ancillary support measures. The school in County Donegal had one cleaner. The corresponding figures for the school in County Derry were one caretaker, one clerk typist, two cleaners, four lunch supervisers and one classroom assistant. Those figures are from the INTO North-South Study. It is a whole series of categories of schools from those with 50 to 60 pupils up to schools with 700 pupils. The whole range is covered. I have simply picked at random schools in the 250 pupil range. Those are the kind of differentials. They are very clear-cut and seem to be unacceptable.

I would like to draw attention to the necessity for support staff in schools such as caretakers and clerk typists. They are absolutely vital. Sometimes the whole emphasis in schools goes on the excellent work teachers do but they cannot fully reach their potential unless that type of resource staff is provided. Caretakers provide a vital function. If that function is not filled by the caretaker then, inevitably, it will have to be filled by the teacher and if it is not filled by the teacher problems will arise. The same applies to clerk typists who, again, fill a vital function in the efficient and effective running of schools. Their role has been somewhat underestimated in the whole business of education and that is not to take from the excellent work teachers do.

Mr. McKenna

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an leasú atá curtha síos agus, ag an am céanna, comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire, as ucht an méid atá déanta aige ó tháinig sé isteach sa Roinn. Chomh maith leis sin, déanaim comhghairdeas leis as an iarracht atá á déanamh aige leis an Ghaeilge a spreagadh, go háirithe labhairt na Gaeilge, sna bunscoileanna. Tá dul chun cinn an-mhaith déanta, i mo thuairimse, tríd an siollabas nua le feabhas a chur ar staid na Gaeilge, sa chaoi is go mbeifear in ann gach ábhar a fhoghlaim trí Ghaeilge. Bhí áthas mór orm nuair a osclaíodh scoil lán-Ghaeilge le déanaí in Aonach Urmhumhan i gContae Thiobraid Árann, agus, de réir dealraimh, tá an-obair á déanamh ag an scoil sin agus ag na bunscoileanna eile ar fud na tíre.

I can readily understand, being a teacher, why Senator O'Toole put down this motion, although I am bound to say that some of the reasons he would have in putting down the motion would not be mine.

Mr. O'Toole

I will put the record straight when replying.

Mr. McKenna

I must take issue with the Senator. Senator O'Toole understands that there is only a limited cake to go around and everyone in his own sector will look for a slice, and as big a slice as possible from that cake. I must take exception with Senator O'Toole for trying to take a piece of the cake from the vocational sector in order to add to the primary sector. The TUI are at pains at all times to try to amalgamate. It is important that we defend one another and we would not say "That is mine" when in it is not.

Mr. O'Toole

I will reply to it in my response to the debate. It is the oldest ploy, attributing claims that have never been made.

Mr. McKenna

Before it escapes my mind, may I say how appalled I am at Senator Jackman's reference to the number of jails. She referred to disadvantage and the reason why the jails are so full of people. May I remind the Senator that some of the greatest brains went through the jail system. It is not true to say that all the jails are full of disadvantaged people.

There are all different categories of people in jails and it is important to put that on the record. By employing two extra teachers instead of spending £34,000 to keep a person in jail for one year, you will not with one stroke of a pen solve all the problems. Irrespective of what categories or what type of education system you have, there will always be a need for the incarceration of different types of people and I am sure the Senator would be the first to acknowledge that point. That was just for the information of Senator O'Toole.

It is extremely important that we have a limited cake to go around. The Minister has done a marvellous job in what she has secured for education, in the manner in which she has disbursed the sums and, most importantly, in how she has ensured that the moneys are spent in the best possible way for the betterment of all the children of the country. She has done an excellent job for Irish education during a period which everybody acknowledges was a very different one in relation to financial cutbacks. I confidently look forward to an innovative and dynamic era of education in the next few years under the Minister's guidance.

It has been mentioned here on a number of occasions but it is important that we repeat it, the Government will spend this year £1,334.229 million on education which represents an increase of 5 per cent over 1989. Of that almost £500 million will be spent on primary education. By any standards this is a major commitment by the Government and it underpins their recognition of the important role education plays in the social, economic, cultural and industrial development of the country. This allocation for education has been provided in a period of financial constraint. With the improving economic situation I have no doubt that there will be continued improvement in the financial allocations for primary education and I am sure, knowing the Minister, for other sections of education in the coming years.

The commitment is there as evidenced by the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio which will come into effect from the start of the next school year. It represents the beginning of a gradual and phased improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery. The Minister has also, for the second year running, increased the capitation grants for primary schools. It must be acknowledged that there will never be sufficient money. People will always advocate that they should get more. Whatever sector of the country you are dealing with, that is the cry. I recognise how important education is to the country and the need for increased allocations at every opportunity. The primary school allocation has been increased by 5 per cent on top of the 10.4 per cent in 1989 and this must be of great assistance to the school managers.

As a remedial teacher at second level, I greatly welcome the initiatives taken by the Minister in relation to redressing the disadvantage in education. It is an area in which I am very keenly interested. I was one of the first in 1973 who came into the scheme at second level and at that time we were in a no-man's land because we were a new group of teachers who came in to try to establish a type of mechanism by which the more disadvantaged people in the education system would be helped. Initially, I have to put on record, the remedial teacher was looked upon as a sort of a "lob-off" in the sense that any pupil who was causing any sort of problem was sent to the remedial teacher and all of the problems and difficulties were passed on to him or her. I am glad to say that over the years that attitude has greatly changed.

The Minister attended a number of seminars on remedial teaching that I also attended and she recognised the fact that the function of the remedial teacher has greatly changed over the years so that now the remedial teacher is, to all intents and purposes, a resource teacher. That is extremely important. In my view, all teachers should be remedial teachers. It is extremely important that every teacher is able to cope with the problems of pupils, whether they relate to problems in the home, to disadvantage in relation to the ability of the teacher or to psychological problems. It should not be left to the remedial teacher to solve all the problems.

A special fund was set up during the past three years and £500,000 was given to it. The Government are committed to ensuring that all our children are given an equal chance in education. The extra assistance to primary schools which serve the disadvantaged is evidence of this. This year the Minister is trebling the amount of money in this special fund, which will enable the schools to buy extra equipment and material. This will facilitate the home school and community initiatives. The fact that parents are the primary educators of our children makes it extremely important that we try to develop as close a co-operation as possible between the school, the parents and the community. Many of the difficulties in relation to disadvantage and difficulties with children would be solved if there was a combined effort on behalf of parents, teachers and the community in general. The influence of the home on a child's attitude towards school and social behaviour in general is crucial. Any initiative taken to improve communication and the overall situation is to be welcomed.

