Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Apr 1975

Vol. 279 No. 10

Private Members' Business. - Secondary Schools Capitation Grants: Motion.

Mr. Wilson

I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to provide without delay adequate capitation grants and grants in lieu of fees for voluntary secondary schools.

The present position is that the capitation grants are as follows: for junior pupils, maximum £19per capita, reducing on a scale to £13 if the pupil has not full attendance, and for a senior pupil £24 reducing, again on a scale, to £15 if the pupil has not a fixed number of attendances, the number being fixed by the Department of Education. The grant in lieu of fees, which the House will remember was initiated when Donogh O'Malley introduced his new scheme for free secondary education now stands at £35. What we are calling on Dáil Éireann to do is to ask the Government to raise these grants to a realistic level.

Last Tuesday the Taoiseach, in a reply to me, said that £25 in 1975 would buy the same quantum of goods and services as did £11.38 in 1967. According to that scale the grant in lieu of fees should be now almost £55. That is what we are calling on the Government to pay as a grant in lieu of fees. In 1967 the capitation grants for junior and senior pupils. repectively, were £14 and £19. As I said at the outset, they are now £19 for junior and £24 for senior pupils at the maximum. Using the same criterion they should be now £32 and £42 at the maxima respectively.

It might be said that the consumer price index, upon which the Taoiseach's answer was based, was not particularly geared to school costs. But I would submit that, due to what I can call only a savage increase in the price of heating and lighting for schools, to the galloping increase in social welfare charges— and the schools responsibility in this regard is greater than it ever was— due also to various factors, some of which I shall deal with later, the demand for part-time teachers is greater than ever before. Bank interest is at a prohibitive rate, even if special concessions are granted, and they are not always given. Also at present schools are charged with repaying bank loans, apart altogether from the interest. Therefore, a strong case could be made that the consumer price index gives a flattering picture and does not tell how severely school finances have been affected by inflation since 1967.

Another aspect of the financing of secondary schools, which is a pernicious one and one which the Minister might consider changing, is that grants are based on last year's pupils and are expected to pay this year's bills. This may have been not quite so harmful when, for example, the number of admissions to secondary schools was stable, roughly equal from year to year, but since Donogh O'Malley's plan, this has changed radically and increased numbers come into the schools year after year. Consequently the schools are in a very awkward position. It is not impossible to pay the grants on the existing numbers but, needless to say, the system would require a good many changes. Other countries can do it and I do not see why we cannot. Other education committees that deal with more pupil populations than the whole of this country can manage to pay on the current number of pupils rather than on those of the preceding year.

The second factor which makes this a source of great hardship for the schools, of course, is the one I mentioned already—inflation. When money was not getting out of hand, when inflationary tendencies were not as they are today, it was not quite so harmful to school financing. Since inflation has taken this whole country by the ear, it is a serious factor in the financing of the schools. I am asking the Minister to remove this aggravating factor, if at all possible, when he is raising both the capitation grant and the grants in lieu of fees.

There is—and this House knows it —considerable alarm about the finances of secondary schools. Members of this House have been getting letters and documents. They have been summoned to attend meetings. The parlous position of the schools has been outlined to them in the media. I am not so sure that the campaign started in time but the idea is getting through now. When you hear school managers, who were basically conservative, talking about withdrawal of labour or closing down, it is time the Minister wakened up and it is time that he faced whoever is responsible for the lack of response in so far as school finance is concerned.

The President of the INTO said that the Government were regarding education as a soft area in which it was easy to make economies. It has been said in reply to that that the action of the Government, who are responsible to this House, was simply what the people wanted because no politician would do what he feared would lose support and votes for him. Anyone who is in any way attuned to public opinion cannot possibly hold that that is so. The people are crying out for extra finance in the fields mentioned by me for secondary education and it is the duty of the Government to provide it for them. I repudiate that statement. Those who are reading public opinions are reading it improperly if they are reading it as being indifferent to school financing. I understand that the Minister stood over that statement.

Mr. R. Burke

I will reply.

Mr. Wilson

A very important office holder in the association whose conference the Minister was attending assured me that the Minister stood over the statement made by this official at a conference in Cork. Was any social survey carried out? What kind of dipping into public opinion was done in order to ascertain this lack of interest on the part of the people in the financing of secondary schools? I contend that no such survey was carried out and that this, from a man who has spent his life in education, was a pardonably cynical remark, perhaps, meant to stir up people to their responsibility and to indicate to the people responsible that secondary education should be adequately financed.

This House must highlight the concern of the people in this regard by passing this motion calling on the Government to increase adequately the grants in lieu of fees and the capitation grant. This House must live up to its responsibility to the people to let the Government know they are concerned and that people are joining organisations and attending committee meetings in order to let the Government know of their concern.

