The time limit on speeches is: speech of proposer, 15 minutes; speech of each other Senator, ten minutes; the proposer to reply, ten minutes and the Minister to speak for 15 minutes.
Primary Education Funding: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann, recognising that the fabric of primary education is an essential part of the national social infrastructure, and further recognising that intervention at primary level is essential to any successful strategy aimed at compensating for socio-economic underprivilege, declares that the Government should take all the necessary steps to ensure that European funding is made available to support and supplement the Government's commitments to primary education in the programme for Government and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
I am appalled that the Government has introduced an amendment to this motion. I went to a lot of trouble to formulate a motion that would meet the needs of all participants in the education system, that was uncontroversial and that would support the Minister's case at Cabinet for the funding of primary education.
Every Member of the Oireachtas is lobbied daily about the problem of funding primary education. A lack of remedial teachers, problems with school buildings and overcrowded classrooms are some of the issues raised. Parents demanding the introduction of European languages and people criticise the use or neglect of Irish in primary education. Ours is the only European country which does not have an educational television service for primary education.
I have examined those problems. I have spent between two and five years calling for an amendment to the Treaty of Rome to include an education policy. The Maastricht Treaty, which amends the Treaty of Rome, includes an education policy for the first time. It clearly provides for the discretionary power of national Governments to make decisions and Europe is required to "support and supplement" the programmes and policies of the national member states.
To ensure that there was no difficulty with this motion I consulted the Programme for a Partnership Government and the Government's commitments under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I did not put a critical word in the motion — indeed it supports the Governments programme — and I am outraged that the Minister should amend it. It seems there is a lack of political commitment. I did not seek structural funding but European funding. Having discussed this issue with a European Commissioner, with the head of the European Committee on Human Resources and with other people in Europe who are competent in this area, it was indicated to me that this was the correct strategy. This is the first time that a European treaty refers to education but it has had no impact on education policy in Dublin or Brussels. That is an appalling situation.
I have submitted seven proposals to the Minister which could be supported by European funding. I hear the Government's argument that there is no money in the kitty. However, I cannot accept it that, when I suggest an alternative source of funding which I understand the Minister would support, she considers it unacceptable. Over the years the proposals I have put forward have been implemented in other countries with European funding. The Portuguese Government built hundreds of classrooms with money from the Structural Fund.
I know the Minister has received different reports on that in Brussels. I have discussed it with two former European Commissioners and there is no doubt that money was used in Portugal for a schools building programme. The funds were used — not training or anything else — at a time when we were told it could not be done.
The Minister's budget to build primary schools is down to about £18 million this year. In 1987 it was about £30 million and in the intervening years it was between £13 and £16 million. The Minister's budget is reduced by £70 million and she is still expected to do the job. It cannot be done. She is not in a position to deal with substandard primary school accommodation on her budget and she has admitted that on several occasions.
The infrastructure of this country is not just roads and telephones. The latest ESRI publication, which discusses the European situation and is published this week, makes that precise point. European funding is about unemployment. I would like the Minister to answer a question. What chance has the child who leaves primary school without basic education — reading, writing and arithmetic skills — either to gain or create employment? I seriously considered just repeating that question over and over again for 20 minutes to impress on the collective psyche of Government that no strategy on unemployment will work until we have the flexibility of an educated work-force. If it is true that the child who drops out after primary school can neither gain nor create employment, it must be possible to invest in that area as the operation of European funding is, in part, to create a better social infrastructure.
The question of literacy is critical to the success of programmes for cohesion, job creation, wealth creation or economic development. It is an objective of the Programme for a Partnership Government to create employment and it is planned to have 500 extra remedial teachers at primary level between now and 1996. I have discussed that with the Department and it is one of the policies that could benefit from European funding.
Recently I met a chief education officer in one of the vocational education committees who previously spent some time establishing education on television for primary schools in an under-developed African country. He came back to Ireland to take up a position in one of the northern counties and found that we still do not have such a service. There has been an abrogation of responsibility in that area. I do not care whether it is the fault of the Department of Education, or RTE or any other organisation. As far as I am concerned, there can be a plague on all their houses. Our children deserve the best and if it means providing European educational television by satellite, I want it.
Article 126 of the Maastricht Treaty clearly states that we should develop systems to exchange information and experience. I want an information technology system which will link the schools across Europe. The European Community commitment is contained in Article 126:
The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between member states.
I want to emphasise the following and if necessary by supporting and supplementing their action.
We have signed this Treaty, it has been accepted in a referendum and it is the policy of the Government. All I am saying is this should be implemented. We are entitled to look for European funding to implement what is in the Treaty. For some reason this creates a political conflict for the Government.
I am looking forward to an explanation for that. I think somebody has been misled or there is a lack of political will on this issue. I have asked for nothing more than what is either Government policy, what the Government has put its name to or what the people have asked for by referendum. We have demanded this time and time again. I have not gone outside Government policy, I have not gone beyond what the Minister sought.
The report of the Committee on Culture, Youth and Education covers the area of education being dealt with in the European Parliament on 22 and 23 April 1993, and says what I am saying. It states that we will not fulfil our commitments in the European Treaty simply by concentrating on the higher levels of education. This is in the report to the European Parliament which will be supported by every Irish MEP next month. This is what I asked of the Minister tonight but instead the Government put down an amendment. I do not understand this. I have tried to be supportive and I am outraged that, once again, primary education has been neglected.
Low levels of education lead to students dropping out of the education system early, less participation and fewer and lower educational qualifications. I want to again put before the House what has almost become a mantra for me: every study conducted in the area of education and unemployment comes up with the simple formula that education leads to qualification, qualification leads to employment and the more qualified the person is, the more likely they are to gain employment. Education is the first step on that road. Education begins at primary level and any strategy to deal with unemployment must begin with investment at primary level.
I am trying to do this in a way which does not cost the Government anything. It is a long time since a Private Members' motion was put forward in this House which neither criticised the Government nor sought extra money; I looked at several motions and I could not find one. All it requires is a spark of political courage and will to do something for the half million pupils in Irish primary schools and for the 3,500 boards of education which are dealing with problems daily and feel abandoned and deserted on this issue.
I want the record to be clear. I want a Minister who is supportive of the best deal for primary education in a public, clear and committed way which gives us in the primary education sector a sense of hope, support and partnership, that we are trying to achieve the same thing. I appeal to the Minister to deal with this motion without a vote. I ask her to speak to the motion, not to move the amendment and to let the motion stand. That would mean we could approach the debate on European funding in a clear and open manner.
In discussions on education in Brussels we have come up against a problem time after time: for 40 years we have interpreted vocational training in the widest way and tried to integrate it into the educational area. There is great competence in Brussels in second and third level education but there is no expertise, competence or experience in primary education. That greatly concerns me because I do not believe that people in Brussels are interested in primary education.
There is a cultural problem of attitude towards education funding from Brussels: there is a belief in Dublin and in Brussels that things should be left as they are. Later I will be replying to the points made in this debate.