It is also important to note that a further 95 teaching posts are being allocated in addition to the 95 authorised in the 1988-89 year. I am delighted as well, being a remedial teacher, that 30 remedial teachers are being appointed in addition to the 857 already working in our primary schools. I readily acknowledge that there is need for more and the Minister will be the first to acknowledge that point. At least she is taking the initiative and she is using every opportunity to improve the situation. She is to be complimented for that in a time of extreme financial cutbacks.

I am a firm believer that all teachers should be remedial teachers but, having said that, I believe a resource teacher can do an amazing amount of good. There is always a difficulty in describing remedial teachers because some people refer to teachers as ordinary teachers and then you are the remedial teacher, which has a connotation that you are extraordinary or that there is something peculiar about you. The remedial teacher as a resource teacher can be of absolutely marvellous benefit to a school where the "ordinary teacher" would not have the time or the opportunity to take individual students aside and give them the extra attention they need. I readily accept the fact — I have said it on umpteen occasions — that it would be extremely difficult for a person who is not a teacher to take 35 or 40 people on a wet Saturday afternoon and try to do something with them. Irrespective of what sort of resources one has, or what sort of benefits accrue to teachers, it is a profession and people have to qualify for that profession. The greatest resources in the world could be given to individuals and they would not be able to cope with 35 or 40 students or 20 or 25 students. It has to be acknowledged that the teacher is a professional and not everyone is cut out to be a teacher.

I want to put on the record my acknowledgement of the tremendous work that all teachers, primary, post-primary and third level, have been doing over recent years. I do not think the answer to solving a problem is that you have to provide all the facilities needed.

Senator Jackman mentioned in passing our teachers going to England and said they were welcomed with open arms. That is because the standard and calibre of our teachers is so high. There is no one disputing the quality of teachers. The fact that over the years so many of our students, past pupils of all our schools, — primary, post-primary and third level — have been a tremendous success and have gained world renown is evidence of the contribution our teachers and our educational system have made.

Over the years there has been a very strong lobby for the provision of a psychological service in primary schools. Notwithstanding the financial constraints already referred to, the Minister has grasped this nettle and put in place two pilot projects, one urban and one rural, which will involved in the region of 30,000 pupils. This is a very important development and it goes very closely in hand with the whole area of remedial education and the psychological service. The Minister is to be highly commended for the initiative in this area.

There are numerous other areas in which the Government and the Minister have shown their commitment to education in general. I will refer in passing to the traveller families, sex equality, art, music, sport, book grant and curricular review to name just a few of them. Senator Mullooly said — this has to be acknowledged in a time of severe financial constraints — that 240 building projects will have been tackled in the three years 1987-90. The Minister has given a commitment that all the major building programmes will be tackled in the primary education sector in the next couple of years.

Mr. O'Toole

Maybe the Senator can tell us about the position in Listowel national school, County Kerry.

Mr. McKenna

As we move into the nineties and the next millenium all sections of our education system face many challenges and the Minister and the Government are acutely aware of that. The Minister is conscious of the fact that the curricula and training programmes must be continuously reviewed, revised and developed to ensure that all our children receive the necessary preparation for the opportunities that lie ahead in the nineties and in the next millenium. The Minister has initiated many very significant measures since she came into the Department of Education. I know that she is committed to continuing those measures and to developing our education system to be one of the finest in Europe. I sincerely wish her well in the years ahead.

Minister for Education (Mrs. O'Rourke)

First, I wish to thank the proposers of the motion and my own party for the amendment and to say that I think this is a very welcome debate. This House has gone through its own difficulties in recent times, difficulties which were duly noted and of which everybody spoke. The tenor and the content of the debate on education here this evening — a very important debate and, if I may say so, the only debate, apart from the Estimates and budget held in the other House, of consequence on education the two Houses in this current year — stands to the credit of the Seanad and the Members. I hope it will assist in the general review of the operations of the Seanad. I would like to wish all Senators a long and fruitful term of office.

There were many speakers and I would like to list them: Senator Joe O'Toole, who proposed the motion, Senator Brendan Ryan, Senator Brian Mullooly, Senator Mary Jackman, Senator Helen Keogh, Senator Pat Upton, Senator Tony McKenna, who has just concluded, myself and whoever the rest of the evening will bring. I propose quickly to go through the points raised by the various Senators because it is important that I address the issues raised. Can I assure Senator Jackman that she will not receive false assurances from me? I have never in my life said a false word, nor do I intend to. If the Senator looks for falsity I suggest that she looks to one of the female predecessors in my office.

Mrs. Jackman

I think the word was "mock".

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Senator said "false assurances". I do not take it lightly when the world "false" is thrown at me. Senator Jackman said "false". I wrote it down as it was said. It is coincidental that this time last year exactly, I stood in the Seanad Chamber for two very interesting debates. It was during the general election and the debate was on the universities. When that was over there was a debate on the need for psychological services in primary schools, which was brought up by an Independent Senator. I will not say his name because I would be accused of all sorts of falsity again.

Mr. O'Toole

It was Senator Joe O'Toole.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes, it was Senator Joe O'Toole. That debate was held this time last year. Both items were equally important for those who were going into third level, and who would have a greater chance, and those who were in the really disadvantaged arena. That stands to the credit of the Seanad. I never come into the Seanad on a major debate without having regard to the fact that I was once a Senator, that I very much enjoyed my time here, and that Senators play a very important role in the legislative work of this country; I just wish that fact could get more recognition. I say that in no effort to try to disarm anybody; I say it because I believe it.

Now, we will deal with the various contributions to the debate. The first was Deputy Joe O'Toole, the main mover of the motion.

Mr. O'Toole

I would hate to be a mover in the Lower House.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Upper House.

Mr. O'Toole

The "Deputy" title worries me.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Sorry, Senator Joe O'Toole, he spoke about Albania, East Germany, Poland and Hungary and the PTR in schools. He said we should have standardisation with Europe. Could I gently say there are other things in European schools to which we might not aspire and to which some might wish to have parity, but with which I would not agree. Our pupil/teacher ratio is not as favourable as I would wish and I will develop that point.

On the question of unemployment, Senator O'Toole spoke about the large number of unemployed primary teachers, the mistakes made in the UK on the closure of the teacher training colleges and that we were just about pulling back from that. I recognise that quite clearly and it is something to which I have given attention. I hope Tom Murphy's review body will come up with a submission on that. We have very good teacher training colleges and if in the future, more teacher's are needed, we will have the capacity to train them. That is a well recognised demographic feature. My experience has been that closure is not the financial, economic or social answer to the teacher training colleges. They can be geared to other purposes and their infrastructure kept intact until they are again required for what is their primary function.