As I said, basically conservative managerial organisations are coming into the public forum to talk on this matter. They are talking about bankruptcy. They are talking about the danger of schools closing down. The people are getting the message if the mail I am getting and the demands to attend meetings are any indication of what the people want. We are calling on the Minister to come into this House and do the just thing by the secondary schools by way of a supplementary estimate. I know he is as convinced as I am that they need this money and all he needs is the will and the strength to extract it from the Government and give it to the people who deserve it and are in sore need of it.

One of the most disturbing things about this whole business at present is the shirking of responsibility, what I called already a kind of ping-pong morality on the part of the Government. The Department of Education are blaming the Department of Finance and the Department of Finance are ponging the ball back to the Department of Education and, in the meantime, the schools are waiting for their finances and not getting them. This is a despicable mode of procedure.

The question of the serious situation in secondary schools came up at a meeting of Monaghan County Council recently when a proposal was put to the council that rates on secondary schools should be abolished. As reported in the Anglo-Celt of 11th April, 1975, Deputy Toal said a national compaign was going on about secondary school finances and the Minister was fully aware of the situation and was bringing all pressure to bear on the Government. Are the Government resisting that pressure? Is there any sign of the Government yielding to that pressure?

Surely the Government have enough confidence in the Minister for Education to respect his judgment when he asks them for adequate grants in lieu of fees and capitation grants. Why are they not supplying the money? Why are they not delivering the goods? Is the Minister not able to carry his colleagues with him? Obviously, so far as delivering the money to the schools is concerned he is not. Wherever the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education want to place the blame, I place it fairly and squarely on the man who is charged with responsibility for looking after education, the Minister for Education. It is his duty to convince the Government—and they should not need convincing—of the importance of education and the importance of these schools in our community and, having convinced them, to extract from them the necessary grants.

The statement in Cork and the Minister's statement on school management in Galway were diversionary tactics to take people's minds away from the need for adequate finance for secondary schools. Indeed, the production of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill like a "myxo" rabbit out of a Christie hat during the week may have been part of the same exercise to take people's minds off the real crisis at the moment which is in our secondary schools.

I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that the salaries of secondary school teachers are paid from the capitation grant. Since 1924 when the grant was introduced this was understood to be part of the function of the fund. Would the managerial bodies say at the moment that, with the school salaries as they are now, all the capitation grant is taken up by salaries? The original intention behind the capitation grant was that the school salary would be only half of what it had to finance.

The Minister must be weak in his approach in this matter. This very week a ukase has gone out from the Department of the Public Service which will hit the school funds again; funds that cannot bear their existing burden will have another burden laid on top of them. No new appointments in secondary schools. What is the school to do which has already contracted to take in 60 or 70 and, in one case not far from the city of Dublin, 150 new pupils this year? There is no money in the capitation grant fund to pay teachers fully. The Department of the Public Service says no new teachers are to be employed. So I understand. This has not been denied. In 1974-75 X teachers; in 1975-76 X teachers. This is how the story runs.

The Minister will have to adopt a serious approach to the Minister for Finance and make up his mind what he will do. Since the 1939-45 was most of the work in education was dedicated to the principle of equality of opportunity. That was the case in Europe and outside it. That principle is in retreat here at the moment. I submit it is in retreat because of the weakness of the Minister in confrontation with the Minister for Finance. There are suggestions that parents will be called upon to contribute. This House should repudiate that approach. Parents should not be called upon to pull the Minister's chestnuts out of the fire by forking out money to the schools. If this is the evolution, then it is the thin end of the wedge and the principle of equality of opportunity will be riven asunder. This should add a final edge to the Minister's sword. There is a principle at stake and if the Minister allows that principle to go, then the underprivileged will suffer again because what will be available to them in education will be a great deal less than their entitlement. Not only will the children of the poorer sections suffer but so also will the children of the selfish. This is something I came up against in my teaching career; if parents feel they have to pay, they will not allow their children to continue in education.

What approaches have been made? The managerial bodies, whose responsibility it is to run the schools, have not been as good, perhaps, as they might have been in telling the people what exactly they have been doing. In September, 1973, an application was made by the joint managerial body for an increase in capitation grant. No luck. No response. On 30th April, 1974, the CMCSS appealed for an increase in capitation and grants in lieu of fees. No result. In May, 1974, the Minister for Education was asked for an early decision. He gave none, unless one regards doing nothing as giving a decision. The two education commissions, with interests in the managerial bodies, employed an accountant to do a scientific assessment of secondary school costs. September, 1974, dawned with no increase granted in the capitation grant; £5per capita were added to the grant in lieu of fees. A case was presented again in November, 1974. Incidentally, at some of these meetings both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education were present. On 10th January, 1975, people called on the Minister for Education or on the Department for an answer to the request made by the previous deputation. No increase in capitation grant and no increase in the grant in lieu of fees.

