Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 May 1995

Vol. 453 No. 5

White Paper on Education: Statements (Resumed).

I am delighted to participate in this debate. Like other Members I received two copies of the White Paper, one a pre-production copy which was a modest document and the other a heavy, glossier document. I compliment the Department of Education on its presentation and on the wonderful justice done to the Minister in the magnificent picture on the foreword. In that regard she is only trotting after her colleague, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

The White Paper is the outcome of one of the lengthiest and most comprehensive processes of consultation ever undertaken and by that I do not mean the lengthy process in which either the present or previous Minister was involved. Many of the matters contained in it go back to 1984 and I am not sure they were original then. There have been proposals for local education councils or boards since 1984 when the former Deputy Hussey was Minister for Education.

The White Paper covers a wide range of issues. I welcome the statement of objectives for educational policy set out by the Minister — the promotion of equality, pluralism, partnership, quality and accountability and the protection and promotion of fundamental human and civil rights, together with the promotion of social and economic wellbeing. That is what she calls the philosophical rationale of the document. While these are laudable objectives and I would not dare enter into a debate of substance on them, I have a different concern.

If the policies contained in it are followed, the White Paper will shape education policy for many years. It would be absolutely wrong to undertake a major recasting of our educational structure if we were not determined that the new structure to be put in place would be durable. However, given my background I am surprised there is very little in the White Paper or in the Minister's comments on it, about the resources which will be used. In introducing the White Paper on 4 May the Minister dealt with the treatment of resourcing and while this is interesting and instructive — I do not find it at all surprising for reasons which I will come to in a moment — it does not get us anywhere. I strongly urge the Government to get more clarity on the question of resources before it goes any further with the process, which includes a number of Bills.

Reading the comments of the Minister on 4 May I was reminded of the last minute in the twelfth round of a professional heavyweight fight. The Department of Education in the White Paper has launched a ferocious assault on the Department of Finance —"the Government will aim to provide during its period in office the resources for the development needs identified in the White Paper". However, this haymaker of a punch is blocked by the Department of Finance which replies with a left hook —"within the framework of the budgetary parameters set out in the Government of Renewal Policy Document". It then delivers a right cross, "including the acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty convergence conditions" and follows this up with a body blow "the amount which can be made available in any given year will have to be decided by the Government in the context of its financial position and its other public expenditure priorities at that time".

That looks like the end of the match so far as the Department of Education is concerned but it makes a counterattack by referring to the needs of education and the principle informing the approach to funding, which we are told implies prioritisation on those with greatest need, diversified provision to meet varying abilities and aptitudes and that provision for education must take account of the nation's overall resources. The Department of Finance is not without resources and makes a counterattack, "this latter dimension embraces the priority needs of other social services, for example, the health and social welfare services and the budgetary and fiscal parameters underpinning the management of the public finances, including Ireland's international commitments, specifically (and this is the final body blow) its commitment to the Maastricht Treaty convergence conditions".

What are we to make of all that? I know what goes on there having sat in on innumerable arguments of that kind where the Department of Finance, which is trying to retain some control of the future course of expenditure, is countering all the arguments other Departments bring up. When it cannot convince one by referring to what it is doing today, it puts it in a wide context and says this is important socially or politically or it puts it in an even wider context and says we cannot be the only people in the world who do not do this. This type of toing and froing and punch and counter punch is clearly set out in the Minister's speech.

At the end of that exchange the two participants are absolutely exhausted; they are in a clinch and there is no clear winner. All we have is blood on the canvass and sweat all around the place and nobody knows what the outcome will be. We then find there is a rematch and there is another short sharp bout. The Minister for Education comes back and puts the whole process of education policy into the context of wider economic and social planning by saying "This integral linkage of education into economic planning processes builds upon authoritative reports in recent years from national and international bodies, for example, the National Economic and Social Council and the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It also reflects the central place afforded to education in successive national understandings with the social partners". That is a very shrewd shaft indeed, it is telling the Department of Finance it is unaware of the wider important context of the argument and it is just being bloody-minded by refusing to give carte blanche or an open cheque for this whole process.

The Department of Finance then comes back with a very crafty counterattack and says "Though it may not always have been recognised, the debate on the allocation of resources to education is at the centre of the debate on economic policy. In short, in the context of funding of education the White Paper establishes the importance of investment in education rather than seeing education simply as a social service expenditure". That looks fine and eyes light up in the Department of Education because they think they have made their point. However, then comes the killer blow, "Accordingly, the White Paper establishes key benchmarks for the continuous evaluation of investment in education by the Government in the context of the annual consideration of the priorities for public expenditure". We are back again to stalemate and are still none the wiser about what will be done to put all these principles into effect.

This is not what a White Paper should do; it should not leave us in a state of total uncertainty about what will be done. Unfortunately, this White Paper does this because it contains no projections for the future and no plan, however aspirational, on how the principles enunciated or the practices recommended will be given effect. It does not say what this means in terms of education or investment and it does not set out the kind of investment, the period or the balance between the different sectors of education. All we are told — I understand this is subject to confirmation — is that the implementation of all the proposals set out in the White Paper would involve the expenditure of some £1.2 billion over the coming decade. We are not told how much of that is current expenditure or capital. Neither is there any breakdown by sector — we are not told how much of that will be for primary, second level or third level education, special education or education for people with special needs. Other Deputies may have heard more about this than I have, all I have heard is that it has a price tag, not officially confirmed, of approximately £1.2 billion over the next decade. That seems to be a lot of money and in all conscience it is.

The four Estimates for 1995 that are principally involved in education — the Office of the Minister for Education, first level education, second level and further education and third level education — come to just short of £1.9 billion. If the proposals in this document cost £1.2 billion over the next decade I assume that is £1.2 billion in current money terms. If that were spread evenly over the next ten years it would be an increase of 6.3 per cent per annum in educational expenditure in addition to whatever else is involved in maintaining the current level of services or the current provision. It may be that a case can be made for spending money in that way. It may be that I am wrong to assume it would be evenly spread. Some of it could be front loaded, some of it could be back loaded. If that kind of expenditure is the realistic ballpark figure for what is involved we are talking about a further increase of a very substantial amount in annual expenditure on education and it begs several questions.

If we agree to spend, over the next decade, £1.2 billion more on education than we would otherwise spend, are the measures set out in the White Paper the best way of doing it? If we find that over the next decade we can spend £1.2 billion more than we would otherwise, would we necessarily come to the conclusion that we would spend it all on education? Are there other ways in which we could use it to the greater benefit of the national community, to people with disadvantages, to people who suffer some of the handicaps of not having access to the kind of education we would wish for them, rather than putting it into the measures contained in the White Paper? I do not know and it is very difficult to judge that because we are not given any breakdown in this document of where the different expenditure items would fall or what the result of it would be.

On page 24 of the White Paper there is a shortish section dealing with the provision to be made and the means of making provision for students with special needs. I do not find anything there to which I can take exception. In fact, I would support it. Like many other Members I frequently meet people parents, managers of schools and people in voluntary organisations who are up against the problem of dealing with the educational needs of children with disadvantages of various kinds. While it is easy to say we should make better provision for them — I am happy to say the provision is improving year by year — I do not think they ever get the kind of consideration they should get. I am sure other Deputies will agree that the tendency is to look year by year at what more we can do for the education of children with disadvantages of various kinds to see whether we can fit in some other little bit of progress in the context of what is available that year. It is looked at on a kind of incremental basis and year by year we add in a little here and a little there and gradually we will make some improvement.

I had hoped the White Paper would have reset the context and would have looked at the total provision. I am thinking principally of primary level, but of primary and second level education in total, and that we would have looked at the total context of education at those two levels, the way we make educational provision for children with disadvantages, to decide whether a reordering of the priorities and the resources in those two parts of education — and particularly at primary level — would not give us a more equitable, compassionate and efficient result in terms of the achievement of our objectives in education, bearing in mind the special needs of some groups in our population. That does not seem to me to be what is proposed in this White Paper. I have read it very closely and I cannot find any real indication of that kind of reordering. If that is not involved in this White Paper then I think an opportunity has been lost which the Minister should seek to regain when she comes back to us with the measures which are required to put this White Paper, or so much of it as will require legislation, into practice.

I come to the question of investment. I have no information on how much of this £1.2 billion extra cost would comprise capital investment. I find it difficult to envisage any major improvement or reshaping of our educational system over the next decade that would not involve some substantial amount of capital investment, perhaps not in buildings where on the whole quantitatively we are reasonably well supplied although not qualitatively. If we are serious about some of what is contained in the White Paper we will require investment in equipment in our schools and in third level education. There is no specification here.

In page 37 of the document an item entitled "Framework for Funding" deals with primary level. All the tables stop at 1995 and do not say anything about future years. On page 40 under the heading "Investment in Primary Education" there is a warm picture of a teacher with four young primary school children and three paragraphs of text. The sharpest thing I can find in the text is the following:

The provision of adequate resources for primary education will continue to be a priority. National and international research indicates that primary education is fundamentally important in determining children's life chances.

I do not think the Government has been well served by whoever put that draft together. Quite honestly if I were asked to produce a statement about education I would be ashamed to produce that. It seems to be so banal as not to need repeating: "that primary education is fundamentally important in determining children's life chances". I believe that and it is so much part of my being that I have a hobby horse about education which does not appear in this White Paper because it is probably not the popular or politically correct way to think about education. I honestly cannot see that we will have additional expenditure of £1.2 billion available over the next decade on top of what is already built in, in terms of expenditure growth in education. I suspect the Government did not see that that is available because if so it would have said it.

From what I know about education and from what I hear as a Member and from meeting people constantly I come to fairly simple conclusions. As with all simple conclusions they are capable of attack and outrage on all sides but there is a virtue in them. If we believe what the White Paper says about the importance of primary education — which I believe firmly — surely it would be valid for us to ask whether we should take the following approach. Since there is going to be a limitation on our resources and since we want to get an efficient result, should we not decide that for a period of years any extra resources we can put together for education should be devoted exclusively to the improvement of primary education, without which we will not get educational, social, spiritual, morale or economic value for money out of second and third level education?

Should we not say that whatever period it takes, three or five years, that will be our period for getting things as right as we can in primary education and that we will follow that up by doing the same thing for second level education in our second period and then go on to third level education? Unless we do that, not only will we do an injustice to a great many people, we will also frustrate part of our action at primary school level.

Other Members will have had a similar experience to mine quite a number of years ago when I was amazed to be told by the principal of a vocational school in my constituency that one third of the pupils entering it for the first time were unable to read or write, although they had been through the primary school system. He told me that his school was perhaps not typical of all second level schools but that it was certainly typical of the entry classes to vocational schools in areas with a similar population mix. That indicates a major failure or deficiency in our primary education system. There is not much point in spending more money on second and third level education if the primary level is inadequate.

After all the consultations, we should have seen an analysis of that kind in this document, but we did not. I suspect there is a good reason for that. If the Government wants to produce a policy document with which everybody in every sector will agree, that document will not contain priorities because no group will admit that another group should have a higher place at the table. The parents' association of a secondary school, diligent, well meaning and well motivated people who are doing their job as they see it, will not agree that primary schools should get a better shake out of any resources allocated to education. However, it is the job of Government to decide those priorities and there is no analysis of that kind in the White Paper. It suffers as a result and is less useful as a guide to what we should do for the development of education in future.

I could say more in a similar vein about second and third level education. However, my point is that this White Paper does not deal properly with the priorities that should be dealt with if we are serious about getting the maximum impact from the very considerable resources we properly devote to the education of our children.

I can impart education, but the process is a mystery to me. I can learn, but that process is also a mystery to me, so I will not speak on the educational theory in the document but will leave it to others. I will deal with the proposed structures. One of the principal parts of this document deals with the establishment of education boards. That idea seems to have been around at least since 1984. The Minister for Education at the time, Gemma Hussey, proposed it in a White Paper. The proposed boards were slightly different but they were still education boards so the idea was not new even then. I was suspicious of it in 1984, and nothing I have heard or seen in the meantime makes me any more seduced by it today than I was then. These boards are supposed to improve the quality, equality, efficiency, relevance and flexibility of delivery of all educational services but I cannot see how establishing ten education boards will improve quality, equality, efficiency and relevance. It may do something about flexibility of delivery, but that is compromised by other factors referred to later in this chapter. It is not, therefore, obvious that splitting the operation into ten different boards will do any more for the delivery of education services than eight health boards do for the delivery of health services. This thinking was fashionable and current and perhaps even relevant in the 1960s and early 1970s, but it is far less relevant today. If people looked honestly at our structures of public administration they would rapidly come to the conclusion that we do not need eight health boards, and I mean no disrespect to the people working in the health boards, the people working under the aegis of health boards or the members. However a different structure is required today. Eight health boards were needed in the days before we had facsimile transmission and the kind of technology that allows us to put medical data on-line at the end of a computer terminal anywhere in the country. They were a major improvement on the kind of fractionalised delivery we had from county health committees and it is not obvious that they are the kind of structure best suited to the requirements today. Nor is it obvious that setting up ten education boards has any great advantages for our education system now, particularly in the light of the restrictions on what they do. We are told in the White Paper of what is called the desirability of releasing the Department of Education from much of its current involvement in the detailed delivery of services to schools. That is fine if we want to do that.