I ask the Minister why we cannot approach this issue as partners. I am trying to achieve the implementation of the Programme for a Partnership Government, I am trying to implement the part of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which contains a commitment from Government to either replace or replenish sub-standard school buildings by 1997. This is an issue we should tackle together.
I welcome the Minister to the House but I regret this political kneejerk reaction that a motion which I think is unexceptional should be watered down in this way. I have seen this done many times.
Acting Chairman
Are you seconding the motion?
Yes, I am very happy to second the motion in its original form. Do the Minister or the Government not consider that they should take steps to attract this kind of funding? There is money available, which is desperately needed in this country and it astonishes me that we should not attempt to attract this money.
This rather bland amendment takes the usual form of implying that everything in the garden is wonderful so do not let us stir the mud. I have seen such amendments many times before.
It does not say that.
It is a neutralising amendment. Does this mean that the Government does not intend to aggressively pursue the issue of European funding? If so, I think it is lamentable. There are a number of areas where such money is very badly needed, for example, the literacy programme.
Ireland is the kind of country which it is envisaged should benefit from European Structural Funds. Community action through the Structural Funds, the European Investment Bank and other existing financial instruments are supposed to support the achievement of the general objectives set out in Articles 130a and 130c of the Treaty by contributing to a number of priority objectives which includes promoting the development and structural adjustments of the regions whose development is lagging behind. Development in this area in Ireland is lagging behind and I hope to demonstrate that effectively. The whole country of Ireland has been designated such a region. Article 130a of the Maastricht Treaty states:
In order to promote its overall harmonious development the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion. In particular the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions including rural areas.
Article 130b states:
The Community shall support the achievement of these objectives by the action it takes through the Structural Funds — the EAGGF, ESF and European Regional Development Fund — the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments.
Why do we hesitate before invoking this Article? The European Parliament has a long tradition of urging the member states to take this kind of appropriate action. In 1982, the Parliament adopted a resolution on measures to combat illiteracy; in 1989, the Parliament adopted a resolution in illiteracy and adequate education for children whose parents have no fixed abode; in June 1984, the Council devoted part of its discussions to the problem of illiteracy in member states and adopted conclusions concerning both the measures to be taken by the member states in the context of their own education systems and the complementary measures to be taken by the European Commission to support the efforts of the member states.
In addition, a network of pilot projects was launched in September 1988 to combat illiteracy. Belgium, Spain, France, Greece and Portugal each development two projects; Ireland did not participate. Yet we have a problem of illiteracy in our schools which is not being satisfactory addressed because of the lack of remedial teachers.
If we are seriously interested in the welfare of our children, we should recognise the fact that there is no point, having pious aspirations about third level education if children are not given the basic building bricks at primary level to enable them to participate in further education. I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against funding for third level education. I am not cutting off my nose to spite my face.
Successful literacy programmes, such as the New Zealand project where they intervene at four, five and six years of age, demonstrate that it is cheaper and more efficient to intervene at that age rather than at nine to 12 years of age, when it would cost four to five times as much. There is a good reason for this kind of intervention. I spoke with a former student of mine who is now a distinguished practitioner in the educational field and who told me that there are five schools in Ballymun and Glasnevin and none has a remedial teacher. It is probably much worse in the rest of the country; one could go for a day's march without finding a school with a remedial teacher. I know this concern is close to the Minister's heart and I would like her to know, despite the repetitiveness and vehemence of my utterance that I am not targeting my remarks directly at her; I recognise she is trying to settle into her job. I am trying to structure an effective argument to demonstrate that the necessary money is here, the EC has urged us to take it up and there are practical reasons for doing so economically, culturally, and educationally.
There are funds available which could be attracted for the building of schools. Often there is a crying need for education, but buildings are unsatisfactory or non-existent. I saw in the paper recently a sad picture of some pupils in what was once St. Mary's Church of Ireland School in Crumlin, which has become host to a multi-denominational school project. They were standing beside their school, a ruined shell of a building and there is apparently no money to provide a school——
Perhaps I am raising a hare, but in these situations, EC Structural Funding would be useful. I know of a school with 278 pupils which has no sports facilities except for a public playing field across a dual carriageway. Nowadays, we place higher value on physical education and sport than heretofore and there is a good case to be made for attracting EC Structural Funds to develop these facilities.
The physical condition of many school buildings is also a problem. I know this is not the Minister's fault; it has been so for successive Ministers for Education for a long time. I have heard the Minister say that proportionately more money will be made available to disadvantaged areas. This is a good thing, but it is only a drop in the ocean, compared to the kind of money that could be attracted under the European funding system.
When I tried to get European Structural Funding for other projects I was faced with the question of quota and non quota allocations on one hand and on the other, a requirement for matching funding. I hope, in a kind of false economy, we do not think we cannot afford to match this funding. Apart from anything else this money will break down into the economy. It is not satisfactory in 1993, to have children in school buildings without proper sanitation and which breach building safety and hygiene regulations. The Minister could do something about this. We could also get European money for teaching foreign languages at primary level. If we are going to be good Europeans, why not start early and acclimatise people to a foreign language? I draw the Minister's attention to the motion tabled in the European Parliament in 1992 on the subject of illiteracy. I am sure the Minister has access to it, so I will not attempt to speed read it as I have compassion for those compiling the official record. The report states for example:
The European Parliament respects the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems, and accepts that the Treaty on European Union stipulates that the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education.
Why are we not activating this kind of——
Senator Norris, I have to ask you to conclude.
May I put two final points? There should be money for in-service training and I would like to see funding for the development of the option of multi-denominational schools for every parent.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"welcomes the commitment to education in the Programme for a Partnership Government and notes the substantial steps already taken in the 1993 budget with particular reference to assisting the disadvantaged. Seanad Éireann particularly welcomes the policy of the Minister and Government to continue their support for education using all possible means."
I welcome the Minister to the House.
I do not see how anybody could have difficulty supporting these sentiments. Because of the limited time available I propose to confine myself to primary education.
In the context of welcoming the Minister's and the Government's continued support for primary education, the amendment proposes and I quote: "using all possible means". I hope the "possible means" include taking the steps necessary to ensure that European funding will be secured to provide essential additional resources for primary education. I fully agree with Senator O'Toole about the importance of intervention at primary level. I welcome the progress that has been made in recent years in dealing with schools in disadvantaged areas. I support the budget allocation for this but more money is needed. Primary education is seriously underfunded, and substantial allocations are urgently required over the next few years. I recognise that it is unlikely that resources of this order will be available from the Exchequer in the immediate future. Every possible effort should be made to secure European funding, so that the maximum impact could be made on a number of key priority areas of primary education.
It is not difficult to identify the main areas for which additional resources are urgently required. The special provision for schools in disadvantaged areas falls short of what is required to level the playing pitch for the socio-econmically deprived. Remedial education also needs a major infusion of resources. At present, there are approximately 950 remedial teachers serving approximately 1,400 schools. This means that approximately 2,000 primary schools have no remedial service. We must do everything possible to hasten the day when every child with a learning difficulty will have access to a remedial teacher. Any progress made towards that is welcome but needs to be speeded up.