All this was going on without the public knowing. Perhaps the public thought the managerial bodies were coming in rather late when they should have been agitating for some time. Their approach was to present a reasoned and scientifically constructed case to the Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance in the hope that results I would follow. Obviously, nothing worthwhile followed and, as a result, the managers have had to take the people into their confidence, tell them about their troubles and ask them to get in touch with public representatives to do something about the serious position in which they find themselves. I might add here that the remote areas grant and the island grants also need to be updated, although they are not specifically mentioned in the motion.

Some people seem to like indulging in the barren exercise of creating antagonism between the various post-primary schools. Nothing comes of this. All schools should be realistically financed—the community school, the comprehensive school and the secondary school. Many vocational committees are in debt. Community schools need more money. Comprehensives need more money. A fortiori, the secondary schools need more money.

There is another pressure on the capitation grant fund for which the Minister must assume responsibility. Certain schools had set up remedial teaching, which is absolutely essential nowadays with the varied intake into schools. Through a change in regulations the Minister has in certain circumstances left schools without remedial teachers. In certain circumstances they will have to be absorbed into the joint staff of the school.

It was the greatest effrontery for the Minister for Education to go to the ASTI conference and express an interest in remedial teaching. What must the schools do now? If they want remedial teachers, they will have to pay the full salary out of a fund which does not exist because there will be no money in that fund for the various purposes it was intended to cover. We must remember that the figures I have given are not figures which, if granted, would show any great improvement in the funding of these schools. They are merely figures that would help the schools to keep pace with increases in the cost of living, with the inflationary crisis. They would at least provide decent libraries in these schools.

I asked the Minister a question some time ago about library grants. It is not a wild claim to ask for a £55 grant because that would not be an improvement—it would be just keeping pace. We are asking for an increase in the capitation grants to £32 and £42 maxima respectively. I am convinced that the Minister for Education is as convinced as I am of this need. He will have to deal with the problem in his own way. Perhaps he can jolly the Cabinet along in some way, by putting his arm on Justin's shoulders or around Conor's neck.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Is the Deputy suggesting he should choke him?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must refer properly to Ministers.

Mr. Wilson

Perhaps the Minister's personality is not that way inclined, but one cannot sit on Mount Olympus and achieve anything except a frozen rump. One must come down and tackle the problem in one's own way. The Minister for Education will be remembered not for the elegance of his diction or his jeu d'esprit, not for keeping a rickity Coalition together, but for allowing his Department to be under-financed—not through his yielding to imaginary higher priorities because he, above all, must know there is no higher priority than education.

No Government should be allowed to survive on another man's wound, least of all if that man is the Minister for Education. However, it is not the wound of the Minister for Education alone but of the pupils, the young men who will be facing the next century inadequately equipped. I am suggesting to the Minister that he should beard the Minister for Finance in his den and get money for this social priority, a priority as big as the social welfare area. This is his plain duty, unvarnished and I am calling on him to fulfil that duty.

I have long contended that in the field of education the best value for money has been received by the State. I have chosen my words deliberately. There were many gross inadequacies but relative to the money spent, education has served the country marvellously. With that knowledge and belief and conviction, the Minister for Education must now establish his right to the Department of Finance : he must walk into the Department of Finance for his money; he must be prepared to throw his portfolio at them rather than let them away with this criminal proceeding of under financing education. If the hand is in every man's pocket let what every man pays be placed where the need is greatest. The Minister has spoken of his dedication to the maintenance of the morale of this sector of education. I believe he was genuine in what he said, but there is no greater way to establish the morale of his Department than to stand up to the Department of Finance and extract the money necessary for that Department to do their duty.

Dr. O'Connell

I am glad of the opportunity to give my views on this subject, which warrants consideration at this time. Most of us will be aware of the public agitation for these increases. The parents and teachers and religious bodies who run the schools have found it necessary to take action to ensure that something is done because there is a great danger of schools closing down. If that were to happen we would be in a very serious position.

The religious bodies have found themselves overtaken by inflation and are heavily in debt and they have felt themselves justified in explaining to parents the financial situation in which their schools have been placed. When the scheme was introduced in 1967, I believe the Minister for Education, the late Donogh O'Malley, although it was his courageous step that introduced free education, did not realise the demands that would be made on the service. It was a rather shortsighted thing on the part of the then Government not to have made provision for the obvious increasing demands. There has been a massive increase in the number of students but meanwhile nothing substantial has been done to provide for increases in costs.

I will explain the difficulties as I see them, and I thank St. John's College in Ballyfermot for information on this. In 1969 the capitation grant was £22 and it is still £22, although the cost of living index which was 100 in 1967 was 180 in 1974. If the capitation grant had been increased accordingly it would now be £39.60 instead of £22. It is important to remember that the basic salary paid by the schools to the teachers increased in 1969 and the capitation grants received by the schools has been spent on paying the basic salary.