So that it can do more damage somewhere else.

Deputy McDowell is too cynical. He always takes the worst view of life. I know he is not really like that, that he is a much more sanguine person than he appears. Otherwise he would not be in a tuppence halfpenny party like the Progressive Democrats.

It is the perpetual ambition of some people to be divested of their only functions.

If that is a problem for the Department of Education, why is it not proposed that we should transfer its involvement in the detailed delivery of services to schools to an executive body charged only with that and not with policy making functions? The Minister could then get irritating day to day problems out of her hair and concentrate on policy issues. It is by no means obvious that the way to do that is to set up ten education boards, and it seems the Minister and her Department half suspect this because at page 166 we are told, in heavy black type, that the Government has decided that after a period of five years there will be a full independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the boards. The Minister will say that that is a proper prudential provision, that we should not tell the boards that they can carry on in saecula saeculorum doing what they are set up to do now.

The Minister and the Department suspect that they may not have the right answer and are taking out insurance by saying they are not indissolubly wedded to this but can change their minds in five years' time. Another decision is that there will be legislative reform and rationalisation of the vocational education committee system. Although it is proposed to set up ten education boards to rationalise all the things the Minister wants to get out of her hair, we will still have a separate vocational education committee system. Why? I suspect the answer is that it was not possible to obtain agreement from the vocational education committees. I do not see any obvious justification for having ten education boards plus a separate, albeit rationalised, vocational education system.

What will these boards do? They will have substantial co-ordination and support service functions but in carrying out these functions "they will not impinge on areas of responsibility and discretion proper to individual school boards". I do not know what that means. How does it fit in with the rationale of education?

They will also be co-ordinating bodies for adult and continuing education, vocational education and training and — as an afterthought — outdoor education centres in their regions. They will channel Exchequer funding to the vocational education committees. Why? Do we need another body to perform this function? We already have a mostly adequate system to channel Exchequer funding to the vocational education committees. The Department of Education either posts them the cheque or transfers funds electronically. Why do we need education boards to do this? Our financial institutions already have good systems designed for this purpose. We do not need another body as funds are channelled to the vocational education committees without any great interruption.

The boards will be developed on a phased basis. There will be statutory empowerment of the boards to recruit core staff, including a director, and to prepare draft plans for educational delivery for their regions within the context of national policy. What does this mean? To my mind it comes close to saying that the boards will have to prepare draft plans for what is already happening. We do not need more bodies to do this.

There will be ten education boards. An illuminating map is to be found on page 168. Unless I am wrong, with the exception of the county and city of Dublin for which there will be separate boards, the boards will be largely coterminous with the eight health boards. I am not going to argue about whether there should be ten boards; it should be obvious by now that I think there should not be any education boards but at least there is an element of congruity. We should be thankful for small mercies.

Certain groups will be represented on the core board by additional agreed nominees. In a document prepared by the Department of Education and agreed by the Government — this goes back to the time Deputy O'Rourke was in the Department and way beyond — under the heading "Composition of the Board" to my utter astonishment and amazement there is not one reference, good, bad or indifferent, as some of Deputy de Valera's colleagues would say, to gender balance.

On the question of operational issues, it is accepted that the establishment of the new education boards will result in direct costs. It is stated that concern has been expressed throughout the debate that the education boards might become an expensive bureaucracy. That is the understatement of the century. No one can point to any single instance in the history of public administration in this State where a new body did not become an expensive bureaucracy. It is stated, in heavy type, that any additional costs will be outweighed by the positive outcomes, Unfortunately, these are not mentioned.

If it is accepted that these boards will involve some extra costs, we should look at the alternative. If we agree to spend extra money or additional resources on education, should we not make sure that better services for the children in our school are provided rather than new bureaucracies which need new chief executives and boards?

It is stated on page 170 that the funding of schools will be protected by the provision of a separate budget line for school funding in education board budgets and by the publication of nationally determined criteria for the funding of schools. This means that the Department of Education will continue to lay down policy. The purpose in having separate budget lines is to make sure that the Department knows what is going on. In addition, any plans will have to be approved by it. The Department will continue to retain control in terms of how much money is spent, on what it is spent and how. The only difference is that we will have this superstructure of ten supposedly independent education boards but because of the restrictions they will have little autonomy. If that is the case, there is no point in having them.

On the question of staffing the following comment is made: "Ministerial approval for the operational functions of the education boards will be contingent on there being agreement issues, including transfers and secondments". This includes the transfer and secondment of staff to the education boards from the vocational education committees and the Department of Education. I suggest that these two and a half lines represent a minefield as it will be very difficult to work this one out. No one should be under any illusions that this can be done quickly, easily and without contention.

Restrictions will be imposed on the education boards. In the section dealing with funding the following statement is made: "Ultimately, all Department aids towards the recurrent expenditure of first and second level schools will be made by way of a block grant to the education boards subject to the retention of a centralised pay roll". The Department of Education will continue to pay teachers in much the same way as it does now. The safeguard to which I referred earlier is that there will be a separate budget line for school funding in education board budgets and nationally determined criteria for the funding of schools.

Therefore, the funding of schools under nationally-determined criteria will be under outside control and retention of a centralised pay roll will mean that the Department of Education will continue to pay teachers. What else will the education boards do? It is said that approved schools will have statutorily-based entitlement to current funding on the basis of nationally-determined criteria and that additional funding will be made available, on the basis of locally-determined priorities consistent with national criteria. This means that in those other areas also, there may be other small portions of money the education boards can spend but it will be done in accordance with national criteria and the statutory-based entitlements of schools. I cannot envisage any expectation that these education boards will have a separate and independent role.

Then I find that grant aid for vocational schools will be channelled, through the education boards, to the vocational education committees, so that the education boards will be nothing more than a poste restante for the money on the way to the vocational education committees. I cannot see any great virtue in having these education boards, or that they will add anything creative to the manner in which our educational service is delivered.

There are some useful suggestions in the White Paper to improve appointment procedures and for laying down criteria and guidelines to be followed in making such appointments. We would all like to ensure that appointments are made as fairly as possible but there will be a framework, we are told, which will be sufficiently flexible to allow for the continuance of different arrangements, for example, in regard to the vocational education committee schools, or in any school where the employer is a board of governors. In that regard I have to say: "Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose”; I cannot see what change is there.

There are references to appointment standards where Exchequer funds are used to fund teachers. I hope that is not an indication that somewhere in the Department of Education there remains a temptation to pursue the argument that we should interfere with the funding of teachers in fee-paying secondary schools because, if that argument is to be advanced, it should not be under the cloak of a rather mystifying phrase in this document, it should be brought out in the open. There is no case for interfering with that procedure. That argument is not advanced in the White Paper but it should be made clear so that people will know. To my certain knowledge on every side of this House, within every party, there are Members whose children have been or are attending fee-paying secondary schools. Indeed much of the criticism we hear of the alleged priviliges enjoyed by fee-paying secondary schools is nothing more than prejudice without substantation. In any case, if one stops paying the teachers in those schools the children will move to State-funded schools, where the same number of teachers will have to be paid anyway, so there would be no gain from so doing.

That is sufficient to cast doubt on the concept of establishing these education boards. Indeed the more one reads through Part 5 of this document dealing with the "Organisational Framework", the more it appears these education boards will be so circumscribed, so invigilated from outside, they will have very little, if any, independent function. If that is to be the case, there is no point in having them because the last thing we need is to spend money on an extra layer of bureaucracy rather than on teachers. For example, if one looks at the summary of what will be provided in the education boards legislation — on pages 175 to 177 of this document — one will see that the education boards will not be the masters of what they do, but will be hedged about with criteria and conditions, in effect, with schemes of the Department of Education. Therefore, it appears that these education boards will end up like the last chance saloon in a Hollywood set, nothing more than a facade, nothing behind it.

I hope saner counsels will prevail, that we do not go to all the trouble and expense of establishing these education boards just for the sake of it. People may very well argue that this is the voice of the centralised State still speaking. It is not, because there is an enormous difference between what is called decentralisation and real devolution. Undoubtedly, these education boards will be decentralised but that is not devolution because they will not really have control over most of the projects on which they will spend their money; they will not have a creative input to education policy. Decentralisation only is usually more costly than a centralised administration; it is not devolution; devolution is something that should be approached much more carefully.

When we talk about European Union policy, we all talk about the principle of "subsidiarity", which is that decisions should be taken at the level most appropriate to them and, in every case, as close as possible to the people who will be affected. That is what devolution is about, and what most people think they have in mind when they talk about decentralisation, but that is not what we will get with this structure any more than it is what we get within our current structure of health boards. What is proposed here and what obtains within our health boards is not decentralisation, but rather decentralised arms of a central administration where all the policy is still formulated at the centre. It would be a scandalous waste of resources to do that in the education sector just for the sake of being politically correct and having the appearance of doing it.

I hope I will not be out of order if, in conclusion, I make two passing references to the de Buitléir report which also features on today's Order Paper. It is a much crisper document, dealing with third level education but it contains a fair bit of nonsense. I am astonished that a body like this could produce some of these recommendations. One recommendation is that there should be a capital test for eligibility for third-level grants which, it is proposed, should be based on the market value of capital, discounting the value of a principal private residence up to the threshold for residential property tax, discounting the first 50 per cent of the market value of agricultural land and disregarding the value of pension rights.

What has any of that to do with people's ability to pay? Or is it being suggested that, whenever people have capital assets and their incomes are just about or below the income threshold normally applicable in order to allow their children participate in third level education, they should divest themselves of their capital assets irrespective of what type of assets they may be? Is it seriously being suggested that, as part of our education policy, parents who own or manage the typical owner-managed small business we see in most of our small towns should be required to sell a part of their income-generating assets to fund third level education? Some people have to do so. I would have thought that a function of our third-level grants system should be to help people avoid having to dispose of such assets. Are they supposed to eat the seed corn? Is that what is proposed because, if it is, it is absolutely nonsensical; there is no point or justification in doing so, nor are we required to do so by any consideration of social equity.

Unfortunately the argument about the way we will deal with third level fees is over — they will be halved this autumn and abolished at the end of next year. I again plead in that context — and in the context of the White Paper — for the Government to give serious regard to issues of equity in education and in the way we spend taxpayers' money. It is proposed, for example, in the third level student report that students should be assessed independently for third level grants if they meet one of the following conditions: first, if they are 25 years or over; second, if they have been married for at least two years: third, if they have been self-supporting and living away from home for at least three years and, fourth, if they have no parent living.

I hope the House will forgive me if I give what may seem a sexist example; it is not intended that way but it mirrors the reality of many cases today. If a woman aged 26 years has been married for two years — there are a number of such people — to a person with an income of £200,000 of £300,000 per year and both her parents are dead, she would qualify on four different counts to have her university fees paid by the taxpayer. Let us take the example of a new man engaged in home duties married to a woman on an income of £250,000 per year, if he is over 25 or has been married for at least two years he would be independently assessed for a grant. If the couple has an arrangement whereby all the income belongs to the principle wage earner, the other person would be entitled to university fees. In the circumstances where there will always be a limit on the number of third level places available and, therefore, there will always be rationing, if such a person gets a place in a third level college somebody else whose needs may be greater and whose means are certainly less will be denied a place. That is neither just nor equitable. I hope when the Government considers this report further in the context of the White Paper or outside it, it will have a little sanity and consider equity in the use of the money we extract so painfully from our taxpayers to do all the things mentioned here.

I listened with great interest to Deputy Dukes's learned dissertation on the White Paper, many of his views are certainly worth considering and exploring. However, has he forgotten he is no longer on the Opposition benches? I wonder whether he is expressing his own view on education, those of the Fine Gael Party or perhaps, in a very strange way, those of the Government. It is a great shame — I mean this sincerely — that Deputy Dukes did not have the opportunity to talk to the Minister for Education about his ideas before publication of the White Paper, or, if he did I am very sorry the Minister did not take those issues on board.