The policy of integrating children with special needs or disabilities into ordinary national schools needs to be supported by adequate resources. All over the country children with disabilities are enrolled in national schools in which teachers have little or no back-up in the area of speech therapy, psychological and psychiatric services. If this policy of integration is to succeed, it cannot be allowed to continue on a haphazard basis. Each child's individual needs should be examined prior to enrolment and provision made to meet them. Provision might involve modifications to the school buildings, the appointment of ancillary staff, or arranging back-up support from professionals such as psychologists or speech therapists. The progress of children with special needs should be monitored and reviewed on a regular basis. This regular monitoring is necessary to ensure that the school continues to be the most suitable place to cater for the child's needs.
There is also a pressing need at primary level for a comprehensive programme of in-service education. This has major resource implications but European Community funding should be available for it. Teachers, like all other professionals, need to update their skills on a regular basis and those teachers who wish to undergo in-service training should be facilitated and encouraged. If a proper programme of in-service education is to be put in place, it is essential that full substitute cover by trained personnel be provided for teachers on courses. Travelling expenses and course and examination fees should also be recoupable to participants. Irish teachers are the only group of the 3.8 million teachers in the European Community who have to pay for their ongoing training and professional development. There is also a great need to provide appropriate courses to enable teachers to acquire qualifications in specialist areas, such as remedial teaching or special education. Allowance should be paid to teachers in respect of additional qualifications secured through such courses.
The level of capitation grants paid to boards of management of primary schools is another area of substantial under-funding. At present the annual capitation grant is £28 per pupil. I welcome the Minister's recent announcement that she proposes to increase this figure to £33 per pupil. However, this falls far short of the £80 per pupil which is recommended in the respect of the Primary Education Review Body; it is only approximately one-quarter of the capitation grant paid in respect of secondary school pupils. Even at the level of £33 per pupil the majority of boards of management will not be able to meet the ever increasing costs of heating, lighting, cleaning, maintenance and insurance.
Only boards in areas where continuous fund raising can be undertaken will be able to meet these costs. It is only such schools which will also be able to meet their equipment needs and acquire such essential items as computers, audiovisual aids and remedial teaching equipment.
I could go on to other matters, such as the sub-standard conditions of many primary school buildings, the provision for the education of travellers and the home-school liaison scheme, but time does not permit. Before concluding, however, I would like to refer to the commitment in relation to the pupil-teacher ratio contained in the Programme for a Partnership Government. The commitment to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio at primary level to 22:1 by September 1996 will be widely and warmly welcomed. I welcome it. I also want to make it clear that I am satisfied that the Minister will spare no effort in securing the maximum funding for the other areas to which I have referred.
I wish the Minister every success in the years ahead.
I join with the other Senators in welcoming the Minister to the House. This is the first occasion I have had an opportunity to listen to her in this House and I hope it will be a rewarding experience for all of us. The Minister has a very difficult task and needs support from everyone to achieve the targets she has set herself.
I share Senator O'Toole's frustration with the poor quality of infrastructure in primary education and the poor service generally. The standards we have achieved are extremely low. I am sure every Member of this House can drive to schools in their constituencies which were built in the last century, have prefabricated classrooms in the school yard, no space for pupils to play and no playing pitches. Such schools are more in keeping with the last century but are very much a reality in Ireland today. However, a very high level of resources is required to deal with this problem.
The Programme for a Partnership Government contains aspirations to deal with some of these problems. However, because of the way the Government is functioning and the lack of confidence in the economy, they will remain aspirations.
This motion is timely and deserves our support. I congratulate Senator O'Toole and the other Senators for putting down this motion and giving us an opportunity to speak on it. Statistics would lead one to believe that the Irish education system is excellent, that we are achieving high standards and that we compare favourably with more developed OECD countries. However, these statistics do not reflect the poor standards of which we cannot be proud. For example, many of our classrooms are overcrowded, no matter what we say about the pupil-teacher ratio. Every day there are 38 students in many of our classrooms. Students have to spend a day in classrooms that are too small, the schools have no playgrounds, and their educational experience is poor.
What is more worrying is that in every group of 38 students, four or five on average have learning difficulties. Statistics show that about 10 per cent of students have learning difficulties. Some may have difficulty with reading and writing, others may not be able to relate to numerical work and others would have difficulties with both disciplines.
We can imagine the difficulties the students face when there is no special assistance available to them. They go to school every morning and they are facing a miserable day. If they are in large classes, teachers do not have time to give them the assistance they need. There is no remedial service for thousands of these students. Later in life they end up in a kind of twilight zone. They cannot find employment; with the present high number of people unemployed they are the last to get work. These people live very dissatisfied lives.
Their educational experience could be described as a "murder machine", because of their disability and the lack of attention they get, they are unable to enjoy education. What should be a happy and carefree experience in childhood becomes a horrible and miserable existence for them. Many of us whose background is in education know that this is the case. We cannot be proud of what is happening and it must be remedied.
There are possibilities that we may be able to attack this problem soon. The Government should admit that we do not have the resources necessary to resolve these problems immediately. We should take heart from the fact that European Union will soon be a reality. The Articles in the Maastricht Treaty to which Senator O'Toole referred are clear and specific; the Union is committed to deepening the solidarity between peoples in Europe, it is committed to promoting economic and social progress and it is specifically stated in Article 3 that it is committed to making a contribution to education and training. This is detailed in Articles 126 and 127. There are loopholes to be exploited. The Minister should accept the situation as it is on the ground and the Government should make a wholehearted effort to fully exploit the loopholes in those Articles.
The Government should not try to hide the face that while some of our economic indicators are good, our rate of inflation is quite low and our Exchequer Borrowing Requirement is in harmony with the Union parameters, 25 per cent of our people are unable to find work. That is a damning statistic. The difficulty is that disadvantaged people find themselves in that group and are unable to cope or compete. They are always on the edge of society. They are in a kind of twilight zone. The Government must recognise that in the short term it cannot deal with this problem. It needs outside intervention and assistance and this must be explained to our European partners. The Government has a huge problem on its hands and it needs assistance. I am sure if the Government negotiate very actively that kind of assistance will become available.
We must resolve to change some of the ground rules under which we work. Perhaps we have to redefine the meaning of work as we understand it and perhaps we have to see those who are unemployed as a massive resource that could be used if the ground rules were changed. Senator O'Toole might not be too anxious to listen to what I am saying and might not be too happy with it. There are many people on the live register today who are drawing the dole and who are highly qualified, with the leaving certificate or third level education. If the ground rules were changed those people could be integrated into the education system and then could use their skills to assist teachers in large classes and to make the education system more relevant. Taking this option would entail some generosity from trade unions and would take some courage by Government to achieve but in the times in which we live we should be examining such suggestions.
The tyranny which takes place in the school yard is of concern to many people these days. I suggest to the Minister that the school bus is a spawning ground for bullies. Up to 90 students are pushed onto a bus each morning without adult supervision and when they arrive in school they are not the same people who left their houses that morning. Peer group pressure and the fact that there is a huge number herded onto one bus means that the pupils are much more unruly and more difficult to handle in the classroom than they would be if there was adult supervision in the bus. I suggest to the Minister that she should make it a prioriy to take a couple of thousand people off the dole and have adult supervision on those buses. It would improve the eduction system and make life easier for teachers. It would be very valuable and I look forward to the Minister's response.