Fianna Fáil are not in a position to denounce the Government—I am speaking objectively—because they are not without blame. In 1967 the grant in lieu of fees was £25 and this was increased in 1971 by Fianna Fáil to £30. This was a 20 per cent increase but the cost of living had increased by 46 per cent. It is not just Fianna Fáil or the Government who are to blame; all of us are at fault because we have not given education the number one priority it deserves. Investment in education is a sound investment and every child has a fundamental right to it. We are bottom of the league in the EEC countries in the proportion of the gross national product we devote to education, and all of us must accept blame.

As money is not available from capitation grants to pay for heating and lighting these costs are now to be paid out of grants in lieu of fees. This is an important point and it explains the difficulties of many schools. There is also the matter of the weekly social insurance payments of £3 per teacher, which amount to £156 per year. For example, in a school of 27 teachers this will be an extra burden of £4,200 and it explains in part why the schools are in such difficulty. There is the question of the additional substitutes who must be employed because of a deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio and there is also the question of the rate for part-time teachers which has increased significantly. In addition, schools have to bear the burden of rates and the greatest burden of all is the cost of heating and lighting. All these factors have contributed to the dreadful situation in schools today.

The Department of Education have suffered badly vis-à-vis the other Departments in getting their rightful share. Some figures I have here will explain what has happened. In a comparison with the Department of Health I found the Department of Education fared very badly. In comparison with the figure for 1970-71, there has been an increase of 150 per cent but the Department of Health had an increase of 296.64 per cent and the Department of Social Welfare had a 144 percentage increase. The Department of Education have not got their rightful share of the cake and, even though I am a doctor, I must point out they have fared very badly vis-à-vis the Department of Health. Education is of prime importance but it appears we are not prepared to give it sufficient resources. I realise we are in a difficult situation. The economy is not as sound as we would wish and we are facing hard times. However, the Government have an obligation to provide money for education, and if they do not do so a number of schools may close.

We have taken for granted religious teaching in our schools; in fact, we have almost thrown the whole burden on the shoulders of the religious orders. That may have been all right when the economy was relatively stable and when inflation was not so high. The religious orders were able to manage and did not come crying to the legislators for help. They managed and were very quiet about it and we must also pay tribute to them for this. We must also pay tribute to them for the years they have given to the education of the children. I am glad to say I am a product of their work. They gave me completely free education and I would not have got beyond primary school were it not for the religious orders. I would not be a doctor today were it not for their help. Therefore, I feel justified in paying tribute to them. We have an obligation to tell them that they may continue their good work but that we will make sure we pay them to keep the schools open. They do not want the money for themselves; it is all in the interests of education.

I differ with the religious orders on many points. For instance, I do not agree with them on the management of schools; but I understand they accept the principle of sharing management with parents and this is very desirable. Education is changing rapidly and they are more than meeting this change. I had cause to say otherwise on occasions but, having regard to the way they are relieving the Government and the country of such a burden in providing education, I feel obliged to pay tribute to them. If we were to substitute something else for them, I do not think we would have a properly organised system.

I should like to refer to two schools which are in difficulties. One school is Caritas College, Ballyfermot, where the income is £13,000 and the outgoings more than £29,000—the deficit is nearly £17,000. I am sure all Members will agree with me that the college will be bankrupt in a few years if they continue at this rate. When I got the figures for another school in my area I was astounded. I am referring to St. Dominick's secondary school, which will not be able to continue for very long at the present rate. We have an obligation to help them and at the very least to ensure that the grants keep pace with inflation. I am making a special plea to the Government and the Minister for Finance to give the Minister for Education the money that is needed. Even if it means we must have a supplementary budget we should provide the money that is necessary. People must realise that the provision of education costs money. As I said last night, it will not be manna from heaven, the public must provide it. They must be told exactly what it is for——

Mr. Cunningham

The Government have introduced four budgets.

Dr. O'Connell

Even if another budget is needed we should provide the money. It is vital that the Minister for Education be given the necessary resources.

Mr. Faulkner

Had the Minister intervened after the principal speaker it would have helped the discussion quite considerably. Because I have to speak before him, I should like to refer to the usual public relations act in one of the Sunday papers, where it was said it was understood that the amount of money to be made available would be £1,500,000, which would be approximately £10 extra per child. I want to say in advance that if that is what the Minister is going to propose, it is not nearly enough and that it is not sufficient for him to point to the amount being spent by the Coalition on education as compared with what was spent by Fianna Fáil unless he relates that to the shocking inflation which we are experiencing now.

As can be seen clearly from the goal set and the accomplishment education was a top priority with Fianna Fáil Governments. We recognised that education was the great equaliser, that it was through education that the underprivileged in our society could be raised to an equal status with the remainder of society and that it was through education that we could fulfil our constitutional obligation to cherish all the children of the nation equally. Those in need in our society can be, and have been helped by all Governments in various other ways but, to a considerable extent, these ways are only a stopgap and simply endeavour to ensure that such people living in such circumstances have the wherewithal to keep going. But the fruits of education ensure that they have the opportunity to break out of the bonds that bind them. The motivation which education inspires assists them to take their rightful place in society.