Deputy Dukes expressed his views very strongly and stringently, using words such as "banal", "ashamed", "nonsensical" and "grave doubts about financing". There seems to be a grave distinction between the views expressed by the Deputy and those expressed by the Government. Perhaps on another occasion he will explain whether these are his views or those of the Fine Gael Party and whether they are accepted around the Cabinet table.

They are my views but anybody who wishes to share them is more than welcome.

I am sure there are a number of people in every party who will agree with some of the views expressed by Deputy Dukes. It is a shame there was not greater consultation between the Deputy and the Minister for Education, or perhaps between the members of the Fine Gael Party and the Minister for Education who is a Labour Minister. Perhaps all of us would have benefited if a more co-ordinated approach had been adopted.

I do not accept that statement but I will not be so urgentlemanly as to disagree with the Deputy.

I hope in future a more co-ordinated policy will be adopted by the three parties who make up the Government on issues of education and every other issue of major importance.

In the context of the White Paper I wish to deal with arts, culture and heritage. There is a general belief in the arts sector that our formal education system makes little provision for developing an awareness of creativity among our student population. Without such an awareness young people are denied the opportunity to develop fully as informed and imaginative individuals. Equally, without this openness to creativity among young adults, it makes the job of professional artists more difficult in terms of winning an audience or market for their work. The arts practitioner will know only too well from the very few people who can make a reasonable living from their work. It has been often said that the biggest employer of the arts has been the Department of Social Welfare.

The process of creating genuine access to the arts must begin at a much earlier stage in the existing social and educational chain. While some work has been done in this area we need to initiate dialogue with the Department of Education, treacher training colleages, teachers' unions and other interested parties to move this whole process in a meaningful way. If there are arguments for greater cultural input to our education system, which include better opportunities for personal development, positive spin-off for our national commercial life and an opportunity to increase public willingness to purchase our artistic product, why are we not doing more about it?

The White Paper, at best, nods in the direction of a cultural dimension for our future education system. This document is an opportunity for interested parties to make an input to Government policy. It has been recognised since the 1980s that the education system holds the key to future cultural and artistic development.

The Arts Council in 1979 with the Benson report underlined the central importance of education in any policy formation for the arts. Its full time education officer since the late 1970s has demonstrated the council's right to pursue education policy. The council can only hope to influence as it does not have the resources or mandate to provide for arts education in schools. It must be commended for its programmes to date, namely, artists' residencies, theatre in education and writers in schools.

In its submission to the National Education Convention in October 1993 the Arts Council expressed not only the educational significance of the arts but the arts contribution to economic development and employment and said there should be discrimination in favour of the arts. In a 1994 survey, The Public and The Arts, commissioned by the Arts Council, 73 per cent of those surveyed agreed strongly with the concept that arts education in schools is as fundamental as science education. In the same survey 74 per cent of the population regarded the lack of arts education at school as a significant obstacle to developing an interest in the arts. Surely it is the primary responsibility of the Department of Education to develop policies and structures for the arts in the creative, social and personal development of the young person. Surely there should be an integrated educational approach to the arts if our education system is to live up to its philosophy of being holistic and child centred.

While the Arts Council is committed to arts in education its remit is not arts education, that is the prerogative of the Department of Education. The Arts in Education published in 1985 by the interim curriculum and examinations boards considered changes in the system to make the arts accessible through education. The NCCA has referred to the need for the young person to have substantial experience in the arts and in science and technology pointing out that every young person is entitled to an arts education irrespective of social, economic or geographical determinants. I understand the Arts Council wants art and music as a requirement at junior cycle level.

To promote the arts in education from primary level up a number of areas must be explored. There must be greater emphasis on arts education in colleges of education and in the higher diploma in education courses. In-service training for teachers in the arts and, perhaps, the provision of specialist support services are required. What about discussing the prospect of specialist teachers for the arts at primary and secondary levels? As we know, at present there is an opportunity at primary level for exposure to the visual arts, music and drama, but perhaps in an era of specialisation in schools trained teacher specialists could be introduced. At secondary level our education is very much subject focused and there is perhaps an even greater need for specialised attention to be focused on the arts. I would be interested to hear the views of the teacher unions and the Minister for Education on that suggestion. At second level there is little emphasis on the importance of the visual arts and drama, literature being the only area given attention and recognition.

Music has long been a neglected subject in school. It has been suggested, because of the difficulty in getting good grades and points in that subject at leaving certificate level, that many students have been dissuaded from taking that subject. If that is the case, perhaps a study could be initiated to promote a broad strategy to encourage more students to study music and to dispel the present public perception which indicates a negative approach. I understand that the publication of a survey known as "PIANO" is imminent. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on that issue when she addresses the House. I hope that survey will give us sound ground on which to work. Perhaps from that information appropriate criteria and modes of assessment, together with revised syllabi, can be put in place as well as giving the inspectorate a development role.

Regarding the Irish language and its promotion in schools, I agree that Teilifís na Gaeilge will be of great importance and help in encouraging the further use and knowledge of our language and traditions. I consider such a service necessary, particularly with the growth of gaelscoileanna throughout the country, especially in Dublin.

In schools with a transitional year and where, according to the White Paper, each school can tailor the syllabus to its needs surely this could be an opportunity to explore the cultural area. In many of our third level colleges it is quite common to have industrial research and development centres on campus. Would it be possible to have artistic development centres attached to a humanities department on the same campus?

It should be of particular interest to the Government and local authorities, particularly the vocational education committees, that the 1994 survey to which I referred stated that the greatest single proportion of the population selected as its first priority arts programmes and facilities dedicated to working for and with young people. While 75 per cent of those surveyed agree that family support and interest is the most important factor in fostering an interest in the arts, there is significant public expectation that the Department of Education should invest in the arts for our young people.

The traditional concept of education has created a belief that the process is confined within the parameters of primary, post-primary and third level institutions and that it begins at the age of four and ends somewhere between 16 and 25, but we know nothing could be further from the truth. Education is an ongoing activity, a life-long response to the constantly changing and challenging curriculum of our contemporary world and any attempts to place limits on the range and potential of the many new initiatives through which education is taking place at present must be regarded as a regression which can only lead to greater exclusion and inaccessibility. The most worrying indication of this in the context of the arts is the recent Government decision to attempt to reduce the level of participation in FÁS community employment programmes nationally by 40 per cent thereby cutting the employment and educational opportunities of almost 7,000 workers.

The whole area of second chance education must be included in our discussion on how to promote access and participation in the arts, especially at a time when there is increased leisure time and high levels of unemployment. The recent arts plan and White Paper on Education recognise and affirm the centrality of arts in charting the educational future of the young. Clearly, there needs to be close collaboration between the Arts Council and the Department of Education if an effective arts policy for the young is to be devised and, more importantly, implemented.

I have taken part in a number of discussions in this House with the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and at every opportunity raised the need for the further inclusion and greater emphasis to be placed on arts within our educational system, but I am disappointed that he referred to arts education in one paragraph of a 19 page reply to a debate on the arts plan. Perhaps that was because he found it difficult to find any conclusive or lasting references to arts in education apart from his reference to the importance of the arts for young people ranging from infants to sixth class. Surely our educational system does not end at that level and our arts education should not end at sixth class. I appeal, even at this late stage, to the Minister for Education to ensure that a far greater practical emphasis is given to the inclusion of arts education in the system.

There was a recent fruitful debate in the arts community on access to and participation in the arts. I am sure we all agree that we cannot talk about access or true participation in the arts without giving everyone the opportunity to learn and appreciate the arts within our educational system whether at primary, secondary, third level, second chance or at a transitional level within schools. I hope that view is taken on board by the Minister as I believe it is a necessary and important part of what should be our educational approach.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tugann sé an-áthas dom labhairt anseo faoin bPáipéar Bán seo —Charting Our Educational Future. Is leabhar mór é agus is dócha gur oiriúnach an rud é sin, mar is ábhar mór é an t-oideachas atá le fáil ag páistí óga ar fud na hÉireann. Tá sé tábhachtach do na páistí, do na múinteoirí agus do na tuismitheoirí. Tá a lán rudaí sa Pháipéar Bán. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil gach rud ceart ach níl maitheas ar bith a bheith ag gearán faoi na rudaí atá ann. Tá a lán teoiricí ann. Ní leor teoiric sa scoil agus sa seomra: caithfidh múinteoirí a bheith praiticiúil. Sin an treo ina mbeidh mé ag dul sa mhéid atá le rá agam.

This paper is very strong on theory and, in practice, it is difficult to know what can be achieved. Having spent many years teaching I am somewhat biased towards the practical side of education. I understand the difficulties involved when a teacher carries a similar line of theory from one school to another when all schools and children are different. A weakness of the old system was that it treated all children as having equal ability.

Student teachers spend a great deal of time studying the philosophy of education; the end of term examination in that subject was held a few days ago. While it is important to know that philosophy and it keeps teachers on the correct line, it quickly moves to the background and is not something about which teachers talk in the pubs or in the staff room at break time. Debate on the philosophy of education is still associated with the experts of long ago.

Practicality is an important matter in teaching and the first issue this paper should have dealt with was the need for dedicated teachers. Nothing can replace a dedicated teacher in a classroom. We are very fortunate to have thousands of dedicated teachers who go way beyond their call of duty in terms of teaching. While some parents view this cynically and believe teachers take pleasure from organising football, hurling and debating teams and so on, most parents appreciate their work in this regard. Some parents regard a school tour to Dublin as a free day for the teachers. Having often set out to Dublin with 60 pupils in two buses I realise that the only time a teacher can give a sigh of relief on such an outing is when the last pupil leaves the bus at his or her home that night. A teacher will not get credit for leaving for Dublin with 60 pupils and arriving home with 59. That teacher will not be told he or she did a great job in losing only one pupil. Teachers who take pupils on such outings are concerned for their safety from the time they leave in the morning until they arrive home that night. Even though children may be drilled to the nth degree about how they should behave, the teacher's role is still difficult. Dedicated teachers are worth their weight in gold and I realise that now more than ever.

Teachers who lack motivation in the classroom are a cause of concern for everybody, especially pupils who must sit in class and not benefit from their teaching. Taking into account my time in training college and so on, one of the best lessons I received was when I returned to university after a few years teaching and attended a lecture given by a lady in her eighties. She lectured with her back to the class and scribbled continuously on the blackboard. Every now and again she would say to the class, "tá caint ar siúul" or "tá comhrá ar siúl". We were mature students, but none of us understood what she was talking about. As a result, at the start of every school year I informed my pupils that if at any stage during the year they did not understand what I was talking about they should tell me, and they did that. After a number of years teaching many teachers believe that because they know the subject off by heart it is simple. There can be nothing more frustrating for pupils than to have to listen to a teacher, especially in a mathematics class, if they do not understand what he or she is telling them.

This brings me to the question of how we should deal with slow learners and in this regard small classes are very important. Most people believe that teachers want an easy life, but I never had less than 36 in my class — I often had up to 40. Regardless of how cynical people may be, it is difficult for teachers to help slow learners in a class with up to 40 pupils. They must strike a balance. They cannot hold back those who are academically brilliant and must also cater for the average pupil and the slow learner.

The primary sector must receive the most backing from the State because everybody benefits from it. After completing primary education, children go to second level with a view to going on to university or leave school at the age of 15. Those who cannot read or write are disadvantaged. Therefore, primary education must be seen as the most important facet of education, not because primary teachers are more important than others, but because all children benefit from it. The Minister must ensure this happens.

I could never understand why capitation for children at primary school was only a fraction of that which applied to second level schools. Is it not more likely that a child at primary school than a 15 or 16 year old will fall down a manhole? People tend to believe that because it is primary level and that everybody benefits from it, it is not as important as a second level education, but that is not my view.

Many teachers do not like to be told they have a vocation because they believe they cannot live on a vocation. While that is true, if teaching is not created as a vocation schools will suffer. A vocation is what makes the art of teaching appealing and gives the teacher the patience required for the job. While there are thousands of very dedicated and able secondary school teachers, many of them studied English and history or Irish and history in their degree with a view to taking up journalism or a job in RTE. However, when they did not secure such jobs they did a H.Dip and took up teaching.

Some 180 people undertook an 18 month course in the teacher training college and will qualify as primary teachers. The college had 800 applications and, following a screening of the applicants, they chose 180. I am quite sure the majority of those will be dedicated teachers but the problem is they did not set out to be teachers. They want to become teachers now because they found that with the type of degree they had there were not openings in other professions. I am sure some of those students did the degree course because they wanted to become teachers but I hope the screening process weeded out those people who merely regarded teaching as a job. Teachers who regard their work as a mere job are not the kind of teachers we want.

