Permission has been given to Deputy Gay Mitchell to raise on the Adjournment the question of the designation of certain inner city areas in respect of financial provision for educational matters. I know I can appeal to Deputy Mitchell to conclude by 5.20, in about 15 minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Inner City Education.
The reason I have asked to raise this matter on the Adjournment is that a Private Notice Question of mine to the Minister for Education was disallowed. That question was to ask the Minister for Education if he would make a statement on reports that officials from his Department have informed Dublin inner city school principals that Dublin inner city has been defined by his Department for special treatment purposes as being in general the north inner city east of O'Connell Street. Secondly, given the redefinition of that special designated inner city area, has £200,000 additional funding been provided for these specific schools to be used before Christmas, 1982? In view of the general question of discrimination which arises will the Minister make an urgent statement on the matter, particularly in view of the horror and concern expressed by a widely representative group of Dublin inner city school principals? Unfortunately, that question was ruled out of order and I felt it necessary to move that this be raised on the Adjournment here today.
The background is that meetings of principals from inner city schools north and south of the Liffey have taken place. These principals are gravely concerned about the lack of finance and the difficulties facing the schools, which have, in fairness, been building up over a long period. Their meetings have included meetings with Dáil Deputies from all sides of the House. I understand that they met the Minister for Education and that they had a meeting with officials from the Minister's Department last Friday when they were told to their astonishment that this special treatment was to be given to a specially designated area on the north side of Dublin, east of O'Connell Street largely, although I understand that there were a few minor exceptions.
I am raising this matter because, as a Deputy who represents the south side of Dublin, both inner and outer, I am concerned about these discriminatory steps that have been indicated to this group of principals. Many schools and principals in the area I represent are as badly in need and their needs have not been given the same critical examination as those in the north inner city, especially part of the north inner city approximating to a section of Deputy Gregory's Dáil constituency. I feel concerned that education, of all things, should become the political football that the present Government seem to want to indicate it can become for the purpose of trying to buy a few more months of survival in this House as Government, because we all know that is about as long as you have left. You have no more by-elections, no more tricks to pull——
The Deputy must not use the second person.
——no more counter-strokes. I will address my remarks to the Chair. In future I hope that the Government will not be pulling the strokes they have been pulling and instead will get on with proper, legitimate governing of the country.
There are many deprived areas on the south side of the city, leaving aside the outer city which in many cases has problems of its own. If the Minister were to take a tour around, say, St. Teresa's Gardens, Fatima Mansions, Bridgefoot Street flats, Oliver Bond flats, Thomas Court or certain sections on the south side which I represent he would find there communities who are very deprived educationally as well as economically. I am sure that my two colleagues for the constituency, Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Fitzpatrick, who are members of the Fianna Fáil Party, would argue — if they got the opportunity — that they would not accept the Minister's handling of this situation in allowing this to happen where a section of this city can be given special educational priority on no basis other than the fact that the Government need to buy a vote for a few more months' survival. It is an absolute disgrace and nobody knows better than the Minister for Education that it is a disgrace. Many regional areas need special attention. There are many areas where the Government are depending on the support of Deputies. If people in those regions knew about the special treatment being given to Deputy Gregory's constituency, because the Government need to buy his support for a few more months, they too would be trying to get on to this new educational gravy train. It is an absolute disgrace. Education cannot be provided on the basis of political favouritism. This would not have happened in the worst days of British occupation or under any sort of colonial administration but it is now happening under a native administration. It is difficult to believe and it is a disgusting practice.
I wish to refer to a report in The Irish Times of Wednesday, 10 March 1982, which gives details of the document agreed by Deputies Haughey and Gregory. A number of areas of agreement are outlined in this witnessed document and there are specific promises in relation to education which discriminate in favour of north inner city areas and against other equally deprived areas.
My objection is not to the north inner city getting special treatment. Indeed, there is probably a good case for this, but there is an equally good case for parts of the south city or for other parts of the north city or other regions. There was no critical examination of these proposals, nor was there an examination of other educational needs. It was purely a political stroke. We have seen other political strokes, particularly when Deputy Haughey has held office as Taoiseach, but this must be the lowest stroke of all time. If special treatment is to be given, let it be given to all those in need and not only to those in certain sections of this city.
Under the heading "Primary Education"The Irish Times states:
From this decision to declare the north inner city an educational priority area Fianna Fáil will provide the primary schools in the north inner city with:
— An improved pupil-teacher ratio, of the order of 1 teacher to every 25 pupils.
— Increased number of remedial teachers on the basis of one per national school or per 200 pupils, whichever is the lesser, and improved remedial facilities.