I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate her on being the first woman since Countess Markievicz to come into the Dáil as a Minister. I know that she will be one of the best Ministers for Education.
This Government, and in particular the Labour Party, is committed to the view that education is the key to future prosperity and to equal opportunities for all our citizens. On this basis I second the amendment.
This drive towards equality is reflected in the Programme for a Partnership Government which, I remind Senators, is a vast improvement on the promises made in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. First, there is an overall budget increase from £16.5 million in 1992 to £19.5 million in 1993. The pupil-teacher ratio is moving towards 22:1 and 80 extra remedial teachers and 25 extra school-home liaison officers have been sanctioned. The focus will be on disadvantaged areas and towards disadvantaged children in schools.
The Government recognises that the earlier problems are tackled the better. More and more teachers have to cope in the classroom with the result of social and economic deprivation. It can often be frustrating for teachers to see a happy four year turn over the years into a sullen, resentful 14-year old. These problems can be best solved not by blanket measures but by tackling individual pupils problems in individual schools.
The Government is committed to solving these problems by directing financial assistance towards the areas where it is most needed. There is a recognition that groups such as travellers have special requirements and that school-home liaision officers are best utilised to bridge that gap between school and home. I have no doubt the Minister will use every opportunity to seek funds from every possible source to use in solving these problems.
Senator O'Toole's motion confines funding to European sources but there are other funds that can also be sought and used for education.
The Senator might tell us about them.
I will when I have finished my speech. I remind Senators that we should be looking towards the Structural and Cohesion Funds for help in increasing the economic and social well-being of all our people. If we raise the general standard of living we start to tackle some of the problems inherent in our society that make for inequality. The two cannot be separated. All things are interconnected and by using funds from one area to increase living standards the funding available for education, will automatically be increased.
I am surprised all of the speakers so far have defined education in such narrow terms. Senator O'Toole spoke about education strictly in terms of schooling. I remind him that education is not confined to schools and that, according to the Constitution, parents are the natural educators of their children. We must not talk about education in a "nine to three" context and we must realise that every waking moment of a child's life holds a potential for education.
The motion is about funding.
Senator Kelly without interruption, please.
The motion is about education and funding for education, if education is defined in its broadest terms it is bringing out everybody's full potential. One is not confining oneself to the "nine to five" role of schooling. Education does not start at primary school or at four years of age; it starts from the moment a child is born. The role of parents in education is vastly underrated; we should examined their role. Anything we can do to improve the level of education of parents and the interest of parents in their children's education will lead to better educated children. At the moment money is available from EC sources for training programmes for adults particularly second chance education for mothers. If you educate the mother you go along way towards educating the children, and EC programmes, such as NOW, which assist women's groups go a long way towards helping children. Funding is also available for creches and play-groups in disadvantaged areas to ensure that some children will start with some of the necessary tools for advancing their formal education.
Many teachers — and I am sure Senator O'Toole is as aware of this as I am — complain that children come into school at four or five years of age unable to hold a pencil or open a book, hardly able to tie their laces or button their coats. Believe it or not, it is as important to a child's development to know these things before they go to school as to know their ABC or be able to count.
We do not blame the parents for that.
Acting Chairman
Senator O'Toole, you will have a chance to reply later.
If we take education in its broadest terms we should be looking at all aspects of education, and if that means pre-school education, then so be it. While we recognise that formal schooling does attempt to compensate for socio-economic underprivilige it cannot be seen as the only method of doing so. The burden of ensuring that change takes place in our society should not rest solely on the shoulders of teachers and educators. It is a burden that must be shared by all. Therefore, every opportunity and every source of funding, whether it is from the EC, the national lottery or the International Fund for Ireland should be used to tackle the problems of education in its broadest definition.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach seo. We all have fond memories of our national school days and our recollection of our first day there is clearer than our first day in secondary school or university. If current conditions prevail in national schools, many students will not have happy memories of those years. Regrettably, there are many problems for the 500,000 students in our national schools as well as for the 3,500 boards of management.
I am speaking here as a teacher and parent rather than a Senator. I strongly endorse this motion because it is obvious that we do not have sufficient resources for our national schools, and we need this money. It is a misnomer to say that we have a free education system because every day students need money for this and that. I fear that if the Green Paper on education becomes a White Paper on education and becomes law, school boards of management will become fund raising agencies. It would be sad if these boards had to knock on doors to get funds to bolster the primary sector.
The present pupil-teacher ratio is unacceptably high, and despite ongoing discussions, very few improvements are being implemented. Accordingly this is making work harder for teachers, particularly in city schools, and this is leading to many sick days, with teachers looking for early retirement and the burned out syndrome becoming the norm. In this area funding is a vital necessity. Funding is vital to provide remedial teachers; 2,000 national schools do not have remedial teachers. This is totally unacceptable in 1993. Finance and funding are also very important if we are to provide psychological services. This must be updated because the health board are doing a lot of the work of the Department of Education. We have clincial psychologists, not educational psychologist who are badly needed in many schools.
When it comes to in-service training teachers are given a day off now and then but to provide proper in-service training they should be given leave of absence for a month, or even a year, and money should be made available to pay substitute teachers.
There is no need for me to elaborate on the conditions of some of our national schools except to say it is sad that many children attend schools which are not adequately equipped. A school in County Galway — Kinvara national school — hit the headlines for the wrong reasons, as one of the worst buildings in the national school system.
Finance must be available to provide a proper school transport service. Many people living in the country with a house on a half acre site, have lost their jobs. This is becoming the norm in County Galway with the closure of factories and other businesses. Since these people are living long distances from schools and have to pay for school transport, they will become disadvantaged and will be the new poor of the national school system. I deplore the fact that national schools are being asked to buy a television licence and I hope the Minister will rescind this order.
It is important that Euro funding is provided for our secondary schools. We have EC money for the regional technical colleges, universities, VTOS courses and apprenticeship courses which are important. A comparison can be made between roads and education. We have money for national and secondary roads but not for county roads; national schools can be classified with county roads and they too, under-funded.
I like that.
I understand the Minister has an official in Brussels looking after education. If this is so, it is incumbent on that person to get funding for national schools.
The Irish Vocational Education Association's response to the Green Paper is one of the finest I have seen. Regarding the Constitution, it states on page 22:
Bunreacht na hÉireann enshrines important provisions concerning the right of the child to an education and the right of the parents as a primary educator of the child, in Article 42. It is incomprehensible that there is no legislation covering these schools or the rights of children and their parents.
Obviously, something drastic must be done to the primary school system in the near future.
I wish to share my time with Senator Fahey.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister to the Chamber and I wish her every success in her new portfolio. I have not prepared a script because I am going to speak from the heart this evening. I am a career guidance teacher by profession so I will concentrate on the lack of psychological services or input in primary and secondary education.