Teaching is a difficult life, despite the fact that teachers are supposed to work only two or three hours a day and spend six months on holiday. It is the kind of occupation where one needs a great sense of humour. It is important that children also can have a legitimate laugh at the expense of the teacher if the teacher can have a laugh at the expense of the children. Life should be made as easy as possible for children who are required to go to school up to the age of 15. It should not be a long hard slog. Much work can be done in a happy atmosphere. Times were hard long ago, not through the fault of the teachers but because of the system that was in place. It is important to have a happy, dedicated teaching force.

The question of early retirement for teachers, which is in the public domain at present, should not be seen merely as teachers looking after their own interests. Teachers who have spent 30 or 35 years in that profession find themselves teaching now in a completely different era. When they began teaching they had four lines of desks in front of them, discipine was strict, the children listened and learned. However, that has all changed. Teachers who would make children sit in rows of desks would almost be regarded as fossils. Children are supposed to run around, be active and learn in that way. I am not sure if all this research will benefit children if it has been carried out over hundreds of years and the answers are already known. I admit there is a certain value in research but it can be a waste of time to carry out research and come to the wrong conclusions. There must be a balance in this area.

The question of early retirement for teachers should not be seen in a global way. Teachers who are happy and dedicated in their work — thankfully, most of them are — will not want to retire but it is important to allow early retirement for those teachers who feel they cannot continue, not so much in their interests but in the interests of the children they teach. Children are given only one chance to get an education. If they are in a large school and have a bad teacher for only one year, that will not adversely affect them. However, if they are in a small school they may have such a teacher for perhaps three years and that can be very serious. If a teacher feels obliged to remain in the teaching profession for financial reasons, and if there is no way out for them because their pensions are not paid until they reach the age of 60 or 65, as is the case at secondary level, that can adversely affect the children.

I hope a compromise will be reached because going on strike is not the way to settle a dispute such as this. It is the teachers and the children who will suffer, particularly those at second level. Strike days have a negative effect with examinations looming. I hope the dispute will be settled and discussions must take place with a view to achieving this. The figures that have been bandied about must be examined. With modern technology, surely it is possible to assess the true figures that are at the centre of this dispute.

There should be far more emphasis on teaching skills. Students in the training colleges were required to teach classes in primary schools. The inspector in charge of teacher training in the college would sit at the back of the class and say "Bhí an ceacht sin go maith ach—". He would then proceed to tear strips off the student. That was an important lesson. Having knowledge is one thing but being able to import it is another. That requires a definite skill which should be learned. The H.Dip. was not sufficient to qualify teachers to teach. I did the H.Dip. in Maynooth but I would not have been as good a teacher without the back-up I received in the training college. More emphasis must be put on teaching skills than on the theory of teaching. We can read all about Aristotle and Socrates but we cannot always talk about theory — we must deliver the goods and the children in the charge of teachers expect them to do that. We need more courses that will produce good teachers by giving them proper instruction.

We must tackle the problem of bad teachers. It is wrong to say that there are not any black sheep in the teaching profession. Some of those are doing their best, others are not. They are careless in their work and it surprises me how they can get away with that. The various teacher unions, the ASTI, the INTO, the TUI and others will have to address this problem because these teachers can have a bad effect on the students under their charge. Some parents worry during the summer months that their children will have a particular teacher when they return to school in September. That problem should not arise. Other parents want to have their children taken out of a certain class because of difficulties with a particular teacher. If teachers feel they are getting too old for the job, they should be given a way out.

In-service training should be provided for all teachers. It is ridiculous that a person who was trained as a teacher 40 years ago has never undergone in-service training, particularly in this age of computerisation, etc. Teachers should be required to attend refresher courses every few years. I realise that will cost money but if doctors never availed of refresher courses since leaving medical school, and if they were continuing to issue the same type of drugs, etc, we would all be in a panic. It is important that a teacher should do refresher courses, even for six months in any particular year. It would give them a new insight to attend lectures, although I am sure they will realise that some lecturers cannot lecture. The higher up one goes at university level, the more one realises that lecturers are great academics but they only want to talk about what concerns them and leave everything else to the students.

We must have proper facilities in our education system. Thankfully, most of the bad schools are now closed although strikes can occur because of the conditions of schools. In some schools the toilets are outside the building and it is not good enough that they are not up to modern standards. I have taught in many schools and I know that having a carpet in a school makes a huge difference to the atmosphere. There must be an opportunity for learning and bad conditions in schools do not help in that regard.

In fairness all Ministers have made a reasonable effort to provide remedial teachers but more are needed to help the weaker children. If we do not help them we are serving no great purpose. The bright children will get on almost in spite of teachers whereas the weaker pupils must be helped. I accept that Ministers, past and present, have gone out of their way to provide extra teachers and it is far more practical to do that than to set up costly education boards across the country.

The mentally handicapped must be looked after. The parents and friends of the mentally handicapped are involved in all sorts of fund raising events to provide the back-up facilities to educate their children. I am involved in a training centre for mentally handicapped teenagers and adults. We have received over £100,000 from the organisation of parents and friends of the mentally handicapped to provide facilities. The health board gives us 80 per cent funding and the Minister who visited us the other day gave us an extra £15,000. Why should the parents and friends of the mentally handicapped have to spend their time raising funds to provide facilities that should be provided by the State? Surely, the mentally handicapped should be at the top of our education agenda.

In Charting our Education Future there is a photograph of a lovely boy and girl with their bicycles but it would have been more appropriate to have a battered yellow bus “Bus Scoile” showing all the signs of wear and tear. With the advent of school transport, cycling to school is almost a thing of the past and in later life people will suffer hamstring injuries because their muscles have never been stretched. We have to set up the school bus service to suit minorities as well as the majority and Church of Ireland and Presbyterian students are entitled to be transported to schools of their own denomination. More money should be spent to facilitate this.

Ó thaobh na Gaeilge de ní dóigh liom go mbeidh an tsuim chéanna ag na múinteoirí óga inti is a bhí ag na seanmhúinteoirí. Bhí brú ar na sean-mhúinteoirí. Bhí sé go huafásach nuair a tháinig an cigire isteach. Cheap seisean go mbeadh gach duine sa rang líofa ó thaobh labhairt na Gaeilge de. Níor thuig sé nach raibh daoine in ann an Ghaeilge a labhairt agus chuir sé anbhrú ar na sean-mhúinteoirí. Dá bhrí sin chuir na sean-mhúinteoirí an-bhrú ar na páistí. Anois níl sé riachtanach go mbeadh an Ghaeilge mar phríomhábhar ag na micléinn. Tá Gaeilge proifisiúnta le déanamh acu agus tabharfaidh sé deis agus eolas dóibh. Ach tá súil agam go mbeidh an tsuim chéanna acu is a bhí ach ní dóigh liom go ndéanfaidh Gaeilge proifisiúnta an tionchar céanna is a rinne nuair a bhí an Ghaeilge mar phríomh-ábhar. Braitheann sé go mór ar na múinteoirí. Má tá dearcadh ceart ag na múinteoirí beidh suim ag na páistí sa Ghaeilge. Muna mbíonn an dearcadh ceart acu agus munar maith leo an Ghaeilge a mhúineadh ar chor ar bith beidh fadhb ann. Tá súil agam go mbeidh an tsuim cheart ag na múinteoirí óga ag teacht amach mar muna mbíonn beidh fás níos mó ag teacht ar na gaelscoileanna. Tá an-suim agus an-fhás ag teacht ar na gaelscoileanna cheana féin. Diaidh ar ndiaidh beidh na gnáth scoil-eanna ag rá "is cuma faoin nGaeilge; tá scoileanna speisialta ann di; tá ranganna níos lú acu ná mar atá againn; tá níos mó airgid le fáil acu". Tá an-dáinséar ann go mbeidh sort déistin ar na gnáthmhúinteoirí mar a thugaim orthu nach mbeidh an tsuim acu sa Ghaeilge. Ní thiocfaidh athbheochan na Gaeilge chun críche muna mbíonn suim ag na múinteoirí inti.

Chapter 15 deals with the role of the inspectorate. I hope this will lead to improvements in the evaluation and advisory role of inspectors. Some of the older inspectors will be standing by the wall in heaven if St. Peter has any particular interest in teachers. One of my earliest memories — and I was probably only five years of age — is of an inspector turning back on his way out from the school who, having looked down at the master's dog, said "the dog there knows more than ye". He got away with that but in this day and age I hope a young teacher would have enough backbone to chase him and let him know what basic manners are. That was his attitude to a marvellous teacher. Then, inspectors put awful pressure on teachers whose salaries depended on what the inspector said about them. During my teaching career the children came in and said there was a man behind the pier. I investigated thinking perhaps that somebody had escaped from the mental hospital who might be a danger to the children. As I got near the pier this fellow shot up and said "An tusa an príomhoide? I said "Is mise". He said: "Cá bhfuil na múinteoirí?" Rith sé síos isteach sa scoil ó sheomra go seomra. Gealt a bhí ann agus bhí sé ag dul timpeall na tíre mar chigire scoile. Ba chóir dó cabhair a thabhairt do na múinteoirí ach ní raibh sé ach ag cur isteach orthu.

The attitude of inspectors then was that all teachers were guilty until they proved themselves innocent. That era is over and the younger inspectors have a more enlightened approach. When I was doing practice work for my diploma I recall an inspector spending half a day showing me how to teach certain parts of the curriculum but when it came to the diploma examination he told me I should not do what he had spent half a day telling me to do. I was wise enough to keep my mouth shut. Teachers had to put up with an awful lot from inspectors. I am glad inspectors now have an advisory role. If they have any talent they will be able to assess what is going on in the classroom when they walk into it. Some inspectors believed in the theory of education, believing that teachers with written notes were doing their job well. Very often the teachers with years of experience were able to work with the minimum of notes but they would draw trouble on themselves because an inspector would not be able to assess the work being done in the classroom.

In latter years I had visits from inspectors who had a proper attitude, one of whom was snatched by the GAA to run their organisation. Inspectors will play a central role. Teachers are paid to give a service and it is important that standards are maintained. If inspectors find teachers are not giving a good service they should be wise enough to do something about it. They should encourage teachers rather than discourage them as they did in the past. Dedicated teachers were often shattered when inspectors criticised one aspect of their work. They did more harm than good.

There is no reference in the White Paper to school furniture. It is scandalous that children are asked to sit at flat topped desks. They damage their backs if they are not able to sit up straight. I am supported in this view by the Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists and by Dr. Mandol, who is an expert in Denmark. I have given evidence to the Department and have been told that studies will be carried out. Some children may have lordosis. Many people suffer from backache and I am sure much of it was caused when they were at school. I do not expect the Department of Education to throw out the furniture in schools but it should note what the experts say. We should do as our forefathers did. Long before the philosophy of education people used sloped desks. Draftsmen use them and they can still be found in some solicitors' offices.

People love to talk about education, particularly Church-State relations. I had the greatest assistance from the church. When I began teaching, the parish priest had antiquated ideas on heating but, apart from that, I was very lucky to have the same manager for over 30 years. He provided every possible facility for the school, including a piano. There is much debate on whether religion should be taught in schools. I believe it should as the sooner we have a stronger form of religion in schools, whatever it may be, the more hope there is for civilisation. I am not sure if religion plays a part in anyone's life the way we carry on. We all know there is bullying and I have no qualms about defending the role of the church in education.

The church has come to the rescue of the Department of Education umpteen times. Very often it was the parish priest who provided heating for the school and organised its cleaning. The Department of Education got away with murder. It is easy to criticise the church but, without it, people would not have been educated.

Deputy Dukes dealt scathingly with education boards. I would accept them as long as they did not cost extra and reduce the resources available to provide, for example, remedial teachers. I do not know what role they will play. I do not see any advantage in having them if they are the Department's messengers and not independent. No matter how often they meet or what views they hold on Socrates or Plato it will not make any difference to teaching in schools. We can set up boards but what will they do for education? If they absorb money which should be available for schools they will be a waste of time.

Boards of management were a bone of contention. It seemed as if teachers did not want power taken from them. The board of management is an important part of any school. The role of parents is not sufficiently emphasised and I do not know how a school could function without their involvement. It would be impossible to explain anything to parents if they felt they could not approach the school for fear of a teacher or principal blowing a fuse. Parents often get the wrong end of a story and go to the school to find out what happened.