Senator O'Toole asked if the Government would lift the embargo on the caretaker issue. That is addressed in my speech but the Senator will know that there are talks going on on that at present. There were three interesting points in that, lifting the embargo, expanding the SES and the full development of the caretaker service on a phased basis. That submission in the Senator's speech was certainly worthy of noting.

The Senator talked about stress in people over 50. I have to confess I am well over 50 and from time to time I feel it, too. When I hear the whole debate on teachers I have to agree it is a very stressful job. There is no question about that. I always say — and I am putting on my ex-teacher's hat here — that no matter how hard, how long or how many hours I work as a politician — and we all work long hours as politicians — there is nothing to equal the draining process you feel from having had a full day in class and coming home in the evening and knowing that you were literally on your toes all that time and giving all of yourself for all of the period. I hope the Seanad will not take me wrong when I say, that politicians, and again I include all of us, cannot have voluntary retirement, we have involuntary retirement and that contributes, too, to our feelings of stress.

The Senator spoke about the hard work of teachers and what they do. He mentioned the lack of a welfare service and pointed to the fact that the Department of Justice had appointed six welfare officers for the Garda. Something has been put to me by his union, the INTO, and also by the other two major unions, the ASTI and the TUI. At the time the proposal was put to me I could not entertain it but I think now it has a measure of necessity and it is certainly something I would look for. He said it was no accident that it was young people who have children. Biological matters come into it but one needs to be in the whole of one's health and mind and nerves to cope with young people.

Senator O'Toole mentioned the 800 substitute teachers that are needed within the system on a daily basis and put forward a figure of approximately £2.5 million which would be needed to set them up so to speak as a cadre of resource supply remedial teachers. This was put forward by Senators Mullooly and McKenna also. I will be coming back to that. It is attractive as a proposition but I do not know how it would work out. While a principal would be delighted to have the services of such a teacher, it could happen that a call would come that morning for that teacher to go somewhere and the whole timetable of the school would be disrupted. There would have to be defined areas of what they would be doing so that the normal class routine would not be disrupted.

The Senator mentioned the need for remedial teaching and Senator Mullooly had made that point also. He mentioned the difference between the capitation grant for the primary school and the secondary/vocational school. It is £110 because the £40 is taken from it. He asks what happens between the ages of 12 and 13 that a child becomes that much more expensive. The fact that when they go into second level, there is need for special equipment, special classes, language laboratories, science laboratories, all sorts of things. Some of the cost of equipping these facilities comes out of that capitation and that is a matter that would have to be taken into account. That is exactly what happens.

The Senator also spoke about the quality of education and certainly that is something which came from all of the speakers except one and I want to refer to that. We have a recognised quality type of education. I was once working in a classroom and I know that what matters at the end of the day is the relationship between a child and a teacher. I hope it never comes that the Community, bureaucrats, political people or management denigrate in any way the role of a teacher. We are lucky in this country, and I said it before this time last year, that we have not gone down that road. That is the road the UK have gone. The quality English papers write of seminars, discussion groups and so on but constantly the teacher is being devalued and denigrated in society. An additional stress has been put on the primary teachers with regard to formal assessment of pupils, the phasing in of various schemes and the marking assessment. Apart from all that, there is the additional problem of the way teachers are regarded. That has not happened here because of our historic regard for education and for teachers and it cannot be allowed to happen.

I am saying this and I will be accused of all sort of things, of being all blow and not talk, etc. Yet, if I do not take the opportunity of saying it I will be accused also. I am saying quite clearly to the teacher representatives who are here today that when I say that I mean it. The teachers in this country are people of quality and long may that remain the case. That is what gives the essence of quality to our education system. Of course we need more of them, we want more of them and that is what we are about in this debate.

Senator Brendan Ryan seconded the motion. He talked about the rules of national schools and said they must be changed because of the element in them of local contribution, and that is in my speech. He spoke about the need for capitation grants and an increase in such grants. He spoke about throwing a few bob here and a few bob there. With respect it is more than that. He then gave us a socio-economic lecture on the various ESRI reports and spoke admiringly of Sweden, of the wonderful system of education it has and of the highest in ABCD and E categories. It also has unfortunately, in social terms, very sad statistics to relate. If we are going to use statistics, then they should not be selective statistics. Nobody would wish to point out the sad statistics which come from that country but they are enormous. That is the other side of that equation.

Senator Ryan had a serious complaint about his school which I would leave squarely at the door of management in that school. It is something I will ask my Department to take up in the morning. It is reprehensible that an issue like that would be treated in such an insensitive way.

Senator Brian Mullooly spoke next and I thank him for being first to speak to the amendment. He discussed it in a very relevant and in a very informed way, particularly with regard to the curriculum review and the role of teaching principals. He spoke about the need for a continuing review of the PTR and he was very positive on the need to have a clear look at the early retirement issue and said there would not be a very great uptake. I do not know about that. Our experience in 1987-88 was the opposite. That remains to be seen. He mentioned the caretaker and clerk typist problem. He was quite willing to say out what needed to be done in the system and to express it very forcibly, as he has always been on all occasions.

Senator Jackman was emphatic on the need to have professional unemployed graduates employed. The resource is there and her point was why not use them. She mentioned the link with the community, the need for reduction of PTR and she pointed up Dan Murphy's minority report in Moya Quinlan's curriculum review and the need to address it. On the day it was launched I spoke about it. She mentioned the need for investment in primary level, that teachers should be the most important resource within the classroom, and that teachers would never be replaced by computers. That goes without saying. The Senator asked a question on the criterion for disadvantaged. We have reached an agreed formula on that but it is not yet implemented.

Mr. O'Toole

All the Minister has to do is say "I agree" and it is finished.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It did not come to my desk yet. My desk is clear and it is not on it. There are new criteria coming out and we will see that goes along with the questions the Senator asked. She asked if it would be on a medical card, on single parent status, or on various things. They embody a varying number of criteria and they have been agreed among the various educational interests. She mentioned the need for teacher mobility.

The Senator pointed out the discrimination against male teachers as against women and I am afraid I am on the side of the women in this. While I take her point I know what you mean about the role and the lack of principalships. This time last year the INTO addressed in a document the need for teachers to go forward for principalships, for managements and management boards and interview boards in a positive way. She said we disarmed by mock assurances. No, I do not seek to disarm and she is right, the word was "mock". Will she take my apology, please?