In my view, every child has the right to have his aptitudes and abilities developed to their full potential. It was because of this basic philosophy that Fianna Fáil, during the late fifties and the sixties laid the groundwork which resulted in the introduction of the free, post-primary education scheme in 1967. It was because of this philosophy that this development continued while Fianna Fáil were in office.

The cost of the free education scheme, and the free transport scheme which was a necessary corollary to it was known to the Government at the time they took the decision. This matter was carefully considered and the Government realised that it would take a very considerable amount of money to operate the scheme. Money, never very plentiful, was scarce then but Fianna Fáil recognised that this nation could not afford to adopt a parsimonious attitude when dealing with its most valuable asset, our children. We proceeded with the free post-primary education scheme and added to it grants for third level education.

The scheme was an exceptional success from the outset. From a situation where a very limited number of children passed from primary to post-primary schools we had a change to where the vast majority of our young people continued their education in post-primary schools and a very considerably increased number of them passed into third level education either at university level or on the technological side.

So great was that change that when I raised the school leaving age from 14 to 15 I discovered that the extra number of pupils to be catered for was relatively small because by that time a big majority of the children between 14 and 15 had already passed into post-primary schools. We had, therefore, reached a situation where young boys and girls were achieving heights undreamed of by their parents; social barriers were being broken down and equality was evolving in the only way in which it can really evolve—through an educational system open to all. Much more remained to be done before we reached the goal of providing equality of educational opportunity for all our children but a firm foundation had been laid and excellent progress made.

Of necessity, that trend continued for some time after the Coalition had come into office but now that trend is reversed. I cannot pretend that I am really surprised at the change of emphasis, at the failure of the Coalition to accept education as a priority. The never-to-be-forgotten television debate on education in which the late Donogh O'Malley and the then Fine Gael spokesman on education took part, in which Donogh O'Malley charged the Fine Gael Party with having no interest in education and with having issued a policy document in which the word "education" was never used—this underlined the attitude of that party to educational development. Today we see the Fine Gael Party reverting to type by refusing to make sufficient funds available for education in general and particularly in the secondary schools.

This latter development has resulted in the introduction of fees in some form or other and under whatever guise it will ultimately deny the right of the poorer section of the community to a proper education. This is a calamity not only for the children but also for the nation. The principle that each child whether he is the most brilliant student in the university or a mentally handicapped child has the right to have whatever talents God gave him fully developed is one which the people of this country should jealously guard. The day on which it is no longer accepted is the day on which we return to the old, elitist system which we in Fianna Fáil had hoped was buried forever. I very much fear we are now backtracking. When the free education scheme was introduced secondary schools were requested to join it and after considerable discussion and negotiation, particularly in relation to grants in lieu of fees, the vast majority of these schools entered the scheme and free post-primary education was made available to all who wished to avail of it, which meant the vast majority of our young people.

The secondary school authorities rightly expected that the Government would ensure that they were financed to the extent necessary to ensure the proper running of their schools. During our term of office we had many discussions with the authorities concerned and grants were increased when the necessity arose.

I do not pretend that the secondary school authorities were always satisfied with the financial aid granted to them but nothing ever arose which even remotely approached the present very serious situation. From what I can remember of the discussions, apart from the time when we did increase the grants during my term of office, most of the discussions related to the financing of what we might call peripheral matters. When I compare this situation with the chronic money shortage which now has many schools on the verge of bankruptcy, I have no doubt that the school authorities who thought they had problems then would be very glad if the good old days were back.

Again let me refer to the fact, as I did in a previous speech, that the principle of collective responsibility has been jettisoned by the present Government. This is very serious; it is fundamental to our democratic way of life. We have known that it was jettisoned for quite some time, particularly in relation to the vote on a particular Bill. The new Coalition philosophy seems to be: take no responsibility and blame whomsoever you can. In pursuance of this policy we had the spectacle of the Minister for Education going on the "Late Late Show" to explain how anxious he was to develop education but that the big, bad wolf, the Minister for Finance, would not give him the money and it was hoped that the people, having listened to the Minister, would convince the Minister for Finance that he should open the purse strings and make the money available. In my view, this whole farce was an abysmal abdication of responsibility on the part of the Minister for Education.

Mr. Cunningham

Hear, hear.

Mr. Faulkner

He is the Minister responsible for education and it is his responsibility to fight for the necessary funds for education, not in an entertainment programme on Telefís Éireann but at the Cabinet table.

Mr. Cunningham

Or resign.

Mr. Faulkner

It is his duty to convince all his colleagues—not just the Minister for Finance—by force of argument that more money should be made available for one of the most important Government services. But it is obvious that instead of fighting the cause of the youth of this country, he acquiesced in the spending of moneys on more popular, vote-catching, short-term projects.