There is a chapter on the role of principals. They are rare animals who are supposed to know everything about the school. When I was a teaching principal of an eight teacher school for a number of years, the theory on the role of principal went out the window. I had 38 children in my class, most of whom wanted to be educated and my role was to teach them. I was lucky because my teachers were dedicated. In my early career I had a problem with a water pump and if I am appointed Minister for Education I will get my file and read an article I wrote for the Department called "the pump is cut off Sir". It is in the Department's archives. When the toilet was blocked one of the roles of the principal was to leave the classroom——

I did not read that file when I was Minister.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): If I become Minister I will read it. The education system depends on the talent and dedication of teachers. All the theories in the world will not replace good teachers.

As a former Minister for Education I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this historic debate on the future of education. Deputy Martin, our education spokesperson set out Fianna Fáil's position on education.

When I had the honour of being Minister for Education I formally published in June 1992 a Government Green Paper on Education which was widely debated. According to the foreword to that Green Paper which I had the pleasure of signing:

The Irish people are rightly proud of their Education System which has served the Country superbly. But no Education System can be frozen in time. If it is to continue to deliver quality it must constantly adapt to changing Educational needs and to changes in the world it serves. At key times there is a need to take a fundamental look at the Educational System and to re-direct it, to reflect new needs as those needs emerge. Such a moment is now.

I compliment all those who contributed to the publication of the Green and White Papers. As the Minister correctly stated, they do not belong to any individual but to the country. I know from personal experience, of the enormous dedication of the officials in the Department of Education, the teaching profession and all those who made the Green and White Papers possible. Dáil Éireann and the nation owes a debt of gratitude to them.

Education is about developing the person as a whole and it is central to the life of the individual and the nation. It is central to the future of work and personal development. The future development of education centres around three pillars — equality, mobility and access. We must make real progress under each of these headings and not under any particular one.

The peace process in Northern Ireland will also affect our educational system. The Framework Document highlights the need for positive educational initiatives to bring the educational systems North and South closer together. We must make urgent progress on the mutual recognition of teacher training qualifications. It is ridiculous on a small island like this that there is a difficulty in recognising the qualifications of teachers. There is no room for partition in education. The development of the EU and demographic changes will also affect the type of education service we offer.

It is important to realise and appreciate that there can be no such thing as a valueless education. The section in the White Paper dealing with this issue is extremely good and thoughtful. Education must impart values, principles, and responsibilities. A valueless education would be barren and would not develop the moral character of the individual. To be blunt about it, if the moral character of the individual is not developed there can be no true education.

Teachers are in the front line of education and there are enormous demands on them. These demands are created by the curriculum, the growing expectations of parents and the day to day stress which is part of the profession. I am glad the White Paper salutes the professionalism of teachers and proposes tangible assistance to help them develop their careers and psychological well being. The time has come for us to again re-empower professional teachers. In recent years we have taken some of that power away from them. While they must share the educational system with parents, interested bodies and others, teachers have a special responsibility in this area on a day to day basis.

Most research shows that disadvantage in life can often be traced back to the primary school sector. More positively, it has been conclusively shown that a sound and balanced primary education is essential for the future development of the individual. It is imperative, therefore, in the scramble for resources that the primary school sector is not left behind. The primary school sector does not have the same corporate muscle or connections as the third level sector and it requires special protection and investment by the State. After all, this is the sector where formal education begins.

The second level sector is very much the bedrock of the knowledge society. I pay tribute to the religious orders which for many centuries have unselfishly developed the second level system. This generation must acknowledge the wonderful contribution they have made to the development of education. Our second level system provides a fine base of skills and it is encouraging to see it broadcasting out into new subject areas and providing greater choice for students.

OECD reports consistently pay tribute to the high standard of our third level education system. We now have eight universities, including the Dublin Institute of Technology, all of which provide a first rate education. When I was Minister for Education I secured a commitment from the Government to give the Dublin Institute of Technology degree awarding status. This should be done without any further delay as that institution has proven itself to be one of our finest educational establishments. The regional technical college network also constitutes a central part of the national knowledge system and we must chart its future with great care.

Third level fees are but one of four factors affecting access to third level education. The others are entry standards, availability of places and maintenance, all of which are as important as fees. When I was Minister for Education I believed that free third level education should be introduced and I convinced the minority Fianna Fáil Government to include this proposal in its 1992 election document. I did this for two reasons. First, I strongly believe access to education at every level is paramount and that third level should not be any different from second level in this regard. While generations ago one may only have needed second level education, today third level education is necessary to avail of the same opportunities. Second, as very few third level students pay fees I calculated that the cost of abolishing fees would not be too great. For example, most regional technical college students do not pay fees, up to 60 per cent of third level students receive grants and approximately £20 million is given by the Exchequer through tax relief on covenants. These figures are from memory and would require to be checked carefully. When one adds in the cost of administering the grants system then the real cost to the State is minimal. The management of the transition from a fee paying system to a non-fee paying system is important and the new system must be introduced over a number of years, having regard to the resources of the State.

Before I left the Department of Education I had began to form the opinion that the points system for entry to third level education was in need of substantial reform. I have now come to the conclusion that the system should be critically examined to establish whether it will be practical in the future. We must have a points system so as to ensure fairness, quality control, rationing of scarce places etc. but we must also look at the enormous pressure on students and the increasing number of students who do not have sufficient points to get a place in their local third level education institution and who have to attend an institution in another county.

Does it make any sense to pay out tens of millions of pounds in maintenance grants, an enormous proportion of which is paid to students in, say, University College Galway to do a BA when they live a mile or two from University College Dublin? Does it make any sense for a Cork student not to be able to get into University College Cork and to have to attend, say, St. Patrick's College Maynooth at State expense just because there is a disparity in the points system? Whatever argument one can make for capital intensive areas, such as medicine and science, surely it is time to sort out this anomaly in the area of the liberal arts, where a BA is a BA.

There is also the factor of how much of this so called demand is actually a fashion rather than a genuine demand for a particular college. I ask the Minister for Education to consider establishing a high powered commission to examine the administration of the points system and its relationship with the maintenance grants system and to instruct it to bring forward proposals to resolve the anomalies in this area. It is not good enough to say there is no alternative to the points system. I believe there can be. Will the Minister say how many other countries in the European Union have a points system? The answer is very few.

There is a chapter missing from this White Paper. I had deliberately inserted in the Green Paper — Education for a Changing World — a chapter on the need for an enterprise culture in our education system. I accept that education is about the development of the whole person but we must also inculcate into every individual the need to be innovative, enterprising, inquiring and constantly seeking new openings. A key element in developing a competitive economy is to ensure we have the skills base to do so. Those skills must come from our education system and must complement education in the area of literature, arts and culture generally. Is it any wonder that an enormous number of small companies fail? Is it any wonder that most of our new companies are started by people who have not had the benefit of advanced education? Why is it that the more education received the less likely a person is to start a small company to give employment and create wealth for the nation? I regret the Minister has removed from the White Paper any reference to the need for an enterprise culture in our education system. I predict the decision to remove that chapter will be to the detriment of the future development of this nation.

How are we to develop our economy if students leave the education system without appreciating that the target should not only be to have a post in the Civil Service, in banking or in the professions? Is it not true that they are leaving our education system today with a certain suspicion and disdain and a certain lack of respect for the entrepreneurial spirit which this country so desperately needs. That chapter was put into the Green Paper to try to bring back respect for people of enterprise. I ask the Minister for Education to think again and to include in our education system the development of an enterprise culture alongside and complementing our very fine liberal arts education which we have developed over the generations.

The world is changing and workforce structures are changing. As the nature of work changes so must our education system. It is, therefore, important that we continue to invest in adult education. It is also important that our education system should continue to adapt to the needs of society. As society changes over future generations, it will become more and more important to invest in second chance education — to allow people who have missed out to avail of our education system, in order that they are better able to meet the changes rather than have the changes swamp them.

In the middle of all of this education debate, it is important to state clearly that our education system should always be a child centred one. The education system is not about the Department of Education, the teachers or the parents but the children. The total environment in this country and in our education system should be supportive of the needs of the child. Sometimes we put too much focus on the needs of parents, the rights of teachers and the duties of the Department of Education. These are important but they are not as important as focusing totally on the needs of the child and continuing to design our education system around the requirements of the child. Structures in themselves are useless unless they meet the needs of a particular student. I criticise the White Paper in being too structure oriented, with too much discussion on what structures are needed, the number of boards and who should be on them, and the structures that run the education system, rather than the requirements to develop the individual child.

The White Paper is very thin in the area of sport, an area which was highly developed by the former Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Liam Aylward. His fine work does not appear to have been continued. Surely the Minister must realise that sport is the foundation of a healthy lifestyle and is as much a part of our education system today as the formal curriculum. We should remove the Cinderella image of sport from our education system. We should use lottery funds to develop our facilities within schools. We can make no better investment for the future.

I had deliberately inserted in the Green Paper a proposal that we change the way we teach the Irish language. I specifically proposed in that paper that in examinations, extra marks — up to 60 per cent — should be allotted to oral Irish rather than written Irish. I am disappointed that the Minister has not followed it through fully, as it is only by teaching our students to speak the language fluently than it will develop. How many of us have gone through primary, secondary and third level education and have written article after article, at those three levels, composition after composition as Gaeilge, yet at the end of the day are unable to hold a full conversation in the Irish language? I inserted that proposal because we need a radical new method. The proposal on Irish in examinations is one which would have the greatest impact in the long term. In the education system one should be rewarded by getting marks in examinations for being able to speak the language rather than write a large sliocht of poetry.

The challenges facing education today are daunting. The focus should be on the need to equip students with the ability to think and solve problems, rather than accumulate knowledge; the need to develop students for life as well as for work; the need to ensure that social and economic disadvantage is alleviated by our education system, not made worse; the need to educate our people for the role of citizens of Europe, while preserving our unique Irish identity; the need to focus increasingly on second chance education; the need to respond to the demands on teachers who continually have to adapt to changing circumstances; the need to get a good return for the taxpayers from our education resources, which will always be less than we would wish or can afford; the need to respond to increasing levels of expectation from education; the need to reflect the rights of parents to be informed about and involved in the education of their children, while at the same time recognising the central role of teachers on a day-to-day basis; the need to ensure greater gender equity throughout the education system — that needs positive action, not pious platitudes; and the need to respond to the demands for greater openness in society today.

To meet these challenges we must deal with some problems. Many disadvantaged children still fail to enjoy the full benefits of education. A small number of children still encounter basic literacy problems. The current liberal arts dominated system is not sufficiently balanced to meet the world of work. There is still not enough emphasis on technology and enterprise. Our learning performance in European languages does not reflect our needs in the new Europe.

The curriculum and exam system is still strongly biased towards acquiring factual knowledge rather than developing critical thinking and problem solving skills. The education system is still over-centralised with even the smallest decisions on everyday administration being taken by the Department which simply must separate its policy making functions from the day to day management and operation of the education system. That is critical, and the structures and skills necessary to make that happen need to be developed. There is a need for further development in the training of teachers after initial qualification, and for more openness throughout the education system. Very little information is shared throughout the system.

We must now forge ahead to establish greater equity in education, broaden education, make the best use of our educational resources, train and develop our teachers, create a system of quality assurance and ensure greater openness throughout the system. Although I have many objections to elments of the White Paper, I compliment the Minister for Education on having the determination to see through the process which has now been going on for too long, and on bringing forward the White Paper which will allow us to continue to develop one of the best systems of education in the world today.