We are talking about education for a changing world and changes for the future. There is huge unemployment. I acknowledge there has been substantial increase in the 1993 budget for areas of education but money is short in the areas I know best. I refer to students who have major discipline problems, who have no support systems, who cannot find any psychological service when things go wrong.
Schools are working in isolation. There is no support for the parents. The school is the centre of the community and teachers are regarded as the key people when anything goes wrong in the community. We are talking about disadvantaged areas. There is no one to help those children who cannot be contained in the primary and second level schools and there are no places for them. The Minister should know there is no "Slot 2" for them. We have not given enough thought to what should be done with this type of student. We have to care for them. We have introduced the home-school links and there is a back-up service for children, with the school attendance officer and the junior liaison officer. This small support system, works quite well in some schools but in the area where I work, north of the Liffey, I have to move from one school to the other and create a link between the primary school and the second level school. There is a huge gap.
There is nobody to help the remedial student who moves from one area to another. When I test those young people I have no place to put them. I cannot take them in myself if they have a reading age below seven, because I do not have an educational programme designed for them. I look around for a place to put them and it is impossible to find a "Slot 2" for them. It is something I would like the Minister to look at carefully if we are to treat all our children equally in education.
We know education is the key to success and to the future for all young people. We also know it is the key for those receiving "second chance" education so that they can help their own children in their education. I am isolating to two points, the lack of psychological services in the primary school and second level schools, and the lack of guidance counselling in the second level schools.
It is a step forward that the Minister has increased the ratio of guidance counsellors to pupils by 0.25 of a teacher — but it makes no impact in the areas of huge unemployment where there are such problems that it is impossible for one guidance counsellor to deal with over 300 students in a second level school.
In a primary school, there is no service whatsoever. When one rings the Department of Education looking for psychological back-up it is not available and by the time it comes it is often too late. This concerns me. I am speaking about this area because I am at present trying to find a school for a student who has a reading age below six. The child cannot be coped with in my school and there is no other place around. Such children cannot be contained in the primary school because of the discipline problem and the background of the case. I know we are making strides; I am not knocking that, I am being devil's advocate here tonight. Disadvantaged students are being deprived of the necessary psychologically services and we have to look at that problem.
I welcome the Minister and her officials. I hope she has a successful period in the Department. I know she will be a good Minister. She would be a super Minister if she had enough money to do all the things that need to be done. It is ironic that my old adversary is on the opposite benches. Not so long ago I was here defending the indefensible so I can appreciate the difficulties of the Minister.
At least I am consistent.
While this is a worthwhile motion and much is being done, there is growing evidence that primary schools in the most severely deprived areas of our major cities are urgently in need of additional financial support to deal with the problems encountered by children in those schools. Unfortunately there is a significant gap in this country between the "haves" and the "have nots".
A primary school child from a deprived family where unemployment is hereditary, where poverty is a way of life and the home address will prejudice any chance of finding a job, needs specialised treatment during his or her formative years in primary education. I know from the good work I have seen in the Department that substantial efforts are made to provide such support but all the evidence points to a failure of society to provide an adequate response to the educational and economic needs in such cases. Therefore, a significant increase is needed in the amount of money spent on our education system for the most severely deprived and disadvantaged children. Such an increase in expenditure would provide a good return on the investment for the Government and that is what is important. Clearly, there is not enough money to be distributed. It is a question of determining where the State can get the best return on the investment. Preventative measures in primary education and in allied support services will not be expensive in comparison to the cost the State is now paying for the neglect of those children; the cost of crime, vandalism, drug abuse among a disaffected group of young people in our society runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. A more enlightened approach, involving the expenditure of sufficient resources on preventive measures in primary education in areas such as the inner city, Ballymun and Neilstown, is now urgently required to give those children a reasonable quality of life.
Having been responsible for youth affairs I believe that if you or I came from a place like Darndale, Ballymun or Neilstown and had to contend with the disadvantages those children have, we would have no chance of succeeding. It behoves this Government to look at these problems as its first priority and give those children the reasonable chance they are not getting.
I welcome the Minister. The more I listen to the Members on the Government side the more astonished I am that our motion has been amended. Speaker after speaker has talked about the disadvantaged areas and mentioned the great problems that exist. These will be close to the Minister's heart because from her own experience in dealing with this area she appreciates the seriousness of the situation. I thought our motion would have prompted her to write to Brussels saying that the university Senators had incited a revolt in the Seanad about pupils in disadvantaged areas and asking for money straightaway. I am astonished that this motion has been amended.
I know the Minister has provided additional staffing and capitation money for cleaning and maintenance etc. in some schools in disadvantaged areas. I gather there have also been small grants made for equipment. I am appalled, however, that so few remedial teachers have been provided — I thought they were about to be automatically appointed to disadvantaged schools.
I want to pick up on something Senator Fahey said. Having an address in a disadvantaged area can adversely affect a child. When talking about disadvantaged areas I always avoid mentioning specific places because of the stigma that will thereby attach to people, especially children, from those areas. In writing a reference for a teenager from a known disadvantaged area the main problem I have is trying to avoid using their address. It is astonishing that when one wants to help a 15 or 16 year old to get into some sort of employment or educational course one has to see if they have an aunt living in another area whose address will look better. The problem is as serious as that.
Senator Fahey was right when he said the gap is widening between the haves and the have nots and as Senator Kelly pointed out children are not disadvantaged simply because of the schools they attend but because society in their localities is disadvantaged as a whole. Schools cannot be told to solve all of the ills of children in disadvantaged areas; Senator Kelly is right on that point. However, the school can be the nucleus from which one can build out into the surrounding community.
When we put down the motion looking for money from the Structural Funds we did not intend to denigrate the Minister or her efforts in any way. The Government goes to Europe looking for headage payments for cattle and sheep. It should do the same and more for children from deprived areas. I cannot see why if there may be money available we should not try to get it.
I had thought something could be done concerning school-home liaison officers. School-home liaison officers could be funded by Structural Funds because Structural Funds, as I understand them are intended to aid the integration of the person into the community. Insufficient liaison between home and school may be a major reason for a young child's failure to integrate into the community.
Parents in deprived areas often need major social support. Could Structural Funds not be invested in social support schemes for parents? There are adult education schemes for mothers but these can be quite difficult to get into. The more resources we have for such schemes the better.
The small number of educational psychologists employed by the Department is unbelievable. I would have thought additional posts could be financed using Structural Funds. The thrust of our motion is the need for broad funding for primary education in deprived areas; there are no specific demands.
The empowerment of parents in their children's education is extremely important; the Constitution says they are the natural educators of the child. It is easy to cultivate this involvement in middle class areas where parents have enormous influence over what happens in schools. This is not the same everywhere. Great efforts have to be made in certain areas to encourage parental involvement in schools and more resources are needed to achieve this.
Senator Kelly also mentioned pre-school education; could some European moneys go towards pre-school education which requires an enormous amount of funding, very little of which is being provided by the State. Funding is needed most in socially deprived areas where, as the Senator said some children go to school unable to tie their shoes. The education system has to be flexible; the centre cannot impose structures but should examine what structure is best for each community. I had hoped Structural Funds would allow us to investigate which systems people consider best for their areas because people should be asked for their input into the education system. We should not simply impose what the Minister, I — or, indeed, Senator O'Toole — think best but try to draw suggestions from the community.
The Green Paper emphasised the importance of early schooling and that was also mentioned by many Senators. Children who have not learned to read by the age of seven or eight are likely to encounter serious problems at school. Senator Norris talked about intervention in New Zealand at an early age — between four and six. As Senator Ormonde could tell us, intervention begins much later in this country.
It is very important to realise that the disadvantaged primary school child will continue to make little or no progress. They will have few educational opportunities at second level and third level education is out of the question. That child will become an unemployed young person and, in turn, an unemployed young parent with a disadvantaged child who begins the cycle again. This vicious circle has to be broken and I had hoped the Structural Funds could have helped to do this.
I am sure the EC expects us to deal with school sanitation ourselves. It is appalling that we still have schools with outdoor lavatories and even without running water. Structural Funds could be used to build general purpose rooms which few schools have at present. We could also improve arts and crafts facilities in the education system if money could be obtained.
I am disappointed that this motion is going to be amended. I thought the Minister could use the excuse that she had a riot on her hands to request money from the EC at once.
I am sorry that the first words that greeted me here were "I am appalled". As a new Minister for Education I need the best wishes of all Senators. I hope at the end of my term of office after frequent visits to the Seanad that Senators will continue to have a sense of the huge task facing me and of the need for us all to row in together.
On this, my first visit to the House as Minister for Education, it is reassuring, as an ex-primary school teacher, that the motion before the House concerns primary education. It is appropriate that this is the first topic on which I address the House because primary education is the foundation on which the whole education system is built. The best results are obtained where the environment, the teaching, care and facilities available to pupils in primary school are of the highest quality. There is no suggestion in the amendment that primary education will be given a lower priority in educational spending, contrary to what the first speaker may have implied.
The issue of European funding will be decided in the context of the cohesion and Single European Acts. The European Commission has now adopted the implementary regulations within the context of those two Acts and now under the Maastricht Treaty proposals which have yet to be ratified by Denmark and the UK. However, that does not deter us from pursuing, with all possible vigour, the interests of education and training. When the Government decides its priority and finalises the national plan for post-1994. Senators will see that education will not lose out within the limit of the funds available and the eligibility criteria governing the operation of the Structural Funds. I assure Senators that I will promote the interests of the education sector, including the primary sector, at national and Community level in the course of the discussions.
I want to take the opportunity to outline the Government's commitment to primary education and to detail the substantial steps already taken in 1993, with particular reference to assisting the disadvantaged.
I am keenly aware of the great tradition of deeply felt concern and of professional and well informed interest of Senators in educational issues. I think this is the correct Chamber to have this debate.
The Government's comprehensive proposals for reform of the education system will be set out in a White Paper, which will be published by the end of 1993, and a new education Act will be published shortly thereafter. The main themes of reform will be more democracy, devoluton and openness, a genuine and meaningful role for partners in education, including parents and, in particular, a focussing of resources towards disadvantaged areas and groups.
Our commitments to primary education are forthright and unambiguous and include a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio to 22:1 by September 1996 — begun this year; the recruitment of 500 additional remedial teachers by September 1996 — begun this year; the expansion of the psychological service to cover the whole primary sector to ensure that every child with learning or behavioural difficulties has access to help at the earliest stage; the allocation of an increased amount in each of the next five years to implement a planned programme of replacing or refurbishing sub-standard school buildings — again begun this year; a major concentration on disadvantaged areas through increased capitation grants, free books and the replacement of sub-standard accommodation — more than begun this year; the development of a nationwide home-school liaison service — improvements in this year; and provision of a comprehensive in-service training programme for teachers — very much on my agenda.
A measure of the sincerity of our resolve to deliver on these commitments can be gauged from the progress we have made in implementing them within the first few week of this Government — within 80 days. The improvements made, which are substantial, are all the more laudable given that they were achieved against the background of severe economic and budgetary difficulties.
The extent of the Government's commitment to education is demonstrated by the fact that provision for gross spending on education has been increased by 8.7 per cent, three times the rate of inflation. The total gross provision for the four Education Votes is nearly £1,800 million, and increase of £150 million on the comparable gross outturn figure for 1992.
These figures are important in setting the financial context in which reforms and the funds that they entail must be sought and won. My main agenda in winning and obtaining funds is the targeting of disadvantaged pupils and schools. In this context I am especially pleased at the advances that will be possible under the budget in primary education.
Falling enrolments in national schools would on the basis of current staffing arrangements and the existing pupil-teacher ratio, have resulted in a reduction of 200 teaching posts in September 1993. As a first step in implementing the commitments in relation to improved staffing in primary schools, the Government has approved my proposal to retain these posts within the system. This will have the effect of reducing the pupil-teacher ratio to 24:1 from September 1993 from the current ratio of 25:1.
The 200 surplus posts will be redeployed over such areas as remedial education, schools in disadvantaged areas, home-school liaison projects, travellers and special education. This will allow for a significant improvement in the number of pupils and schools provided with remedial services, particularly in rural areas. Likewise, it will allow me to recognise additional schools as serving disadvantaged areas on the basis of criteria agreed with the partners in primary education.
I acknowledge that the level of the capitation grant has been a cause of dissatisfaction and concern to all interests in primary education, including management, teachers and parents. I am pleased that I was able to secure an increase of £3.4 million or 21 per cent in the overall provision for capitation grants for the current school year. This has enabled me to increase the basic capitation grant to £33 per pupil and to initiate further measures to assist those schools which are most disadvantged.
Provision for my Department's school book grant scheme for needy pupils in primary schools in both urban and rural areas is being increased by £200,000 or 14 per cent in the current school year.
I wish to turn now to address the sentiments conveyed in the motion proposed by Senator O'Toole. Nobody should be in any doubt about my commitment to resolving the problems facing the more disadvantaged sectors within the education sector. In particular, I hope to minimise and remove the barriers which have prevented young people in the disadvantaged socio-economic groups from realising their full potential.
I recognise that special intervention at the early stages of education makes a significant contribution to combating disadvantage and to breaking the cycle of educational deficiency. Equally, I am aware that research shows that the efficiency of such intervention declines with the age of the pupil due to the influence exerted by other social pressures. In formulating approaches to the solution of this problem, I will be seeking to maximise all possible sources of funding at national and EC level.
My approach to the finalisation of the education sector proposals for the next round of EC Structural Funds is conditioned by my conviction that the problems of the disadvantaged in our society must have a significant priority in the allocation of these funds. Accordingly, I am heartened by the outcome of the discussions which I had with EC Commissioners Pádraig Flynn and Bruce Millan during my recent visit to Brussels.
During those discussions, I outlined the central importance of education in promoting prosperity and equality. I took the opportunity of emphasising the major contribution which education will make to the achievement of the underlying Community objectives of social and economic cohesion, from social exclusion to promotion of high technology innovation.
In the discussions, I also sought to ensure that the Commission's overall approach in the preparation for the implementation of regulations for the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund would be sufficiently flexible to facilitate the partnership concept in the achievement of our national education priorities. I was particularly impressed by the view of both Commissioners that the new regulations governing the operation of the funds would be based on the approach that the funds should become more policy driven and less an automatic translation of eligibility criteria.
There was also a strong recognition of the need for flexibility in the operation of the funds, especially the European Social Fund, to enable them to address specific needs, potential and priorities in each member State. This flexibility would, of course, accord with the principle of subsidiarity which is now a major principle of EC policy. The House will, of course, recognise that the European Social Fund was established under Article 123 of the Treaty of Rome with the "task of rendering the employment of workers easier and increasing their geographical and occupational mobility within the Community". Accordingly, any EC flexibility in regard to early intervention measures to tackle disadvantage at primary level would probably have to be seen as having a direct effect on later performance in the labour market.
Senators will be aware that the Government has yet to make final decisions on its priorities for inclusion in the next Community Support Framework. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to deal in detail with the specific education measures which I hope to have included in the next Community Support Framework. However, I can say that I am concerned to ensure that we shall, within the limits of the available funds, examine how best to tackle social exclusion and more particularly the needs of young people who are socially or economically disadvantaged; to facilitate the development of the teaching profession to enable them to react to the challenges inherent in the evolution of the education and training system; to meet the development needs of second level education, particularly in the context of broadening the curriculum at senior cycle; to develop post-secondary vocational education and training and in this context to develop a comprehensive national certification system as provided for in the Programme for a Partnership Government; and to support the return to education of adults, particularly those in socially and economically disadvantaged circumstances.
The Senators who sought this debate have given me and the House an opportunity to acknowledge the critical importance of education and, particularly primary education, to the personal and economic development of our people. The Senators need not be apprehensive, as their motion might imply, about either our commitment to primary education and to seeking all possible sources of funding for the sector. Neither should they believe that we have been tardy in pursuing our objectives with vigour at EC level. The fact is that my Department is now the single largest beneficiary from ESF aid and I am satisfied that the steps taken by my officials and myself have ensured that the Commissioners and Commission officials are, and were, fully aware of our priority objectives when framing their new proposals for the regulations to govern the European Social and Regional Funds post-1993.
I have taken note of what Senators had to say, some without scripts, some from the heart and in particular, the reference to bullying. Comments were made about buildings, which I am told are all mine and about in-service training. This is particularly urgent, and I say that as someone who served her time in the teaching profession, as have many Senators. The question of the TV licence was brought to my attention and also the position of the school in Crumlin. That school was burned down as a result of vandalism, a problem that all too often makes the news. I met the parents last week and dealing with that school is on my agenda. I will speak to Senator Norris about that school.
The key overall objective for the next round of Structural Funds will be to seek support for activity which enhances the growth of the economy and promotes self-sustaining employment.
As Minister for Education I bring to my portfolio a passion and I will be seeking to maximise the resources available nationally and at EC level to support the Government's educational priorities. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that, for young people, the best return on investment is from education rather than on emergency measures at a later stage to deal with failures in the system.
Within this overall strategy a key aim of the education sector will be, consistent with the priorities in the Programme for a Partnership Government, to establish greater equity in education particularly for those who are economically or socially disadvantaged and to broaden the system to equip our young people more effectively for life, for work and for citizenship of Europe. Senator O'Toole in proposing the motion asked for a spark of critical courage. I can assure him that this Minister will show more than a spark.
I was going to use the word "passionately" when I started my speech and the Minister has just used it. I welcome the Minister to the House and wish her well.
Everybody who spoke on the debate tonight is passionately committed to the development of the best education system for this country, particularly at primary level, and to redressing social and economic imbalances in society. It has been proved in a variety of reports and investigations that action at primary level can do more to redress social and economic imbalance in our society than any other action. There have been many surveys, particularly by the Economic and Social Research Institute, by people like Tussing or David Rothman, or Patrick Clancy, on this issue. They have all conclusively proved that if something is not done for a person by the age of 11, nothing worthwhile may be done after that age. It is crucial to intervene at that stage.
I agree that primary level, pre-school and the home to which as Senator Kelly and Senator Henry referred — are the crucial stages in the education system; I am not saying the others are not important but this level is crucial. I have to take issue with Senator O'Toole because when proposing the motion he used the phrase, that we have "abandoned and deserted" children. They were the words he used, I wrote them down at the time. I went to school in the Irish system with many others and the definition of "abandoned and deserted" as I learned it in school is not represented by the action of the Minister since she came into the Department of Education, and she is less than 80 days in office.
Senator Norris referred to the need for an increase in the number of remedial teachers and implied that there has been no action in this area. There is a commitment in the budget to employing 80 new remedial teachers this year, and this has been referred to by other speakers. There are other commitments, such as 25 home-school liaison officers, the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio and the increase in the building programme, for which funding is provided. It is not fair to use terms like "abandoned and deserted" in that context. There is a real commitment to improving the primary education system in this country in the Programme for a Partnership Government and in this year's budget, and there is a commitment to continuing that in future years. I have to reject the language used in proposing the motion because it is not fair.
I would like to refer to the reason there is an amendment to the motion, the Minister dealt with it in her speech. We cannot ensure that we are going to get funding unless the structures are there. The Minister, went to Brussels and made the point that we need this funding. She said in her speech that she—
...sought to ensure that the Commission's overall approach... in implementing the regulations for the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund would be sufficiently flexible.
That is all she can do at this stage. Those regulations have yet to be put in force. In the amendment to the motion the term is "using all possible means". In my view, that covers adequately EC Funding. Every effort has been made taken at this stage to ensure that that funding is available and I am confident that funding will become available when the structures are in place.
I am conscious of the time and that other speakers wish to contribute. The Government has made a beginning to improve the position of the primary education system. It needs funding and a sizeable amount will be made available this year and in future years. What has been done shows real commitment. The Minister and the other members of the Government understand and are committed to the needs of primary education. I commend the amendment to the House.
I welcome the Minister and wish her well in her Department. The Minister referred to the fact that people said they were appalled an amendment had been tabled. I am not appalled although I was somewhat surprised the amendment had been put down. I am now totally bewildered as to why it was put down because the Minister, in reply, has indicated quite clearly she is prepared to go along the route charted by Senator O'Toole and his colleagues in their motion.
The Minister said Senators need not be apprehensive, as their motion might imply, about the commitments to primary education or to seeking all possible sources of funding. She said we should not believe she or the Government had been tardy in pursuing their objectives with vigour at EC level. This is precisely what the motion demands. The motion does not say that the Minister should see Commissioner Flynn and the other Commissioners responsible for this area and if she does not succeed that she will be held politically accountable. The motion seeks to ask the Government to try to seek funding. It is a reasonable motion and I do not understand the need for the amendment. Senator O'Toole's motion has not questioned the Government's commitment to education.