As Deputy Wilson mentioned, this was borne out by certain statements made recently. I am convinced that the stunting which went on between the various Ministers was a put up job to confuse the public and convince them that the Minister for Education, who would normally be available to them, was the "goodie", and the Minister for Finance, whom they could not as a rule reach, was the "baddie". In this way hopefully the pressure would be taken off the Minister for Education, and possibly the Government. I can assure the Minister that the people are concerned only with ensuring that their schools are properly maintained and their children's education is uninterrupted. They have little time for the type of playacting we have seen over the last while.

On the 25th July, 1974, in Volume 274, column 2293 of the Official Report, the Minister for Education said:

It has become traditional to pay tribute to the extent of the voluntary aid to education in Ireland, particularly at second level, but it is now being borne in upon us as never before how much of a hard fact of economic life we would have to face without that aid. I, for one, will do my utmost to retain that aid and to preserve as far as possible the morale of those who mainly provide it.

Now we must take note of the remarkable manner in which the Minister proposes to preserve the morale of those mainly providing that aid, that is, the voluntary secondary schools. In accordance with the philosophy of the Coalition, this can best be done by permitting them to go to the verge of bankruptcy.

Deputy Wilson has already dealt with capitation grants. Grants in lieu of fees stood at a total of £47 in 1967. Today, 1975, the total stands at £57. I will not go into the details of the cost of living because we all know how much it has risen over the past few years. Indeed, it could be said that not one week passes without an enormous increase in the cost of living. On this basis, the total fees would need to be increased to about £90. That would mean that the schools would be able merely to continue but it would not help them very much more than that.

The Government are responsible— as was pointed out by Deputy O'Connell—for much of the extra expense which schools are now incurring. For example, social insurance payments were forced on them a few years ago and they have been increased considerably this year. Extra substitutes must be employed because of the deteriorating pupil-teacher ratio. Part-time teachers' costs have been increased to £2.40 per hour and the schools must meet the total cost of part-time teachers. Rates have increased very considerably, and of course, the cost of heating and lighting has more than doubled. Therefore, the voluntary secondary schools and their pupils are in a very serious predicament.

The schools are faced with a number of options, if they are unable to obtain sufficient State aid. They can opt out of the free education scheme and charge fees. They can close down for a month to save money. They can close down altogether or remain in the scheme in the hope that they will get finance from some other source. The first option would mean the end of the free post-primary scheme because we would be back to a fee paying situation with the resultant loss to the vast majority of the young people who could no longer get post-primary education because of lack of means. The second option would have very serious consequences for those doing examinations. To close down altogether would have the same effect as the changing back to the fee paying system. More than likely the Minister and his Department would be forced to take over these schools and run them at greater expense than at present. The fourth option would mean continuing in the scheme but obtaining money from the parents. In the short term this is the one which the voluntary schools and the parents might be most likely to choose. In my view, this is the most dangerous and insidious of the choices because it means a return to the fee paying situation by a subterfuge, with the concealed blessing of the Minister. I object strongly to this procedure. I have no doubt that where parents decide to subscribe voluntarily, they will do so, firstly through loyalty to a school which has served their interests very well over the years and, secondly, because it directly affects their children's future. Even if the subscription were to cause severe hardship, they would struggle to pay it. Of course, human nature being what it is, we all know that many people who agree to pay will drop off, eventually. This will mean that the schools will be worse off than ever. I want to underline the fact that I am not blaming the schools. They are in this shocking situation because the money was not made available by the Department and the Government.

In my view, the principle is entirely wrong. Our children are entitled to education, whatever their parents' financial circumstances. Fianna Fáil committed the State to providing free post-primary education. We are determined that this Government, which seems to be a mixture of pseudo-socialism and rank conservatism will not be permitted to wreck the future of the poorer sector of this community. Once the fee paying system is reintroduced, no matter what the circumstances, the many who might benefit under the present system, but who could not afford an education otherwise, will be left out in the cold, and we will return to the old middle class elitist set-up which we hoped was gone forever.

While I was Minister for Education, if any school in the free scheme asked parents to voluntarily subscribe to school funds for any purpose, I was immediately deluged with Dáil questions and protests by the Labour Party, particularly their then spokesman for Education, aided and abetted by the so-called liberal faction of the Fine Gael Party. It is remarkable that not one of them has even squeaked about the present situation where schools are forced, through lack of State funds, to appeal for voluntary subscriptions. The only conclusion I can come to is that a couple of years in office appears to be sufficient to turn rip-roaring socialists into meek and mild conservatives.

When we were in office we reminded the schools that they could not remain in this scheme if they collected money directly from parents. Now that these once vocal Deputies are in power and one would assume that they are in a position to influence Government policy they have disappeared from the educational scene. The only excuse that could conceivably be made for them is that they, like the rest of the people of this country, do not know what the Government educational policy is. I cannot understand why they should have been so concerned about this matter when we were in office but today they do not show the least interest in the situation. I have often wondered if there is another reason.

Many of the voluntary schools are run by the religious. Would it be true to say that the object of certain Ministers and Deputies is to force the religious out of education? I do not include the Minister for Education in this. His statements tend to show him as erring in the other direction. Unfortunately for the future of Irish education, the recent discussions on third level proposals show that we have not any one person who has the power or responsibility to take basic decisions on education. We all know that the proposals on third level education which emanated from the Minister's office, were brushed aside by a triumvirate in the Cabinet. I do not have any reason to believe that these people have not their fingers in the present pie.

It is no secret that when I was Minister for Education I did not always see eye to eye with the religious nor, indeed, they with me. I want now to put on record, as I did previously, that I have a very great respect not only for the exceptional work the religious have done in the educational field in the past but also for what they are doing in education today and what I have no doubt they will contribute with equal dedication in the future. I wonder if the same can be said for all the members of the present Cabinet.

Again referring to the public relations act in which it was said that the Minister might chide Fianna Fáil with wanting to create community schools in lieu of other schools, I want to point this out: anybody who reads my speeches will see that I said on many occasions that what I was concerned about was comprehensive education and that comprehensive education could be provided in secondary schools, vocational schools, comprehensive schools or community schools, provided the schools were large enough to make available the wide variety of courses necessary to develop the aptitudes and abilities of all the pupils.

I now want to refer to a specific case. It is the Christian Brothers secondary school in Dundalk, where I had the good fortune to get my own education. The total income which this school will receive this year is £20,000, all of it from the Department of Education. The expenditure is as follows:

Salaries payable by the schools	£12,200
Social Welfare Insurance	£2,600
Rates	£2,000
Insurance	£1,000
Light, power and heat	£2,000
Books, stationery, phone, postage	£1,000
General maintenance equipment and so forth	£5,000
Extra curricula activities, games, debates and so forth	£1,000
TOTAL	£26,800

The total income is £20,000, which leaves a deficit of £6,800 and to this has to be added the bank interest on the debt incurred when the new secondary school was built. This amounts to £7,000, leaving a total deficit of £13,800 for this year. The Christian Brothers in Dundalk, when faced with bankruptcy because of this intolerable burden, decided it was impossible for them in the circumstances to carry on. The parents' committee were advised of the situation and to say they were shocked would be to put it mildly.

The parents' committee called a meeting for all the parents of the pupils attending the school to explain the position to them and to point out what the alternatives were. The parents decided on their own volition they would contribute voluntarily £10 each for the first year pupils, £20 each for second year pupils and £30 each for third year or higher pupils with the maximum of £30 per household. That is why I am telling the Minister that if his offer is £10 per pupil it is completely inadequate.

Those parents agreed on this course of action unanimously out of respect for a very great school and in the interests of their children. It is completely at variance with the free post primary education scheme that these parents should have to pay the money. The extra cost in this school and in the other voluntary secondary schools should be a general charge payable from State funds. We have the Government over the past few months pretending, through their many taxation proposals, that they are spreading the tax load. In this instance they are conniving at the narrowing of the taxation base where the load is being forced on to the parents, many of whom are unable to pay. They feel, however, that their children's education is at stake and, also, because of their attachment to a school which has served Dundalk well for over a century, that whatever the sacrifice they must find the money.

The whole free post-primary scheme is at a crossroads and the public should be made fully aware of what is happening. The Minister claims he cannot get the money from the Minister for Finance. He has conveyed this information to the schools and to the public. The pressure is now on the schools and on the parents of the children in these schools to get the money elsewhere. The only alternative source of revenue, as I pointed out, is from the parents' pockets. The parents are now beginning to pay out in a situation which they hope will only be a temporary one. Of course, the facts are and, the Minister well knows, that when the Government succeed in establishing a second source of revenue they will continue it. We have had many instances of temporary taxes being introduced but very few of them were ever repealed.

I am afraid the old élite system, which discriminated to such a degree against the disadvantaged in our community, is on its way back, let me add, under an administration in which the Labour Party play a big role. The fulminations of the Labour Party and of pseudo-Liberals of the Fine Gael Party when in Opposition against what they like to term the conservatism of the Fianna Fáil education policy is now seen for what I always knew it to be. On this side of the House we are determined to ensure that the free education scheme is not tampered with and also to ensure that the child in the disadvantaged family will have, as of right, the opportunity to have his God-given talents developed to the full.

I would like to point out that the introduction of the free education scheme did very much more, in my estimation, than simply help to pay for the poor boy or girl through the post-primary system. I think it will be agreed that in many of our towns, due to the very low fees which were charged in Christian Brothers Schools and other schools run by religious, we had what was tantamount to being in so far as those towns were concerned, free education. I feel the introduction of the free education scheme by the late Donogh O'Malley created a climate which showed those who never had the opportunity of post-primary education or who never thought of it for themselves, that education was a very desirable thing, that it was there for their children as well as the children of the rich and middle classes, that it was theirs as of right. I must compliment the people of the country for the manner which they grasped the opportunity which Donogh O'Malley gave them.

Our schools are now full of young people coming from all walks of life and the rung on which a child enters society because of parentage is no longer the criterion as to whether or not he progresses in life afterwards. Fianna Fáil worked hard and long over many years and we overcame very many obstacles to reach the present position. There is undoubtedly very much more to be done before our system is as nearly perfect as it is possible to make it in this imperfect world. To see the whole scheme in danger of collapsing—I must say it has already gone into reverse—is a source of very considerable sorrow to me and I have no doubt to the members of my party who have been responsible for doing so much in the field of post primary education over the years.

It is only by clearly identifying the present Coalition moves and their effect and by presenting the real facts to the public that disaster can be averted. The public must take a hand and demand that the necessary finance is made available and ensure that the necessary education facilities be made available to all the children of the nation. I hope when the Minister is replying he will not waste the time of the House by simply quoting the amount spent at the present time on education and comparing it with what was spent during our time, because that is not relevant. We know we are passing through a highly inflationary situation, much of which is caused by the Government, and to endeavour to even compare these figures would necessitate discussing the various increases which have taken place over the past two years. As Deputy Wilson pointed out, it is not even sufficient simply to refer to the cost of living index, although it is one aspect we could concern ourselves with, but there are so many other factors involved as well.

It is absolutely vital, if we are to ensure that the underprivileged get a chance, that sufficient money be made available immediately.

When free education and free transport were introduced in the early sixties I did not think that was the beginning and the end of it and that we had solved the problem. I recognised when I was Minister there was very much more to do and that we had to make the facilities available to the underprivileged in such a way they could avail themselves of the opportunities provided.

Mr. O'Brien

I am glad to participate in this debate because it is a very serious one. When we hear talk of secondary and voluntary schools being in trouble, I believe Deputies have an obligation to ensure that the necessary finance is available. This can only be done by voting for it in the House. In the budget the Opposition voted against the tax that the Government levied on cigarettes and drink. They are opposing progressive tax legislation here, and they were talking about gimmickry.

Mr. Cunningham

They were going to redistribute wealth. Why not redistribute education?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Brien is in possession.

Mr. O'Brien

The Deputy was not interrupted.

Mr. Cunningham

I am sorry. I will not do it again.

Mr. O'Brien

When moneys were required for housing and other important welfare items they were opposed by the Opposition. If we want to raise further taxation for education they oppose it? They talk about free education and free transport. There is nothing free. It is all paid for, and this is why tax reform is needed, to make a greater spread so as to ensure that the load is borne evenly throughout society.

Reference has been made to reverting to the élitist system of education. I believe we never left it, that it is still with us. If the figures for third level education and universities are checked, it will be found which strata of society these people come from and whether we are in that élitist situation. Again in regard to primary education, we have raised the school leaving age, but we have not structured that side of education to meet that situation. That has not been adverted to by the people who were talking about élitism, because the people who suffer most under that system are the less well off in our society who are, unfortunately, the least vocal.

However, getting back to the voluntary schools, great credit is due to the religious in our society for their dedicated work over the years. Deputy Faulkner made the innuendo that these schools might be deliberately run down to push them out of business. That is ludicrous. Because of their dedication and the opportunity they have given to people to further their education, there is no such thought. Our concern would be to examine the situation, and, if these schools have problems, to look at them and ensure that any necessary finances are given to them. Such moneys would have to be voted through this House. I am not the Minister for Finance and I cannot say whether, if moneys are to be made available, where they will come from. It does not grow on trees and a supplementary estimate may be needed. That means additional taxation. If additional taxation is required, I would hope that the Opposition would welcome this. If they did not, they would be less than honest in debating this motion.

The Opposition, in their contribution here tonight, have highlighted the seriousness of the situation, but it is not as serious as they make it out to be. Nobody will deny that there are problems due to the inflationary situation, and even the additional money given has been eaten up by inflation. The Opposition have a responsibility here as well. If we neglect education, we neglect our future. In the competitive world in which we live today and because of our role in Europe, we must ensure that our educational system is structured to equip our people to compete with our counterparts in Europe.

I look forward to the Minister's reply because obviously he is much more aware of the problem than I am. I can speak only as a family man who has children going to school and who gets reports back that there are problems and that there is need for the injection of additional funds into the voluntary secondary educational system. However, we should not fall into the trap of sectionalising education, talking about third level, secondary, comprehensive and primary education. Education enables us to feed our minds so that we can be better people and better citizens. The Minister should look at education from the primary school upwards so that there is no discrimination in any part of the system. I know the Minister is concerned about this, but it is important that he ensures that no section would be left underprivileged. Those involved in third level education, for instance, have a very vocal lobby but we must not fall into any trap. I am glad that parents are becoming more interested in the question of the education of their children.

Debate adjourned.