Tá áthas orm labhairt ar an bPáipéar Bán. Is rud maith é, tríd agus tríd, an Páipéar a bheith ann. Is rud maith é freisin go bhfuil seans ag daoine taobh amuigh — agus ní amháin ag polaiteoirí anseo sa Teach — díospóireacht a bheith acu. Tharla sé go raibh an-chuid díospóireachta i gCaisleán Átha Cliath agus in áiteanna eile: aithním é sin agus tá áthas orm go raibh sé ann. Le cúnamh Dé, beidh reachtaíocht ag teacht ón bPáipéar Bán seo agus tá súil agam nach mbeidh moill ró-fhada air. An dtabharfaidh an tAire dáta dúinn, mas féidir, agus an gcuirfidh sí in iúl dúinn cén sórt reachtaíochta atá i gceist aici go n-éireodh ón bPáipéar Bán? Tá cuma ar an scéal, má léann duine an Páipéar Bán, nach mbeidh oideachas ar bith ann ach trí scoileanna agus scolaíocht, ollscoileanna agus na hinsititiúidí éagsúla a chosnaíonn an-chuid airgid, mar is eol dúinn. Ba cheart a aithint, agus níos mó béime a chur air i dtús báire — más féidir liom é a phlé ar feadh cúpla nóiméad — an bunriachtanas atá le hoideachais don chine daonna agus don duine féin. Is ceart a aithint go dtosnaíonn cúrsaí oideachais leis an tuismitheor agus leis an leanbh. Is féidir an-chuid a dhéanamh chun cabhrú leis an mbunchéim sin. Má táimid ag iarraidh níos mó airgid a chaomhnú, seachas a bheith ag iarraidh ar na scoil-eanna níos mó a dhéanamh, is fearr an toradh agus is lú an infheistíocht má chuirtear béim ar dtús ar na deiseanna atá ag éirí as an suíomh sa bhaile. Ní féidir le Rialtas ar bith a rá go ndearna sé a dhóthain chuige sin go dtí seo. Beidh an tAire ag maíomh go mbíonn tuismitheoirí an-ghnóthach na laethanta seo agus tuigim go bhfuil roinnt tuismith-eoirí chomh ghnóthach ag dul amach ag obair nach féidir leo mórán ama a chaitheamh lena gcuid leanaí. Tá roinnt tuismitheoirí eile atá chomh bocht sin nach féidir leo, ach an oiread, a bheith ag díriú a n-aire ar chúrsaí oideachais. Tá fadhb ansin, ní amháin don Aire Oideachais, ach don Aire Airgeadais, don Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh agus don Aire Fionntair agus Fostaíochta freisin.

Is féidir pointe eile a dhéanamh anseo atá an-tábhachtach do shaol leanaí agus cúrsaí oideachais na hÉireann maidir le polasaí atá fós ag An Daonlathas Clé agus ag Fine Gael agus atá pléite ag Páirtí an Lucht Oibre — níl a fhios agam an bhfuil sé mar pholasaí acu nó nach bhfuil. An pointe atá i gceist agam ná an "guaranteed basic income". Tá an-chuid ráite mar gheall air agus bacheart díospóireacht cosúil leis seo a bheith againn chun gach rud a bhain-eann leis an phlé. Tá neart daoine taobh amuigh den Teach seo — ESRI, Con-ference of Religious in Ireland agus go leor údaráis eile — atá ag moladh gur féidir cabhrú le daoine, le leanaí na hÉireann, má tá tuismitheoirí na tíre in ann níos lú ama a chaitheamh ag dul amach ag obair agus ag fágáil leanaí sa bhaile nó ar scoil agus, ag an am chéanna, an méid áirithe airgid a fháil i dtreo agus gur féidir leo leanúint ar aghaidh agus gan a bheith bocht ag an am chéanna. Is rud é sin atá an-tábhachtach don díospóireacht seo ach atá níos leithne ná an Páipéar Bán féin. Ba cheart don Rialtas machnamh a dhéanamh air mar baineann sé le saol leanaí na tíre seo chomh maith agus le saol eacnamaíoch na tíre seo.

An cheist a chuirfinn ar dtús ná: cad is fiú oideachas foirmeálta? An freagra gearr atá air sin ná gur ullmhúchán é don saol atá roimh an duine —"ullmhúchán" ar an gciall is leithne. Rinne an Teachta Ó Braonáin tagairt don "enterprise culture" agus aontaím leis go bhfuil cuid de sin ann. Go bunúsach, ní féidir a bheith i gcónaí ag brath ar an "enterprise culture", mar atá sé faoi láthair, mar go bhfuil an saol ag athrú. Tá an-chuid de na deiseanna atá ann le haghaidh fiontair ag athrú freisin. Níl na monarchana céanna ann agus a bhí fadó. Níl na monarchana ann agus a bhí le linn saol Harold Wilson — a raibh Teachtaí á chaoineadh inniu — nuair a bhí seisean ag fás suas. Tá saol andifriúil ann agus ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do chlár raidió a chuala mé ar maidin. Baineann sé seo leis an rud atá i gceist agam. Faoi láthair, tá eachtra ar bun ag Mr. Gay Byrne ar a chlár raidió. Má fhaigheann aon duine seans éisteacht le cuid de, b'fhéidir go mbeadh suim acu ann i gcomhthéacs na díospóireachta seo. Cuireadh grúpa gnáthdhaoine go háit nádúrtha — ní mhaith liom "fiáin" a rá. Is áit é nach bhfuil seirbhísí, ó thaobh siopaí nó aon chineál cabhrach, ag na daoine sin ó lá go lá. Tá sé fágtha futhu féin dul ar aghaidh agus a gcuid bia a fháil, dul ó áit go háit, a gcuid dídean a fháil agus gach rud a dhéanamh atá riachtanach chun maireachtáil. B'fhéidir go bhfuil sé sin ag dul thar fóir ó thaobh chúrsaí oideachais de. Ní bheidh muid fágtha ar an ngannchuid ach amháin má tharláionn pléasc ag Sellafield, rud nach dtarlóidh le cúnamh Dé. Ó lá go lá táimid ag brath ar an-chuid seirbhísí.

Is cuspóir ceart, nach bhfuil ag an gcóras oideachais go fóill, na scileanna a thabhairt do dhuine chun ullmhúchán a dhéanamh don saol atá roimhe. Is triail chrua é an teachtaireacht atá ar bun ag lucht Mr. Gay Byrne ar a chlár raidió ach, mar mhúinteoir mé féin, tugann sé an-chuid ábhar machnaimh dom. Cuireann sé cúpla ceist os mo chomhair amach. Cé atá in ann, tar éis saol scoile, bia a chur ag fás agus é a ullmhú? Cé atá in ann iad féin a choimeád tirim? An dtuigeann daoine gur mór an t-athrú olann a chaitheamh agus cadás a chaitheamh, ó thaobh báistí agus fliuchais agus mar sin de? Is iad seo rudaí atá bunúsach go leor, má tá duine dífhostaithe, má tá sé bocht, má tá sé ag ceannach éadaí do leanaí, má tá sé ag iarraidh maireachtáil ó lá go lá. Is scileanna bunúsacha iad seo atá in easnamh nuair atá muid ag iarraidh dul isteach sa "golden circle" nó ag iarraidh a bheith cosúil le cúpla gnó-eagraithe atá an-saibhir.

Ó thaobh sláinte de, is fearr — de réir na daoine ar an gclár raidió — gan siúl ar an mbóthar má tá duine ag siúl ar feadh i bhfad. Tá comhairle faighte acu gan a bheith ag siúl ar an mbóthar go ró-mhinic mar go ndéanann sé dochar do na cosa. Tá mé ag dul thar fóir maidir le riachtanais an tsaol ó lá go lá. Níl mé ach ag iarraidh cur in iúl go bhfuil scileanna ann nach bhfuil i gceist sa chóras scolaíochta atá againn. Mar shampla, cén sort plandaí atá nimhneach? Tá go leor daoine a cheapann, tar éis a saol a chaitheamh ar scoil, gur ionann planda amháin agus planda eile. Is cinnte nach dtuigeann siad cad iad na cinn atá nimhneach. B'fhéidir go dtuigeann siad an difríocht eatarthu ó thaobh féachaint orthu de ach sin an méid a thuigeann siad. Ní fhoghlaimíonn siad a leithéid de rudaí phraiticiúla ar nós conas inneall a dheisiú, conas rothar a dheisiú, conas a bheith neamhspleách ón gcóras, má theipeann ar an gcóras sin. Ní gá domsa a rá go bhfuil ag teipeadh ar an gcóras ar an-chuid daoine in Éirinn. Is cuma cé chomh holc nó maith agus atá cúrsaí eacnamaíocha, beidh scileanna an tsaoil tábhachtach i gcónaí do dhaoine, ag dul tríd an scoil agus mar dhaoine fásta.

Níl a ndóthain aitheantais tugtha do na bunscileanna saoil atá ag teastáil ó dhaoine atá ag fás aníos sa tír seo, ní amháin go bhféadfadh siad a bheith neamhspleach ach — mar is ceart agus is cóir — go mbeadh scileanna acu chun saol sona a chaitheamh agus go mbeadh an sásamh pearsanta acu a thugann an sonas sin don saol. Leis na figiúirí ó thaobh daoine atá ag cur lámha ina mbásanna féin agus atá caillte ina meonta féin agus atá in ospidéil agus atá ag cosaint an-chuid airgid ar an Stát — níl aon dabht faoi sin — tá sé tábhachtach féachaint ar na bunriachtanais sin nach bhfuil á gcomhlíonadh sa chóras mar atá faoi láthair.

Agus mé i mo mhúinteoir, bhí seans agam féin béim a leagan ar na bunriachtanais seo sa scoil a bhí faoi mo chúram féin i mBaile Bhrigín. Tá sé tábhachtach an sampla seo a thabhairt. Is féidir le go leor daoine a rá go bhfuil sé an-éasca a bheith ag caint ach go bhfuil sé i bhfad níos deacra an rud praiticiúil a dhéanamh. I mo chás féin bhí seans agam gáirdín scoile a chur ar bun. Tá áthas orm go raibh agus aithním go raibh an t-ádh orm, mar phríomhoide, mo rud féin a dhéanamh sa scoil, suas go dtí pointe áirithe. Bhí seans agam gáirdín a leagann amach mar ba mhian liom. Leag mé amach é i gcomhpháirtíocht leis na leanaí agus leis an múinteoir eile a bhí ag obair sa scoil liom. Tá an gáirdín fós ann, chomh fada le m'eolas. An rud a bhí ann ná córas, ní amháin conas bláthanna a chur agus plandaí a chur ach conas bia a chur, conas bia a ullmhú, conas daoine a chothú, agus conas gur féidir le duine a bheith chomh neamhspleách agus is féidir ón siopa trasna an bhóthair nuair a bhíonn gá leis. Dár ndóigh, nílim ag rá gur féidir le duine a bheith neamhspleách ar fad. Tá sé tábhachtach do oideachas daoine gur féidir leo a bheith neamhspleách, más gá. Bhí grúpaí sa scoil, ceann acu freagrach as glasraí ar nós cabáiste agus grúpa eile freagrach as prátaí, cur i gcás. Bhí na grúpaí seo go léir ag cur cineálacha bia éagsúla ag fás. San fhómhar, bhí bia ar fáil. Bhí an-cheacht le foghlaim ag na leanaí. D'fhoghlaim siad nach féidir leo a bheith ag brath go hiomlán ar an rud a chuireann siad féin; gur gá iad a mhalartú; gur féidir gnó a dhéanamh gan airgead a úsáid i gcónaí; agus go bhfuil slite eile ann chun dul ar aghaidh sa saol. Tá an éagsúlacht sin tábhachtach. Bhí comhoibriú á mhúineadh: comhoibriú nach bhfuil a dhóthain de sna scoileanna anois. Tá mórán cloiste mar gheall ar chomórtas, mar gheall ar strus, agus mar gheall ar dhaoine a bheith tinn de bhárr an chineál meoin atá sna scoileanna faoi láthair. Tá sé an-tábhachtach samplaí a thabhairt den tábhacht a bhaineann le comhoibriú. Is rud praiticiúil a bhí ar bun sa scoil, ní amháin conas bia a ullmhú agus dul ar aghaidh sa saol i gcoitinne. Dár ndóigh, bhí baint idir an scoil agus an baile. Beidh sa todhchaí agus, le cúnamh Dé, neartófar an bhaint sin amach anseo tríd an bPáipéar Bán. Má tá an bhaint sin láidir agus má tá tuiscint sa bhaile agus sa scoil cad iad na cuspóirí atá leagtha síos do na leanaí agus don chóras oideachais, beidh sé sin sláintiúil. Sa chás seo, tháinig neart rudaí sláintiúla as. Bhí an bia sin á thabhairt abhaile; bhí sé á ullmhú ina bhéilí do na teaghlaigh; agus bhí an bhaint idir an scoil agus an baile á neartú ar bhealach a bhí difriúil agus a bhí praiticiúil ag an am chéanna.

Tá an-chuid déanta ag tuismitheoirí na hÉireann agus ní thugtar i gcónaí an t-aitheantas dóibh agus is cuí. Ní dóigh liom go dtugtar an t-aitheantas is cuí do na múinteoirí go ró-mhinic, ach an oiread. Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do shampla amháin den obair atá ar bun ag tuismitheoirí nach bhfuil róshoiléar on bPáipéar Bán. Is é sin an réabhlóid is mó a tharla sa tír seo ó bunaíodh an Stát. Tá mé ag déanamh tagairt do na gaelscoileanna. Tá na gaelscoileanna sa tír seo ag dul ó neart go neart. Tá siad ag féachaint ar an bPáipéar Bán seo agus, i ndáiríre, is beag treoir nó machnamh atá sa Pháipéar Bán don chineál struchtúir, córais agus coinníollacha a bheidh le comhlíonadh agus a bheidh mar chuspóirí ag an Roinn agus ag na gaelscoileanna féin amach anseo. Is gá don Aire níos mó machnaimh a dhéanamh air sin agus féachaint an féidir an bearna sin a líonadh. Is bearna an-mhór é sa Pháipéar Bán.