Only the north inner city area is mentioned. These decisions were not reached as a result of an examination by the Minister's staff or research carried out by his Department. This was a private agreement between two Deputies to buy a vote and the consequence is that this is being forced through the Department of Education without any proper examination.
The report goes on to state:
It is our intention to declare the Dublin north inner city an educational priority area. This will enable positive discrimination to be exercised in favour of a socially deprived area, and special measures taken by suspending normal Department of Education rules.
The normal rules of the Department of Education have been suspended to facilitate the vote of one Deputy and what the document calls `positive discrimination' is actually discrimination against many people who are equally in need. I have no objection to people in the north inner city receiving special treatment but I want equality of treatment of all our citizens, particularly those who are blatantly in need on the south side of the city.
The document names schools in Eccles Street, North Great George's Street, Dominick Street and the Sisters' of Charity School in Gardiner Street. It states that these schools, if they obtained the necessary extra facilities, could concentrate on serving the northern inner city population rather than a wider catchment area. Here again priority is being given to this area without any proper examination having been carried out.
The document also states:
We accept that Seville Place represents an exceptional situation and that a special effort will be made both at pre-school and primary level. Resources will be provided for a pilot pre-school and the primary school will be reorganised along the lines of the Rutland Street Scheme with special provision made for slow learners.
If the Minister accepts that Seville Place is an exceptional case, will he not also accept that there are many schools on the south side, in Donore Avenue and elsewhere, which also represent special cases? Why is equal treatment not being given to these people? Why are people in the north inner city being more favourably treated than people elsewhere?
There is mention also of a community school for Lower Gardiner Street at a cost of £3 million. I could go on quoting from this document but I have already used up much of my time.
The Deputy has another four minutes. He need not finish until 5.20 p.m.
I did not start until almost 5.05 p.m.
The Chair indicated to the Deputy that because of his acceding to the requests of other speakers in connection with the Estimates we were three-and-half minutes late in beginning the Adjournment Debate.
We will not argue about it. If I might continue——
Would the Deputy kindly give way to the Chair? If the Deputy is insisting on getting 20 minutes, he will get it; but he will appreciate that he will not have any cause to complain if the Minister has not time to give an adequate reply.
I intend taking my 20 minutes. I do not think there is any reply, despite the Chair's intervention. I do not care who tries to protect the Government or the Minister for Education; the indictment is there. The rules of the Department have been suspended because of political, not educational, need.
On 11 March 1982, the day after the publication of this document, I stated that I would take legal advice on the constitutionality of the agreement between the two Deputies and its consequences. I am informed that the document is unconstitutional, particularly in relation to the educational promises contained in it. I understand that it is not constitutional for the proper rules to be suspended and for discrimination to be made in favour of any section of the community, whether in Dublin or outside it. The Minister is obliged to follow normal procedures and practice and constitutionally cannot discriminate in favour of some of our children and against others. This is what has happened. I am advised that there is a very good chance that the section of this agreement which attempts to discriminate in favour of one area of the inner city is most likely unconstitutional.
The Minister is probably getting into a situation about which he knows nothing. The Minister for Agriculture in the course of the recent by-election campaign made announcements about all sorts of schools which the Minister for Education did not know about. It is quite likely that the Taoiseach has directed the staff in his absence and, knowing the Minister for Education, I doubt if he has done anything but acquiesce. The matter has been taken out of his hands completely. Nevertheless, he is the Minister responsible and we may have to go after him in a very special way if these plans are carried forward in the discriminatory manner proposed, according to information supplied to principals of inner city schools.
I express my horror at these proposals. This is outrageous and probably one of the great scandals of political life in recent times. Certainly it would not have happened in the time of Donogh O'Malley because he would have been too strong for the Taoiseach and would have told him where to go. I am wondering why the Minister for Education has not the gumption to tell the Taoiseach the same thing — treat all our children with the same respect and give them all the same opportunities. If they have needs let us treat their needs on merit, not according to political gimmickry.
This is an outrageous, unchristian act and it will get strong opposition from this side of the House. I appeal to the Minister to stand up to the Taoiseach because sooner or later he will no longer be in office. The rest of his so-called friends will desert him, leaving only those who, like the Members of the Third Reich under Hitler, will ask afterwards, "What have I done?" I appeal to the Minister to stand up to the Taoiseach, to tell him he will not preside over what is happening.