Several speakers said they were not reading from scripts. If they refer to Standing Orders or if the former Senator Murphy were here he would remind us that under Standing Orders we are not meant to read from scripts. It is no great virtue to be able to deliver a speech in this House without reading from a script; however, that is by way of an aside.
I do not understand the problem about accepting the motion. There has been a catalogue of improvement which the Minister has enunicated to us in her reply. I worry whether the Department of Finance is at work somewhere in this matter. Despite talk of subsidiarity and determining things from the bottom up, when an effort is made to do this the Department of Finance intervenes for fear others may in some way get their greedy little paws on money which they feel should properly be expended by them.
The Minister made reference to the matter of flexibility. I attended a conference in Galway last week and Commissioner Flynn also emphasised the word "flexibility" as if it were somehow discovered since the Government came into power. I remind the Minister that it says in a Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty which is a solemn declaration between the high contracting parties, "Nothing the desire for greater flexibility in the arrangements for allocation from the Structural Funds."
The word is used in the Treaty and, therefore, I say to the Minister that is quite appropriate to seek funding from Europe for the purposes defined in this motion. Building proper facilities for our children is part of our infrastructure.
Senator Kelly said that Structural and Cohesion Funds were for all people. I agree; if they are for all our people they must be particularly for our children to ensure that their future is secure. It is of no benefit to have a marvellous motorway from Cork to the port of Dublin so that our children may emigrate. That is why this matter is of such paramount importance and that is why I appeal to the Government to use whatever means are at its disposal to ensure all available funds are sought for this pressing and necessary investment.
Senator O'Toole referred to Article 126 in the Treaty which says:
The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.
There is also an article on culture which could be used for this purpose. I do not see a problem on seeking these funds from Europe. It is not a question of the begging bowl attitude; it is a question of seeking out our entitlement and claiming it.
I do not understand the differentiation between training and education. They are all part of the development of the child, of the personality and development the young adult. The cultural aspect and Irish schools could come under the aegis of these funds. Several Senators have raised questions about literacy, remedial teaching and the school structures themselves that is the buildings in which children have to be taught. There is a school close to my home and I would be ashamed to bring any Minister or child into it. It is not good enough, in this day and age, that children have to be educated in the conditions which exist at the moment. It is a tribute to the teachers who educate them that they can continue to do their work in such circumstances.
I appeal to the Minister to take up the matter with Brussels because, increasingly, it appears this is where the action is and to ensure that the money required for these badly needed investments which are part of our infrastructure will be used for these purposes and we will not have empty motorways built from Dublin to Cork to carry our people out of the country.
I wish to tell the Minister I am more than appalled, I feel outraged and deserted. I have rarely been as angry. People have talked about not having scripts. I have never come into a debate so ill-prepared. Literally, I did not put a note on paper because I could not concentrate on what I wanted to say. To say that I feel misled and let down is putting it mildly. There were two important words in this motion, "European" and "primary" and they are both being excised from it. I wanted to link those two areas.
I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. I do not doubt her commitment but I no longer believe she is putting proposals for specific commitments for primary education to Europe. If the Minister was going to do that she would have told us.
I am not interested in technicalities. I am aware of the position in relation to the Maastricht Treaty and the need for the UK and Denmark to ratify it. The person who briefed the Minister should consider the decision taken at the Edinburgh summit to enable the implementation of the Structural Funds on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty. Decisions are being taken now for the implementation of the Structural Funds which will take place under the auspices of the new treaty. That is a reality. I fully recognise the unusual situation which exists. It was for this reason that even if we were working under the previous treaty or Structural Funds I would still be able to point out to the Minister things which were done in Portugal and other places which we have failed to do.
This motion is not a condemnation of the Minister's Department. It will be a long time — and I say this to the new people on the other side of the House — before anybody will come to Private Members' Time with a motion seeking to support and supplement the action of a Minister. If this motion is interpreted by the far side of the House as criticism, I feel I have wasted much time trying to find consensus on the motion. People criticised my use of the word "abandoned". I say to Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Kelly to take a trip around their own area and on the way from New-castlewest take the road to Dromcolliher and drive out to Tullylease and have a look at the athletics track there. Then they should go up to the school and talk to the parents in that little village and ask them what they want. One could go to Kilavullen the subject of the Adjournment Matter tonight — and ask those parents how they feel. They can produce a letter from the Department of Education stating that the Minister has put aside £100,000 to build their school and another letter from the current Minister stating that the money is gone or was never there. That is why they feel abandoned and that was the word they used yesterday outside the school gate. This is where the commitment comes from. If people want to know what it feels like to be abandoned they should talk to the people running the Gaelscoil in South Hill. Here one finds a prefabricated shack which is called a school. The parents there want money to built a proper school.
Does the Senator want it all fixed?
These people feel left out.
If Senator Kelly speaks to parents in Newcastle West she will find that for nine months last year they paid a teacher who could not be sanctioned by the Department of Education. Senator Kelly might ask the principal of the school in Rathkeale, who has nine classrooms of travellers, what support she needs. These schools are all in the Senator's constituency. I could describe similar cases around the country without any script; everyone of them is burnt into my heart by the commitment of these people. It is a straightforward position.
Senator O'Toole is not the reservoir of all concern.
I do not blame the recently appointed Ministers for the problems of primary education nor do I hold the current Minister for Education responsible.
The Senator has done so.
I have put forward a motion supplementing and supporting the Programme for a Partnership Government and the action of the Minister and that was not good enough.
It was not in your speech.
I have seen no commitment to go to Brussels to put forward proposals on behalf of primary education and I seek a commitment from the Department of Finance in this matter. That is why I feel let down. There is a problem with what the Minister said about seeking support through the Funds. I did not mention Structural Funds; I spoke about European funding. Do I need to give a lesson on how this works? European funding is used to fund a variety of programmes and Structural Funds are a part of that. The commitment on Article 126, read out by a number of Senators during this debate, is implementable outside the provision of Structural Fund and the Social Funds. It is part of the implementation of the Treaty and there has been no response. That is the reason for the sense of abandonment.
I put forward a point of view here which I formed following earlier discussions with the Minister when I sought to create a partnership with her to support her efforts. I find it incredible that this line was taken. There has been a breach of logic between the moving of the amendment and points made by the Minister and by Members on the opposite side of the House. They do not gel together. There is a missing link which I cannot figure out yet but time will tell. It is clear from the European perspective how this movement should take place and that is not happening here.
The Minister has lost an opportunity to say to the partners in primary education that she will strive to obtain funding for an area of education that has been described as the most hard pressed. If this fails at least we will have failed together and there will be a sense of community, rather than needless dissension and divided commitment. What is the point in putting forward constructive motions if something as innocuous as this causes a problem for Government? Where do we move from here? It is easy to put the Minister down and to blame the Department for the problems in primary education. I do not know the value of a constructive approach to such matters after tonight's performance.
I apologise to the Minister for not welcoming her to the House at the beginning of my speech. I am the victim of a good upbringing which I have been fighting against all my life.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Crowley, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Seán.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators O'Toole and Henry.
Amendment declared carried.
Question, "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to" put and declared carried.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 April.