Mrs. Jackman

I will

Mrs. O'Rourke

The next speaker was Senator Helen Keogh and I welcome her. She was having a little bit of difficulty reconciling her coalition role but she got over it very well. She is a teacher and was well able to identify the priorities. I very much welcome her contribution and I welcome her as spokesperson on education. As regards the need for the continuing review, she quite rightly pointed up what had been the provisions in the Programme for Government and asked how they were proceeding.

As regards the curriculum she said she would place a different emphasis on some matters. She said that teacher numbers should not decline as the pupil numbers decline. I can assure her that that will not happen. As regards substitute teachers a thread that ran through all the submissions in the debate was a recognition that some measure of progress had been made, but not enough. I will come back to that later. She spoke about the role of Government in education and said investment in education remained the most important issue.

I thank Senator Upton for what he said at the beginning of his speech. He spoke about discipline and of illiteracy in the disadvantaged schools. He also mentioned early retirement and substitute teachers, both of which are common threads as I said. He welcomed the curriculum review and had the nice doggerel: If you can fund do, if you cannot review. We have reviewed and we hope to fund: That does not rhyme but that is the way we will go about it. He pointed out the divisions between the north side and the south side. With respect, it is very difficult to take the class system out of society. Where they have tried to do that — in the socialist countries — it has not worked. The schools have the same teachers, they have the same pupil-teacher ratio, the same funding, and after that intervention is necessary for disadvantaged schools. I cannot know if we are going to just make everybody the same eventually. We would love to do that but, as I said, in countries where they tried it, it did not work out.

The Senator said that 20 per cent of the schools did not have much equipment, but I would remind him that 80 per cent have. He said that one third had no telephones, the answer is that two thirds have and we seek to progress as we go on. He then mentioned a survey on the North of Ireland pointing up the differences particularly between two schools in the one area — one in the North and one in the South. We aspire to do more but I would like to say that the UK and the North of Ireland have the might of the Queen of England behind them and all that that means. We are a separate country with our own needs. We have asserted ourselves and are now trying to do that in every way possible.

I thank Senator Tony McKenna for formally seconding the amendment. He welcomed the work being done for the Gaelscoileanna, particularly the school in Nenagh and sternly pointed out that the cake was still a relatively small cake and that he did not want other people taking his slice. He spoke of the phased improvement of PTR and of the need for remedial teaching and resource teaching, and the remedial teacher to be seen as a resource teacher. That is a fair point.

Senator Jackman raised the issue of the home-school liaison link and we envisage that that person will be a teacher. She seemed to think it would be somebody indefinable. What I envisage is that that person will be a teacher which, in effect, counters what she said. She also said she did not see the need for a home liaison person to be another type of person, and neither do I. I see the home liaison person as a teacher. I am sorry for diverging from what Senator McKenna said. Senator McKenna was very keen on the home-school liaison links and that is what led me to make clear that point. Again, the Senator was very strong, as befits someone in the profession, on the professional role of teachers.

Senators raised various points. Some I have already addressed and some I will address now. I will try to be as brief as possible. At the same time I feel the occasion is important enough to warrant response to each Senator who spoke, and that I should be here for the three hours.

I want to express my thanks for the opportunity to address the Seanad. The motion was very well intentioned, but we do not have a bottomless pit of money. I have laid out what is being spent — an increase from 6.7 per cent to 7.9 per cent of the 20 per cent of GNP. We have economic stabilisation within the country, but we still have a long way to go. We agreed a Programme for National Recovery because everybody has agreed and that would include some of the major Opposition parties — that the country needed to address itself in a very rigorous way to what was the situation in 1987. The Central Review Committee and the various partners worked harmoniously towards that end — maybe not always harmoniously but they certainly worked towards it.

Then we had the Programme for Government to which Senator Keogh and others referred and various points were raised — the PTR of primary and post-primary schools will be reduced — the Government will implement a reduction next September — the disadvantaged areas and the capitation grants. In the last 12 months we have made fair progress in those areas.

I acknowledge what Senator O'Toole said about what we are spending on education compared with the European Community countries. The most recent UNESCO book indicates that only the Netherlands spend a higher percentage than us and we have the lowest per capita. I freely acknowledge that. We have the second highest — higher than Germany and higher than what would be regarded by many as the strong economic countries — spending on education in Europe and the lowest per capita. That is a matter of population. We are increasing our spending. Even though the numbers of children in primary schools has gone down by 14,000 in the last three years, the proportion of income spent has gone up. That is a fair signpost to what we intend to do. We are committed now to spending only what we have and to reduce borrowing to nil. We still have a huge debt to clear.

I freely admit I did not always talk like this and when I was in Opposition I, too, put forward the view that there was a bottomless pit of money. I now know different. I have learned my lesson well. I recognised when I came into office that we had to reconstruct the basic goals and set out what we were going to do. We set up the curriculum review body on which Tom Murphy reported and hopefully this will be ready in the autumn. There is also the OECD report with which we cooperated. All these three reports — the one now issued and the two in the autumn — will mean we will have on hands a coherent authoritative list of facts, of knowledge, all put together by experts in the field. We will then set about a planned strategy for implementing that on a phased basis and in order of priority.

I have established a separate primary education policy unit in my Department and this will have responsibility for implementing and overseeing that strategic plan. It is a very important development. There is no point in having those reviews, having them come to fruition and then sitting back, reading them and having endless debates about them. When the three are together we are going to put them together, order our priorities on a phased basis. Our planning unit will take control of it and we will start there. Whether I will be about when we are at that stage in the autumn is another matter.

In relation to the pupil-teacher ratio, as I said we have already made the reductions, beginning this September. That will mean 500 teaching posts. At the moment we are looking and talking about the other phased reductions which have been announced and will be discussed in the context of the next Programme for National Recovery. Those talks are ongoing. I certainly feel this is one area that will be looked at quite rigorously at the beginning of the talks on that programme. Each improvement involves cost and we know that but there is a need for further improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio — I have said it in print and I am saying it in person now.

There are two separate schemes for the disadvantaged. There are various ways to address that matter, funding, the special grant and the extra teachers. We were able last year to put in 95 extra teachers for what were deemed disadvantaged schools and they supplemented what was already there. They were not ones authorised the year before.

Mr. O'Toole

The Minister said 95 more for next year. I am waiting for her to confirm that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

No. I am just clearing it up. It was just a matter of misinterpretation. I am glad the schools have got them, and indeed they have all said how much of a difference it has made to the running of the schools. Then there is the grant for the schools deemed to be disadvantaged. There is a trebling of the fund this year and it is being worked out in a series of measures between the various educational interests and my Department. Just two things I want to say about that.