The Minister knows that this is outrageous discrimination. He should give an undertaking that other deprived areas will get the same status and be given the same funds as were spent before Christmas. I understand £500 per school can be spent without having to refer to the Department, where the school merely sends in an invoice and the Department pay the balance. Even at this hour I ask the Minister to declare that he will scrap the ruling and that he will give all people in deprived areas the same opportunities. We do not want to make a strong issue about this. We do not want to have to pursue the Minister for Education. However, if the Minister will not do what we ask him in this case, we have no option but to seek his resignation. It may be that we will have to put the matter to a vote in this House.
I am calling on the Minister to do the reasonable thing and to give the same opportunities to people in deprived areas. I ask him to cut out the nonsense and the gimmickry that has gone on in all spheres of government. I ask him to stand up to the Taoiseach and to accept the responsibilities of his office.
I welcome the opportunity to clarify some of the matters raised by the Deputy. Obviously I will be able to give only very short replies because of the limited time at my disposal.
Deputy Mitchell placed a certain emphasis on the constitutionality of the matter and he suggested he had had some legal advice. The Deputy would need to have that clarified. In particular, he would need to clarify some of his own thinking on the matter. On a number of occasions he said he wanted equality of treatment for all citizens but on other occasions he appeared to accept the notion of what is usually referred to as positive discrimination in favour of specified disadvantaged groups. He said he would accept comparable treatment to that suggested for one area if it were accorded to some other areas in the Dublin area. The Deputy mentioned also the possibility of other urban centres requiring the same type of treatment.
On the constitutionality aspect, there is a considerable amount of discrimination for or against particular groups depending on how one views the matter. Obviously discrimination for one group can be implied as discrimination against another group. That exists whether on religious, geographic or income grounds. There are a number of heads under which positive discrimination is deliberately exercised as a matter of policy in our educational system, not to provide equality of treatment in the sense of doing the same for each child irrespective of circumstances but rather trying to correct some imbalances in the opportunities open to children from different backgrounds. If the Deputy wishes to raise the issue of the constitutionality of discriminatory actions, it is a matter on which I would like some clarification. Perhaps it might be more appropriate if there were some informal discussions rather than plunging straight into an issue that, if it were to come forward in the form suggested by the Deputy, would have serious implications for the whole conduct of our general educational system, not just for the inner city areas.
With regard to the inner city and the question of discrimination for a particular area, I would point out to the Deputy— he referred at one stage to the fact that I knew little or nothing about the area— that I was involved in considerable work in the educational area starting 20 years ago. In 1968 I had the privilege of being associated with what was the first scheme for positive discrimination at the primary education level.
I said the Minister knew nothing about the decision.
A particular area was chosen for what became known as the Rutland Street Project—incidentally, it happens to be in the area to which the Deputy referred. If I applied the Deputy's language to it I would say that the normal rules of the Department of Education were suspended for the purposes of the operation. To the best of my knowledge it went on for 14 years, with the support and blessing of many people not only in education but also in other spheres of community life.
The concept introduced at that time is the one that is now sought to be applied to a number of other areas where it is felt that a combination of social, economic and other factors give rise to significant disadvantage in the education of young people. That is the context in which the question of spending additional funds on education in these areas has arisen. With previous ministerial responsibility I was the Minister who established what became known as the inner City Committee. The report of that committee is the document on which much of this discussion is based.
Will the Minister publish the document?
Among other things, that report sought to give some definition to the inner city area which was broadly defined as being the area between the canals. Then it became a question of seeking to define within that geographical area the particular characteristics relevant for exercising positive discrimination whether under the heading of education, employment, housing and so on. The subject matter of the question and the Deputy's remarks are bound up with matters that did not originate on 9 March 1982. The Deputy read out quotations from The Irish Times but they are in no way inconsistent with the more general policy of positive discrimination in favour of disadvantaged groups.
The Deputy asked if I would make a statement on reports that officials from my Department informed inner city schools of a redefinition. That has not been done. As the Deputy pointed out, I met all the principals and had a long discussion with them. I should have thought if there was to be any question of delivering a definition that it would be more appropriate for the Minister to do so. I did not hear the Deputy suggest I had given any such definition.
I suggested the Minister knew nothing about it.
I am not aware of any official pronouncement of any kind from my Department which carries any such definition. My understanding is that the meeting to which the Deputy referred, and which is the basis for the rather strong language and the wild accusations that have been thrown around, is that it was a meeting to which some officials from my Department had been invited, not for the purpose of defining or redefining the inner city area but simply of exploring some of the priorities and problems faced by schools in the inner city district.
Does the Minister deny it?
The fact that there were principals and teachers from schools other than from the particular area to which the Deputy referred carries the presumption that they were thinking and considering those other areas.
Does the Minister deny it?
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 June 1982.