Is é an meon atá ag an Roinn faoi láthair ná go bhfreagraíonn sé éileamh na dtuismitheoirí. Glacann an Roinn go bhfuil éileamh ann do ghaelscoileanna ach ní dhéanann sé mórán níos nó ná sin: glacann sé go bhfuil an t-éileamh ann agus fágtar faoi na tuismitheoirí teacht le chéile agus an scoil a chur ar bun. Ní leor sin, ar chor ar bith, de bharr go bhfuil an-chuid tuismitheoirí atá ag iarradh gaelscoileanna a chur ar bun. Ní féidir leo é sin a dhéanamh i gcónaí mar go bhfuil na coinníollacha atá in áit andaingean. Caithfear méid áirithe leanaí a bheith ar fáil roimh ré nach bhfuil ag freastal ar aon scoil eile. Caithfear a bheith an-eagraithe mar phobal deonach. Is beag cabhrach a fhaightear ón Roinn ach amháin nuair a iarrann siad aitheantas. Fiú amháin ansin, bíonn an t-aitheontas an-mhall ag teacht, cé go bhfuil sé ráite ag an Aire go mbeidh sé níos tapúla amach anseo. Ní leor é sin ar chor ar bith, go mór mór nuair atá struchtúir réigiúnda nua á lua sa Pháipéar Bán. Cá fhágtar na gaelscoileanna ansin? Faoi láthair, is mionlach iad lucht na ngaelscoileanna. Cé go bhfuil siad ag fás go tapa, beidh siad ina mionlach ar feadh tamall eile. Leis na struchtúir réigiúnda atá ag teacht ar an saol, de réir dealraimh, beidh ar na húdaráis áitiúla aire a thabhairt do na gaelscoileanna.

An bhfuil an tAire sásta gach rud a fhágaint faoi na structúir réigiúnda seo? An cuma léi má cheapann na structúir réigiúnda nach fiú nó nach féidir leo ó thaobh costais de a bheith ag plé le gaelscoileanna? Nó an bhfuil sí chun structúr náisiúnta a chur ar bun le haghaidh gaelscoileanna i dtreo is gur féidir leis an mionlach sin comhoibriú le chéile agus a bheith níos eifeachtaí ó thaobh costais, eagraíochta agus mar sin de? Ba cheart don Aire agus impím uirthi dul chun cainte leis na gaelscoileanna agus comhoibriú leo a leithéid de structúr a chur ar bun. Faoi láthair is cosúil go bhfuil sí ag fágaint na ngaelscoileanna gan mórán aird a thabhairt orthu. Ní amháin sin ach tá sí ag fágaint scoil-eanna na Gaeltachta mar sin freisin.

Tá roinnt tagartí sa Pháipéar Bán do oidhreacht na tíre agus do shaibhreas na hoidhreachta sin ach fós féin is beag eile atá ann maidir le cabhair phraiticiúil agus treoir a thabhairt. Is ceart dúinn an bearna sin a líonadh gan a thuilleadh moille.

Tá roinnt ceisteanna eile a bhaineann leis an bPáipéar Bán agus is rudaí iad sin a phléifidh mé go dátheangach.

"Special education" is a term used widely nowadays but such terms can be meaningless unless backed up with adequate resources. In the White Paper on Education much emphasis is placed on the need to integrate pupils with special needs into the mainstream education system. While that sounds praisworthy and desirable, one must ask how teachers, already subjected to enormous pressure in overcrowded classrooms, will cope with the implementation of such an idealistic aspiration.

It is not sufficient to say there will be "in-service" training. The Minister must specify exactly how this will be done, when, its cost, where such training will take place and how it will be structured, before she can convincingly implement it. "In service" training is a top priority with many teachers but, equally important, the general classroom is in need of careful ministerial examination. For example, some children with special needs can easily be integrated in the general classroom, but there will be others who may be incontinent, who must have everything done for them and require the services of professionals such as speech therapists, apparently all of which will be provided on top of the already enormous pressures to which teachers are subjected. The Minister should clearly specify whether she recognises that teacher numbers will have to be significantly increased, or pupil numbers reduced, within classes containing a child or children with special needs in the manner envisaged in this White Paper. I should like to see the integration of children with special needs implemented as much as is humanly, practically possible but not to the detriment of the general quality of education being striven for; everything must be taken into consideration.

Some people might say it is easy for me to talk in this Chamber, standing on a very thick carpet in a peaceful environment. It is tempting for the Minister to have very idealistic objectives in her working environment which, while exerting considerable time pressures on her, would be regarded as the lap of luxury compared with conditions in most, if not all, our schools. It is grand to observe school children in the public gallery being extremely quiet compared with their behaviour generally in classrooms. Realism must permeate any implementation of the aspirations contained in this White Paper on Education and their attendant legislative provisions.

There is reference also in the document to the desirability of the earliest possible intervention if and when something goes wrong in the education system. This rings hollow in the case of many people at present involved in education, many of whom are unable to avail of "in-service" training or the continuous back-up support required if that intervention is to be effective. For example, the general pre-school scene here has been clouded by a haze of voluntary groups and organisations doing excellent work in this field and the Department of Education seems happy with the status quo. However, many communities with which I am familiar, certainly in north County Dublin, experience enormous difficulty in maintaining these services, must engage in fund-raising and are merely surviving from one week to the next.

Last evening I attended a table quiz organised for the benefit of a pre-school organisation in my constituency in the Swords area, at which there was a great atmosphere, people willing to help and support the cause. Nonetheless, this means that the Department of Education gets off scot-free, merely giving lip service to the value of pre-school education, without being prepared to assist financially; the Department cannot have it both ways.

The document also mentions the desirability of developing rigorous procedures for evaluating educational effectiveness, about which I have a couple of questions to put to the Minister. First, will such procedures be related to the diversity of pupils' abilities and their socio-economic backgrounds? It would be very difficult, indeed dangerous, for the Department to jump in with both feet in evaluating educational effectiveness without also taking into account the overall diversity of opportunity that is part of life nowadays.

Implicit in that evaluation aspiration, is the schools inspectorate in need of a thorough and serious overhaul? Having listened to Deputy Browne talk about his experiences as a principal with schools inspectors, I pose that question tongue in cheek. There is probably a need to take a serious look at the effectiveness of the schools inspectorate in addition to the relevance of some techniques used in the evaluation of education in this country. However, I know a number of inspectors who have developed to the extent that they are operating within the 1990s, clued in very much to present-day educational needs, done in spite of the Department rather than with its support or encouragement.

The question of value for money permeates the White Paper and that is understandable. I would be interested to know whether the Department of Finance can give more information on what is referred to as value for money. Yesterday at Question Time the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, said the Department had undertaken some analysis of the cost of implementing the White Paper's proposals, but he said he could not make a public statement on it. We await further information on this matter and I hope we will not have too long to wait.

A number of questions arise from the value for money there in the White Paper. I hope the Minister will change the old system of what I call factory education whereby children were regimented and were fed information like fodder and then swapped their school seat for a factory seat where they worked in a regimented fashion until they received the gold watch when they retired at 65. If we accept such a system in the post-industrial society that is evolving in spite of Government initiatives we will not get value for money. The value for money concept needs to be broadly costed, and to include for example hospital costs. Children should be taught how to look after themselves when they leave school so that they will not end up in hospital.

Another cost factor relates to early retirement for teachers. The present crisis should be considered in a broad context. I recall a Victorian verse in Irish schools about happy English children, and it is certainly important that we have happy children and happy teachers. Serious problems will arise for teachers and pupils if the resourcing of education is not considered seriously.

I would be interested in the results of a survey on our prison population to determine the adequacy of education in preparing people for life. I suspect that the system fails mostly at primary level. It is at that stage basic literacy, numberacy, social and other skills should be taught and if that is not done great difficulties arise in later life which result in a cost to the State. There is a price to be paid for under-resourcing education and that should be considered. I hope the Minister will influence her colleagues at Cabinet to take on board that suggestion. Much of our prison population would not be in prison if the level of resources available in other countries was made available to primary education. Children who attend second and third level and further education benefit from the foundations laid at primary level and I am concerned the Government does not appreciate the significance of resourcing primary education.

I would be interested in a survey to assess how many schools would comply with the health and safety standards which should apply in schools. Deputy Browne spoke about the harm caused to children, perhaps unintentionally by using furniture. It is within the Department's remit to decide who should provide furniture through the Office of Public Works and other organs of Government. A number of questions arise in regard to health and safety in schools. Before the White Paper proposals are enacted in legislation what efforts will be made to ensure a safe environment in schools? We have heard time and again — I will not go into the details — about the dreadful conditions in some schools, which is a cause for great shame. I hope improvements are made so that visitors to the country can see our schools as an example of how we treat our young people. Not long ago there was controversy about President Robinson's visit to Argentina as she was not allowed see disadvantaged areas. If the President of Argentina visited Ireland, would we be prepared to show that President our schools? I doubt it.

There is no reference in the White Paper to the provision of recreational space. It is lamentable that there is only a passing reference to sport and physical education. Due to Irish weather conditions very often physical education and sport in schools is almost non-existent. Provision should be made for alternative indoor pursuits.

There is a passing reference in the White Paper to school attendance. The Government should realise that non-attendance at school is no longer only due to children going off to a wood, fishing or taking part in some other activity in a Tom Sawyer like fashion. In many cases nowadays children are kept at home by their parents who perhaps are ill, have a drink problem or are not able to ensure that their children go to school. The school attendance system needs to be updated and the Government should take that into account.

In the area of adult and third level education there is an anomaly in terms of free fees. Maintenance is still a huge problem in that such fees are restricted to undergraduates and those outside that category pursuing further education must pay their own fees.

The aspiration that students should attend third level colleges in other European countries on the basis of being citizens of the European Union is also relevant.

A student in my constituency whose parents are not in paid employment, her father having been made redundant shortly before she was due to go to college, managed through the kindness of a relative with whom she stayed in England to attend a college there. I am sure the Minister agrees that student's pursuit of third level education in England is saving this country a great deal of money. The student, who is pursuing a business studies course in a college in Northumbria, is required as part of her course to spend a year in a college in France midway through her course. That ties in with what Deputy Brennan referred to as the enterprise culture. The British Government will cover the cost of a British citizen spending a year in that French college and recognises it as part of his or her education, but it will not cover the cost of an Irish citizen attending that college. This matter has just come to light as that student could not have known when applying to that English college and securing payment of her fees that a problem would arise midway through her course. She is facing a major problem and it is one which the Department must consider. The Department has saved a great deal of money as a result of that student being prepared to pursue third level education in an English college. However, the Department has not replied to a letter from her seeking assistance. She has been left high and dry midway through her course and prevented from pursuing it by spending a year gaining experience of business practice in France. I urge the Minister to respond and assist that student who has saved the Department a significant amount of money by having the courage to pursue her studies abroad, thereby saving taxpayers' money. I intend to follow up that case and I hope the Minister will consider it positively.

Maidir le dul ó thír go tír agus múinteoirí ag teacht go dtí an tír seo tá go leor ráite mar gheall ar chaighdeán na Gaeilge agus an riachtanas atá ann ó thaobh Gaeilge de do mhúinteoirí. Mar bhall den bhFóram Síocháin agus Athmhuintireas mé féin tá roinnt de na hargóintí atá ann cloiste agam maidir le cúrsaí Gaeilge agus múinteoirí atá oilte i dTuaisceart na hÉireann ag iarraidh a bheith mar mhúinteoirí anseo. Tuigim go bhfuil deacracht ann. Glacaim go bhfuil sé an-tábhachtach a bheith anchúramach faoi seo. Tá baol ann má tá laghdú ar an gcaighdeán Gaeilge ó thaobh riachtanais i gcomhair múinteoireachta sa tír seo. Má bhíonn múinteoirí ó Thuaisceart na hÉireann in ann teachtanseo mar mhúinteoirí gan Ghaeilge ar bith gur cineál cúl-doras é sin do dhaoine atá lag sa Ghaeilge sa Tuais-ceart nó sa Deisceart. Bheadh baol ann go bhféadfadh daoine dul ón dtaobh seo den oileán suas go dtí an Tuaisceart, oiliúnt a fháil agus teacht thar n-ais anseo gan Ghaeilge.