We are hoping to have innovative measures this September out of the trebling of that fund and in addition to what we did already but particularly in selected schools in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and a few other areas in order to establish school/home liaison people who will be teachers. They will have a special role in liaising between home and school. The second thing we are going to do with the trebling of the money is that the money already given in special grants to disadvantaged schools which was heretofore given to diocesan authorities will now be supplemented by the extra money and will be paid directly to the schools.

It is something that many people have put to me. I felt it was something I wanted to tackle. It will be paid directly to the school board to disburse. I am not saying that it did not always happen that way — and I am sure it did — and the diocesan authorities are very hard-pressed to cope with all they have to do. The fact remains that it will now be going directly to the school.

Regarding the remedial teachers, we made a start on this. We broke the embargo on this last year and I hope we can continue at an increased rate in the forthcoming year. The part-time teaching scheme which we have for handicapped and disadvantaged children, and indeed for the children of travelling people, is certainly something my Department have always been very keen to do. It has been their priority to help children with special needs who are in one way or another disabled and also, the travellers' children. More can and should be done. This also applies to special education. The integration — which the primary review body are keen on — of these schools is something I favour. In Europe last week, in the formal education debate I was able to encourage and push through this idea.

The scheme of grants to assist with school book purchase is gone up to nearly 40 per cent in two years which, in any language, is a good increase. The capitation grants for primary schools again are up 16 per cent in two years. I freely admit this is not enough in capitation grants in primary schools and it is something that, as resources permit, we will certainly address.

Again, the scheme we have coming in next September for particular grants for schools will address the needs of disadvantaged schools. The £1 million we got for the library grant scheme was greatly welcomed, as was increasing the per capita payment. As regards parents, I have been able to give £25,000 to the primary tier in clear recognition of their development work and the input they have into all areas of education. Concerning discipline and school behaviour, it now appears that a degree of agreement has been reached but it remains to be finalised and I hope it will be so.

In regard to the psychological service, I am glad it has been so welcomed. The people have been cleared and are now about to be appointed. That is a three year scheme and the evaluation process will be monitored. I look forward very much to that. It is a particular interest I had. The matter was raised a year ago here by Senator Joe O'Toole and I am glad we have been able to reach an agreement on it.

Regarding the school building programme, there has been great progress made on that. I will be in touch with the Senators about Lispole national school. The caretakers and the clerk typists is a very important issue and talks are in progress on that at the moment. The whole scheme is in jeopardy. The SES schemes, particularly in the rural schools, are of great advantage but there is a large hiccup in the scheme at present. Talks are in progress and I am hopeful of an early resolution on that matter. The matter will go to Government and, therefore, I cannot be any more explicit but I am hopeful of an early resolution on it.

We were able to raise the level of pay substantially in the case of the substitute teachers and it was well deserved. I cannot explain this clearly enough and the extent to which I think it should go but you need the challenges and the "tensions" from what would be seen as vested interests. I always feel that here the vested interests have regard really for the ultimate needs of children as expressed through the need for teachers. There is need for that. We need to be constantly challenged within the Establishment or the Government of the day. That tension which exists is a common feature and should remain a feature of educational debate. Otherwise, the status quo would obtain the whole time and there would never be developments and that would not be a correct way either. You need that thrust to spark and enthuse from time to time.

As I said, the level of pay for the trained substitutes was unsatisfactory. From next September payment will be from central administration rather than from local. It was quite disgraceful. I used to get personal letters from teachers around the country, from young girls mostly, and they would say they worked for six weeks in such a school and three months later they had received no payment. We would have dealt with the matter if we had received the request but in many cases we would not have received the request for that payment. It was time for that to end. There is no doubt about that. A claim for improvements in other conditions of service of substitutes is currently under negotiation with my Department. Again, I am hopeful that improvements will ensue. A sum of £8 million was the cost of substitute teachers pay in 1990. Senator O'Toole mentioned a figure of £2.5 million in that context. I am going to look at the question of defined limits of what teachers would do and how there would not be a disruption of the normal timetable.

Much debate in recent times has focused on the question of early retirement for teachers. National teachers who have 35 years' service may retire, which is not the case for second level teachers. The question of any improvement in the provision of national teachers must, therefore, be approached in the context of the provision in the public service generally, and how that would be approached or looked at I do not know. From what I have said in response to the Senators' submissions, the House will know that much has been achieved over the last number of years against a background of very difficult budgetary and financial circumstances. I must stress that those achievements have been made possible only by the very active co-operation of everybody involved in education, but there is no reason for complacency.

I do not stand here and say everything in the garden is rosy. Everything in the education garden will never be rosy because there is always a constant need for improvements. We seek to make improvements always and what I have put forward here is, if you like, an account of the last 12 months and what we have managed to do in the primary sector. Other education sectors can be talked about on another occasion. What I sought to put forward here is what we have been able to do. I do not do it in any sense of beating my breast and saying "What a good girl am I, am I". No, because I know too well from my time in education, from the three years I spent in the Department that daily there are huge difficulties, challenges and opportunities, and if one had an enormous amount of money and inexhaustible resources one could transform everything. But, even if you did that, there would still be ever fresh challenges facing us in education. There would be curricular challenges and syllabi challenges and still there would be a demand for the lowering of the pupil/teacher ratio. It is correct that that debate, that quest and that demand go on all the time. We, in Government, have to be realistic. I very often have to separate on the one hand, the part of me which spent years in a classroom, on VEC committees and on boards of management of regional colleges, and as a parent rearing two children — although Gemma said I should not always be saying I am a mother. I do not see anything wrong with saying I am a mother, because I am——

Mr. Norris

You have an unfair advantage. That is one virtue I cannot claim.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is your own problem. You have put me off my trend — my years of watching our two sons going through primary schools, and on the other, the fact that I am very pleased and honoured to be a member of a Government which in three years has done a huge amount, and is currently doing so for the country, bringing about economic and social change while at the same time ridding ourselves gradually of the shackle of debt which lies upon us. I put it very clearly to the House that you seek, I seek and we all seek to gradually improve the social conditions of everybody in the country, but we seek to do that against the background of a huge existing debt; we seek to do it in the need for taxation changes; we seek to do it by bringing about another Programme for National Recovery; we seek to do it in a way which will get growth in the economy; and we seek to do it to give employment.

That is a huge jigsaw, and into that education fits. I take my job and my portfolio very seriously. I will continue to do everything I can to improve the situation of the primary schools, the primary teachers and the pupils in our care, recognising quite clearly that it is the foundation on which is built all the other tiers of education, and to improve it — and improve it continuously along the way — will mean that more and more the quality of our education, which is already high can be improved, and built upon.

I thank the Senators for their contributions. I have enjoyed this debate very much and I hope that the outcome of it, the submissions and the points that have been raised, will find an outcome in the coming years. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

Mr. Norris

There is little time remaining. I believe I have about ten minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

Twelve minutes.

Mr. Norris

I would like to share a few minutes of that time with Senator Neville and Senator Costello who have also indicated that——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Neville, Senator Costello and Senator Ó Cuív. Is that right?

Mr. Norris

I had not heard of Senator Ó Cuív.

An Cathaoirleach

Would the House agree to divide the time between the four Senators?

Mr. O'Toole

I have 15 minutes to respond. I do not mind losing five minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you, Senator. That gives four minutes each. That is agreed then?

Mr. Norris

It is so difficult. I have to leave that to yourself and the Minister. Could you indicate when I have one minute of that time to go?

An Cathaoirleach

Certainly. You have lost nearly one minute already.

Mr. Norris

That is injury time. I want to say, first what a pleasure it is to have the Minister here and how able she is in fielding these sort of debates. She is superb at this kind of marketing, and this is not necessarily confrontational debate. I agree with Senator O'Toole. Objectively, you could really put both the motion and the amendment together. I speak as a teacher, from that experience as a teacher at third level and also as a member of a teaching union. It is important and interesting that so many people spoke. We have the General Secretary of the INTO, the General Seretary of the ASTI here in the House. It is very important that we hear what they have to say. This is the value, or one of the values, of the Seanad.

I recognise that there is a tension obviously within Government and in a way any sharp criticism made here is not a personal criticism of the Minister; it is intended to arm her for the battles that take place within Cabinet for money. I would like to place on the record the appreciation I feel that the Minister has written to me on 25 May indicating that a matter on which we had a debate here, which was taken principally in the name of Senator Costello, about the Central Model Schools in Marlborough Street came to a successful fruition. The Minister has indicated in writing to me that that school will now, in fact, go ahead.

Mr. O'Toole

It is obviously going to the locals.

Mr. Norris

It is important that we recognise the significance of the primary area. The areas of concern are quite detailed and have been to some extent dealt with by the Minister. However, she anticipated the flaws in one of her own arguments in the printed speech where she said:

Spending on education by the European Community countries as a percentage of Gross National Product as shown in the most recent UNESCO Statistical yearbook (1987) indicates that only the Netherlands stands a higher percentage of GNP on education than Ireland.

It is not a question of percentages. It is a question of what you can deliver to the individuals on the ground. The Minister made that point herself in her preparatory remarks. That is something that needs to be taken into account.

With regard to the question of voluntary contributions, I do not believe they are voluntary. I believe they are a tax that operates in a most invidious way because they injure those least able to pay. A classic example was given here today by Senator Ryan. It is an area where people are most sensitive, where a child could be embarrassed by being asked to bring lavatory paper into the school. That is quite appalling. It is something a child will remember forever.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It is appalling on management.

Mr. Norris

Absolutely. I am glad the Minister is able to say she will look into this. I would like to say also that this kind of businesss of people having to look for extra money for books, to raise contributions in this way, discriminates against those who find it most difficult to raise the money in individual contributions. This is completely invidious.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has one minute.

Mr. Norris

Thank you. The question of class size has also been indicated as a matter of considerable importance. As we move towards 1992, the question of the transfer of teachers throughout Europe is also one of quite crucial importance. With regard to the social employment scheme, the Minister, I am sure, is aware of the fact that she would have very serious problems with trade unions if she duplicates. Like all those who have been involved in social employment schemes, I am aware of this, and this must be taken into account in her discussions. With regard to the question of moneys and so on, since education is one of the most fundamental things we have — primary education in particular is a building block without which it is impossible to proceed to second and, finally, third level education — is it not possible to seek some dimension of European funding?

Finally, on the question of early retirement, this is something I feel passionate about because I would very much like to have it, particularly at the moment because I am up to my hocks in marking examination papers. The Minister is a former teacher herself and may retire again from politics to that. Either profession would be graced and ornamented by her. It is certainly stressful and I think early retirement is something that should be looked at, and not just within the context of the State sector.

Éamon Ó Cuív

It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate. I would like to thank the Minister for coming here today and for her very informative speech. Before I get to the points I am going to make, in relation to the moneys to be collected, as the parent of four primary school children I would like to say that this provides no problem in our community. We run one social event a year, we collect all the money and that is the end of that problem. We have a very positive bank balance in our little school.

We all have to admit that everybody in the country gets primary education. It is very important and, of all branches of education, it should take precedence. It is very important that when limited resources are being spent the primary sector gets its fair share. At times it concerns me that the bigger organisations could, through better lobbying, etc. get more than their fair share and maybe get some of the money that should go to the primary sector.

On the question of the pupil/teacher ratio, to a large extent this problem will solve itself due to demographic factors. However, two cases have to be made — first, the particular problems relating to Gaeltacht schools where there are students with two mother tongues, some with English as the mother tongue, some with Irish, and where one is trying to reach a situation where Irish is the standard language of the school. I would also make a special plea as regards pupil/teacher ratio numbers for small schools. It is very difficult for teachers to teach three and four classes at one time. Three classes of 41 students I imagine would be more difficult to teach than one class of 38 or 40 students.

Regarding the curriculum, we have to insist and ensure that every child leaves school armed with the basics in numeracy and literacy.

On the question of Irish, as somebody who runs Irish courses, I am appalled despite all the emphasis on Irish, at the lack of knowledge of the language and lack of ability in conversation of many students leaving primary school and going into secondary school. I would see a very good case here for the use of technology such as videos, etc. in schools to improve that part of teaching. There is great talk about computers and more and more they have become a standard tool. The actual skill of typing will have to be brought into the curriculum. Everybody will have to be taught that basic skill which is going to become more and more an everyday skill.

I would like to see a remedial teacher covering every school — that there would not be a one-to-one ratio but one covering every school in the country. On the question of the Gaelscoileanna sílim go bhfuil an-tábhacht ag baint leis seo, go gcaithfear féachaint chuige nach é an painéal céanna atá ag na Gaelscoileanna agus atá ag na scoileanna deoise, mar bíon fadhbanna teanga ag cuid de na múinteoirí ar na painéil deoise maidir le dul ag múineadh i scoil lán-Ghaeilge. Dhá phointe a ba mhaith liom a lua ná ceist na bhfoirgneamh; agus an pobal atá ag iarraidh seomra breise a thógáil ar a gcostas féin, ba cheart go mbeadh cead acu é sin a dhéanamh.

Dhá phointe deiridh: ceist chúrsaí árachais maidir le rudaí a bheadh ar bun taobh amuigh den scoil agus, chuige sin, na costaisí a bhaineann leis sin ó thaobh na scoileanna de. Ansin, ag deireadh an lae, is cuid den phobal an scoil agus ba cheart go n-aitheofaí difríochtaí ó phobal go pobal maidir le scoileanna, is é sin go mbeadh an rud atá faoi chaibidil i láthair na huaire, ethos, community ethos, dúchas a ceantair féin, ag baint le gach scoil.

Mr. Neville

I am happy to contribute to this debate as a parent. It is interesting to note that, of the ten speakers to date, nine have been trained teachers. I understand that the latter speaker is, in fact, the first non-teacher to speak. I am the second and I am speaking as a parent. My family are at primary school level. My youngest is starting in primary school within the next few weeks. It is a three teacher school. It is a country school.

I welcome the debate and I wish to pay tribute to the primary teaching sector for the work they have done educationally over the generations for the Irish people, equipping them with life's skills, in engendering in the various generations a sense of values in our society and giving a good sound religious education, regardless of denomination, down the years. It is unfortunate that when children go into second level this aspect of their education is often put on the sidelines because of the points system.

Having experienced a small school which went through the traumatic situation of almost losing a teacher, reducing from three to two, I am in no doubt of the seriousness of the present pupil/teacher ratio. I would again like to highlight the fact that we are ten pupils in excess of the European average and have the worst pupil/teacher ratio in Europe. This situation ties our teachers' hands behind their backs when trying to bring the level of education to the required level in a European context. Every effort should be made to tackle the pupil/teacher ratio to bring our educational services to that level. The one thing that offsets the difficulties is the level of qualification and commitment of our primary teachers.

I want also to highlight a difficulty that is more peculiar to the country, in my area, than in a city area. I refer, to course, to remedial teachers. In my own council area there are three groups of schools of three each who are looking for a remedial teacher. I noticed from the Minister's speech that she is introducing a further 30 remedial teachers this year.

Mrs. O'Rourke

In this current year.

Mr. Neville

I think that is inadequate and I would ask the Minister to review that area in the light of the country position. I understand and accept that the cities because of size, rightly have remedial teachers but I think that the country should have the same service.

I would also like to refer to the investment in education and the fact that a grant of something like £28.50 is paid per pupil to the primary sector. In my own small school, because it is so small, the parents are asked as far as possible to pay £7.50 per pupil, regardless of income. I think this is a tax on education. Some families do find it difficult, but in a small school area they are almost obliged socially to do this.

I would like to refer to something Senator Norris referred to and this is the whole area of European funding for education. I understand that under the Treaty of Rome this cannot take place. That should be changed. We have an artifical situation where training is the responsibility of the Department of Labour and can be funded from Europe and education is the responsibility of the Department of Education and cannot be funded. Accountants, because it is training, can be funded by Europe but our secondary schools cannot be equipped through European funding. We should have the same services throughout Europe and be funded by Europe. I regret I cannot develop that point further because the time is limited.

Mr. Costello

I would like to start by thanking the Minister, as Senator Norris did, for her contribution and for her decision to allow the reconstruction of Marlborough Street Model School to go ahead. It was raised in an Adjournment debate before Christmas and I am glad the Minister has agreed to make the money available. I hope she will do likewise in respect of the Adjournment debate that is about to take place immediately after this discussion.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am a martyr, am I not?

Mr. Costello

You are a martyr indeed. As long as you have got the moneybags we will be happy. I welcome this motion from the Independent Senators. It is very comprehensive and timely. The Leaving Certificate examination started today and it is timely that we have a discussion on education at this time.

The contents of the motion need no further elaboration. They are a very severe indictment of the quality of our education system at present. In any context we have the largest classes in the European Community, the lowest per pupil funding, the lowest level of ancillary services, where 200 Irish primary schools have no access to remedial teachers, where the capitation grant is at the ludicrous level of £28.50; the absence of any order in relation to supply teachers, no panel system in existence and, of course, the whole area of early retirement in the teaching sector which has not been addressed at all adequately.

This is equally a problem in the post-primary sector where you have an increase of 14 per cent in pupil numbers since 1981 but a decrease in staff to 4 per cent and where you have got the highest pupil-teacher ratio in Europe. Ireland has a 20 : 1 ratio, Greece, a 19 : 1 ratio, France a 17 : 1 ratio, Portugal a 14 : 1 ratio, the UK has a ratio of 13 : 1, Luxembourg has a ratio of 11 : 1 and Italy has a 10 : 1 ratio. We are absolutely the worst in the EC. Despite what the Minister has said, we have suffered disproportionately in relation to the cutbacks that have taken place in education. We have been sacrificed more than any other sector——

Mrs. O'Rourke

Not true.

Mr. Costello

We have lost funding right across the board; capital funding for new schools, for renovation, for reconstruction. We have lost personnel; the remedial service, the career guidance service. We have lost out at virtually all levels in education due to the cutbacks. While the Minister has indicated that there have been some improvements, we have not been given the priority which is required for education. The Minster is responsible for education. If we are to cherish the children of this country properly we must make them the priority and that has not been happening over the past three years. We need more resources, more personnel and we need a Government who will regard education as the number one priority.

Mr. O'Toole

First, I would like to thank everybody who contributed to the debate, which has been particularly lively and has covered many areas of primary education. I do not have the time to respond to the debate but I want to make a number of points. All I asked in proposing this motion was that we would take the commitment in the proclamation of the Republic and that we would attempt to cherish all the children of the nation equally. We have failed to do that. That is all I seek, no more than that.

In terms of the cake, I would like to put it clearly on the record for Senator McKenna that if he had been here last month he would have heard the Minister for Finance telling us that the cake was growing between 4 per cent and 6 per cent annually, so it is not the same size of cake. I am not looking for anybody else's share; I am simply looking for the amount that will allow us to cherish all the children of the nation equally. Ceapaim gur cúis mhór náire domsa a bheith ag éisteacht leis an Seanadóir Ó Cuív ag rá go bhfuil sé an-sásta leis an scoil ag a bhaile féin agus gur maith an rud é go mbeadh tuismitheoirí na háite in ann seomra nua a chur ar fáil agus a thógáil ar a gcostas féin. That is the problem with this country; if it is all right in our corner we can forget about all the rest. The reality is go bhfuil daoine timpeall na tíre nach bhfuil an t-airgead acu chun seomraí scoile a thógáil iad féin. They just do not have the money. This type of local taxation as an attempt to build the education system does not work. The only fair system of taxation — and I think the Minister would agree — is central collection and local distribution.

I want to thank the Minister for her commitment to look into the question of Lispole school as quickly as possible. We will not let her forget that one. My colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, will also want to hear something on that.

This is a further matter I want to raise in my speech: the way the amendment was put forward. The Minister gave us the total amount of revenue in education in 1990 and then she went into the detail of telling us how much primary education funding has increased from 1988 to 1990. It begs the question immediately: why did the Minister not give the total revenue for education in 1980 and show the change from 1980 to 1990? I will tell the Minister very clearly the reason. If she had done so she would have seen that not only is primary education underfunded but that the increase in revenue in education between 1988 and 1990 is 20 per cent whereas the comparable increase which is given there for primary education is much lower than that, 25 per cent as opposed to 18 per cent. I always wonder about the way the amendments are phrased.

Mrs. O'Rourke

And motions, too.

Mr. O'Toole

And motions, indeed. Each to his or her last.

With regard to the question of welfare officers, I wish the Minister had given a commitment at least to say that she would positively respond to the proposal and agree that they should be established. I am sorry the Minister did not do that.

On the question of the public service and early retirement, it is not a fair comparison by any standards. There are pressures in every job and I am making the case here for teaching; there is a different kind of pressure, as the Minister herself, said on teachers. It is not fair to compare it with the change in the public service, one of the reasons being that various levels of promotion within the public service take into consideration the different types of stress and the different control people have, even if it is only that at 11 a.m. someone in the public service may go off and have a cup of coffee which every worker, including teachers, would welcome. Unfortunately, teachers cannot do that. It is different, but I will not get into it.

I want to make one very firm point for the record. I want to demolish this myth that the changes in demographic trends are going to solve all our difficulties. First, let me say that all the projections on which the Department are planning for the next ten years have already been screwed up by the last few reports of the ESRI, but I do not have the time to go into that. I want to put one simple fact on the line: taking the worst possible scenario in terms of demographic trends, the lowest possible birth rate, the worst possible projection drop in fertility rate and the worst possible projection on emigration, and the Minister's intention, which I welcomed, to hold the same number of teachers in the system — taking the same number of teachers in the system in 1998 and taking the Minister's own figure that there will be 460,000 primary school pupils, on the worst possible scenario at that time that alone will only take us from the point we are now half way to the European average class size. It does not resolve the problem; we need teachers in the classrooms. I want to put that clearly on the record.

I was pleased to hear the Minister inform us of the setting up of a policy unit in the Department and I look forward to hearing more about it.

On the question of the next programme, the negotiations will take place and it is a very simple position. An improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio is a sine qua non for any agreement on any movement on a national programme and the sooner people realise that the better. Unless there is a fair shake for primary education there certainly will not be from the teachers' point of view any commitment to it.

In fairness to the Minister, I want to say two things. Within the past year she came in here and gave me two commitments: (1) the setting up of the pilot programme on the schools psychological service and it has been delivered; and (2) the direct payment of substitute teachers, and that has also been delivered. I want to put that on the record because I will balance my criticism with a reflection on that. The Minister tonight has said only two things I can grasp from that long speech. They are, that she will directly fund to schools the money that previously went to diocesan authorities. I welcome that, as does the INTO. We have been shouting about it for years. It is a welcome and positive development in terms of public accountability. I also welcome the proposal by the Minister to extend the home-school liaison service but I fail to understand why the Minister could not have addressed the minor matter of the question raised by Senator Jackman on the measuring instrument for determining when a school is disadvantaged. There are people on both sides of this House and in the other House who have tracks beaten to their door month after month by people asking how they can get their school designated as disadvantaged for the purpose of staffing and grants. The Minister knows that her Department, the INTO and management have agreed on a simple system to do just that. I know the Minister has probably at this stage also agreed to it, but why cannot she just say she has agreed to it and implement it? It does not cost anything. It just gives a measurement of disadvantage and it is then up to the Government to say how many jobs they are prepared to make available and the schools with greatest need will be catered for first. The Minister will not have to worry about the relative differences between South Hill in Limerick and the Barracks in Athlone or wherever it happens to be. It will be done scientifically without political interference. The local Fianna Fáil Deputy can still be written to, in order to explain to the schools when they get their teacher——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I write to all Deputies.

Mr. O'Toole

It is a practice which I abhor but nevertheless I am sure the Minister will continue to do that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Senator is an innocent abroad.

Mr. O'Toole

The point was raised by Senators Jackman and McKenna about the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail. I came across a case in the seventies where a school had a child they could not deal with. It was in the Clontarf area of the city. At that stage they plagued the Department for a psychological assessment of the child to be made but they could not get it. They went to the health board and said the child was going to get into trouble. They made every attempt to have such an assessment made right through the primary level. At post-primary level they did the same thing. Eventually that child got into serious trouble and was found guilty of the murder of a teacher. Within the past year he has committed suicide in Mountjoy. I want to put that on the record.

Senator Jackman's case is correct. Do we pay £34,000 to keep a prisoner in Mountjoy for a year or invest more in preventive medicine early on? I do not want to be facile about it, I just want to give one example. When that child was five or six years of age, the teachers went to the Department — the records are there, I looked at them recently — and said they could do something with the child with a bit of help. The help was not forthcoming. There was no back-up or support. I am not saying that back-up and support will solve everything but we could solve a lot of problems by investing in the proper resources.

I welcome the debate. These type of debates are important. They make us argue the issues and we can get certain commitments, very little, mind you but nevertheless at least they go on the record.

I note the Minister's commitment to hold the number of teachers in the system, to improve the pupil-teacher ratio and to work on a code of discipline which teachers are screaming for. This is one of the reasons they are applying in such numbers for disability but if there was a system whereby people suffering from a disability could be responded to, then they would not be seeking early retirement as a way out of an impossible situation.

I appreciate the commitments given by the Minister and the time she spent dealing with the debate. I am sorry she was not able to support the motion. I have no objection to her making the points she made in the amendment. I could have accepted them if they had been put as an addendum to the main motion but, unfortunately, I have to oppose them on the basis that they wipe out my motion. I thank all those who contributed to the debate, particularly Senator Costello, President of the ASTI.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 15.

Tá

• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Sean.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donovan, Denis A.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Harte, John.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators O'Toole and B. Ryan.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Fallon

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.