Seasaim féin leis an riachtanas atá ann don Ghaeilge agus iarraim ar an Aire é a dhéanamh chomh maith mar ní dóigh liom go bhfuilimid ag cabhrú leis an dtír nó leis an nglúin atá ag teacht aníos má táimid sásta é a laghdú. Tá sé lag go leor, tá fhios againn.

I know the area of gender equality is one of some interest to the Minister, but some of the theory and practice in that area have yet to be married. Recently I learned from a good friend who sought a policy document on gender equality in primary education that the document is sketchy and not well developed, but it is welcome that at least one exists. While the White Paper refers to the Higher Education Authority being responsible for gender equality, and that reads well, it is worrying to learn that it does not know very much about its responsibility in that area and is not prepared for or aware of its role. There is no need to match theory with practice in that area because the White Paper is devalued if references in it are proved to be untrue.

The question of why so many women, proportionately, are involved in teaching and so many men in inspecting requires a separate debate. It is not only those men and women, but children who suffer from that. It is worrying from the point of view of role models that the authority figure who enters schools is a man and the person with whom the children spend most of their time in school is a woman. That discriminates against men and women in terms of how the pupils view each gender. We need to examine different schools to ascertain how they manage. I was lucky that the school in which I taught was a two teacher school and the second teacher was female. The issue of gender equality in education needs to be considered separately.

The establishment of a teaching council is necessary to ensure that teachers are not bad mouthed and maliciously discredited and teachers who have problems can get a fair hearing. It has been repeatedly reported that there is unsatisfactory teaching and I recognise it is necessary to consider that matter seriously. When dealing with teachers we must ensure that high standards are maintained. Parent associations are somewhat unsure of their brief. Some consider their role is that of fundraising and are not sure if they have anything more to contribute, while others consider they are the alternative board of management and find themselves in direct competition with the board of management proper. A more detailed briefing is necessary if parent involvement in education is to be harmonious.

I am delighted the Minister is in the House to hear the views of Members. When will the various legislation referred to in the White Paper be introduced? Will the Minister indicate the extent of the legislative programme that will arise as a result of the paper? This would enable us to focus on specific areas of education because, of necessity, this debate is wide-ranging.

I hope the Minister for Finance can give more details about the cost of implementing the recommendations of the White Paper than he gave yesterday at Question Time. It appears some analysis of the cost has been carried out, but we have not yet received that information. If the aspirations in the White Paper are not implemented we are merely talking hot air, with no objective in mind.

In analysing the cost of implementing its recommendations the Department of Finance should take into account the fact that according to the OECD, historically the Irish Government has invested less per pupil than any other developed country and confirmed that Irish primary teachers work longer hours than their counterparts in almost every other country. This should be borne in mind in the context of the present discussions on the extra 30 hours, pressures on teachers and so on. Regardless of the logic of catering for pupils with special needs in mainstream schools, without proper resources, in-service training and so on, it will not work.

I welcome the Minister's leadership in this area and ask her to ensure that the recommendations of the paper are implemented in a partnership arrangement. As there is a great deal of anger among teachers, they should be consulted in this regard. All partners in education have an important role to play and we cannot do anything without full co-operation.

Of the 235 pages in the White Paper I will concentrate on the five which address the needs of people with disabilities. While the report does not deal with this area in detail, I acknowledge that the emphasis is on the right direction. Education of people with disabilities is not given priority either in terms of policy or funding. I hope the reference to it in the White Paper will lead to the inclusion of more people with special needs in the education system.

The importance of the role of the education system to the lives of people with disabilities cannot be underestimated. Our society has failed to constructively address their needs and aspirations in the education system and, up to now, has continually promoted the exclusion and marginalisation of such people. A total of 87 per cent of people with disabilities are unemployed and our education system must determine how it failed to include those people along the way. Recent research by the Irish Wheelchair Association highlighted an alarming scale of isolation and forced dependence. Surveys highlight that 50 per cent of those in residential care are there involuntarily, that 42 per cent of people with disabilities are not involved in social activities outside their homes and that 74 per cent are not involved in education or training programmes. Unfortunately, because a person cannot walk or must use a wheelchair, we cannot be certain that is the only disability he or she will encounter in life. Our education system must ensure that such people can become involved with their peers in the community and not be excluded from education in their parishes.

Historically, Ireland has conformed to the model of sending children with disabilities to special schools. While such schools provide them with a fine education, many of them would prefer to be educated in mainstream schools. This trend has been developed in many other countries, but appears to be ignored here. Evidence suggests that significant numbers of children with disabilities would benefit from enrolment in mainstream schools if provided with accessible facilities and some additional support. In drawing up plans for schools the Department of Education must ensure the buildings are accessible. A new school opened in Ashbourne last September, but when a pupil confined to a wheelchair enrolled he had to apply to the Department of Education for modifications to be carried out so that he could enter the school building. While the building was accessible in terms of the width of the doors and corridors, because of gravel outside the front door the wheelchair could not enter the building. We should also adopt a planned approach towards making all existing school buildings accessible to such people.

I welcome the sections of the White Paper which aspire to redirect official policy and propose the objective of ensuring that education provision for children with disabilities is flexible enough to meet there particular needs, ranging from mainstream to special schooling.

Progress in this area has been slow. Five years ago the EC Council of Minsters for Education, under the Presidency of Deputy O'Rourke, adopted a resolution on the integration of children with special needs; three years ago a Green Paper outlined similar points and two years ago a special education review committee published its report, a task force was set up and the National Education Convention endorsed the idea of inclusion. In the past five years many reports were published and resolutions adopted. However, parents are concerned that while their hopes have been raised by the publication of documents, there has been no follow-up progress.

A recent one day seminar of the Parents for Integration Group was held in Dublin. Those parents stressed the fact that while many reports have been published, there has not been enough action. On a recent visit to the Department of Education a delegation of parents from that group expressed the need for the Department to understand their concerns about having their children educated in their local parishes. They are concerned that the years seems to have added nothing to the development of inclusive education for children with disabilities and are appealing to the Minister to make progress in this area. Parents are so frustrated in this regard that they have raised money to take legal action against the Department, two such cases have been taken in the United Kingdom.

We have long since reached the time for action on this important issue. I hope it will be a priority in the Government's policies, particularly in regard to funding. If not, the references to it in the White Paper and the commitment on special needs will ring hollow. It has come to my attention recently that the publication of this document took some time. It is a glossy document, which cost £260,000, containing 25 pages of colour photographs. That money could have been used to provide facilities throughout the country.

I commend the proposals to give statutory responsibility to the education boards for implementing the inclusion objective. That is a good idea but only if the education boards are required to report to the Department of Education on an annual basis and the Department of Education collates that information and publishes national data with regard to their responsibililty in this area. There is little point in handing over powers on this special area to the education boards if the Department does not keep a watching brief by way of annual report in regard to what is taking place.

It is obvious from the White Paper that this aspect of education will come within the responsibility of a special committee. For these committees to respond properly to the needs of the people in the special care area, it is important to ensure parental involvement on the committee.

With regard to integrated facilities, there is a risk of removing the onus from each school to provide for the reasonable needs of children with disabilities and of undermining the core principle that children should be educated, as far as possible, with their peers in their own community. The idea of an entirely distinct sector within the education system is likely to be continued if basic issues of concern to students with disabilities do not form an integral part of mainstream education. It seems likely that the Minister is essentially proposing another tier of slightly less segregated schooling. This is an advance but it does not address the core issues. There is a need for special schools and the idea of special schools serving as regional resource centres in the community is to be commended. However, we must always be mindful of the needs of individual children in individual parishes.

The important area of teacher training is not properly addressed in the White Paper. This is a major issue with parents, children with special needs and teachers. Many parents feel that teachers frequently resist integration of children with disabilities within their classes due to lack of experience in teaching such children. I question whether sufficient thought is put into teacher training. We talk about in-service training for teachers of students with special needs but we are not ambitious enough. The White Paper also promotes the perception of the exceptional marginal position of such students within the school system and that is unfortunate. Training to cater for students with special needs should be a part of the teacher training curriculum. This should also be included in the preservice education for second level teachers.

The Minister recently pointed to an increase in the number of travelling special need teachers. These teachers are exceedingly important in the community and they provide an invaluable service. Unfortunately, they are thinly spread throughout the country and are generally unable to devote more than one or two hours per week to each pupil. Pupils attending a blind school, for example, who also have difficulties with hearing urgently require the services of a travelling special need teacher for more than one or two hours per week. The number of hours currently available are insufficient and the service should be broadened because these teachers are essential.

Transport is an area that must be examined also. It is not mentioned in the White Paper under the section dealing with special needs but it is an area that is very much to the forefront. I drew to the Minister's attention the case of an 11 year old child in Bandon who had previously attended a mainstream school 15 miles from his home, but who has not been to school for eight months because no accessible transport is available to that school. Obviously there are other such children and if progress is to be made on inclusion, there must be a radical development in accessible transport for these children to their nearest schools.

I understand there is a difficulty with regard to the absence of a relevant technologist within the Department and a budget, independent of special schools, for the provision of equipment. This is an area in which the Minister could act rapidly because there is not any major funding implication involved. It is important that technologists within the Department have a special budget for equipment for mainstream schools to cater for pupils with special needs.

The White Paper is weak in regard to this area in third level education. At primary and second level it is proposed to establish a clear statutory framework but there is no such proposal for third level. It is suggested that institutions will be encouraged, rather than obliged, to take action. The access programme, which has been in operation in UCD since 1989, has been successful and it should be copied in other colleges. The Minister should give the Higher Education Authority specific statutory responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the efforts of colleges to promote inclusion. The word "encouraged" should be changed to "obliged" in dealing with third level because there is not enough emphasis on the importance of this.

Advanced academic study on disability issues should be supported whenever possible. As such, the suggested national institute for mental handicap studies would be a welcome development and, beyond this proposal, every possible effort should be made — and I presume is being made — to locate the European Centre for Excellence on Research in Disability in Ireland. The presence of such a body would be an invaluable catalyst on the domestic and European issues concerning people with disabilities.

I urge the Minister to give effect to a promise to prioritise this area by immediately commencing to take the obvious steps which need to be taken to promote inclusion in all of our schools. Many of the long term statutory proposals in the White Paper are welcome and will get considerable support. However, the Minister should reemphasise the idea of designated schools and stress that the first choice should always be to give each child an opportunity of being educated in his own community and among his own peers. If we are attempting to enact an educational blueprint for the next century, we must not make the mistakes of the past by marginalising children with disabilities. Like those of other children, their needs should be part of our education system, and not just a certain area of it.

I welcome this debate on the White Paper on Education. The Minister and her officials, must feel a sense of satisfaction in finally having this White Paper published. It is a long time since the Green Paper began and we have had many Ministers for Education since then.

Education is central to the development of any nation. The principles we hold and the philosophy we adopt as a people are handed on by us through the education system. Hardly any Government Department touches the lives of so many people as does the Department of Education. One million students currently attend educational institutions at one level or another from pre-school to post graduate studies. Their teachers and parents are directly affected by any decision of Government which influences the lives of these students. The taxpayer who foots the bill for this most important Department, the business community to whom many of our students will turn for their employment and the hard pressed pensioners whose hope for a better future lies in the civic spirit of future generations all have a vested interest in the promotion of policies which will produce the best system of education possible.

We, as legislators, have a responsibility to all sectors of society where education is concerned. It is our duty to ensure that any change we propose to make at any level of our education system will lead to improvements. Education policies adopted by us since the foundation of the State have led us to the point where we have, by and large, a well educated population. It is time for change and we all recognise that. Our young people must be given the opportunity to face the forthcoming millennium with confidence. The foundations on which we build are as good as they can be. Indeed, the record of this House on its approach to education is a proud one.

In particular I want to mention my party's record. It is important that we examine carefully any new development put before us. The White Paper on Education, Charting our Education Future, is designed to put in place structures which will have a profound effect on those who we will represent in the years to come. We cannot afford to make any mistakes in dealing with the contents of this document. The White Paper is the result of years of hard work by many dedicated people. I am well aware of the great effort put in by officials in the Department and that should be recognised.

The White Paper has been influenced by the National Education Convention which heard submissions from almost every group who could claim a legitimate interest in the educational process. During the plenary sessions of the convention we were privileged to hear the suggestions, aspirations, desires and fears of the widest range of interest groups ever to be heard in the history of the State.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn