I welcome the Minister to the House and I call on Senator Cotter to move the motion. The Senator has 15 minutes.
Inadequate School Buildings: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann, in recognition of the fact that successive surveys have confirmed that Irish school buildings are among the worst in the OECD, that many school structures are unsafe, unhygienic, lack adequate sanitary facilities and are under-equipped, calls on the Minister for Education to increase substantially the capital allocation for Irish primary and post-primary education in order to enable Irish pupils enjoy a level of educational facilities comparable with those in other developed countries.
I join you in welcoming the Minister back to the House.
Most Members will agree with at least some of the terms of the motion and many will agree with all its terms. The national school system is the bedrock of our education system. The attention we pay to it decides, by and large, the quality of the total educational experience of our children. Everybody agrees that a good beginning is half the battle. The Spanish team in particular would agree with that and I am sure that the Irish boys would also if only the boot had been on the other foot today. If a child's early experience of education is unsatisfactory and frustrating it leaves an indelible mark.
The Department of Education presides over 3,500 primary schools catering for approximately 500,000 children and we are proud of the standards achieved by the pupils served by the system. However, speaking in such generalities tends to hide the real story which for many parents, pupils and teachers, is truly horrific. The reality is that 630 of our national schools are substandard, 200 of which are seriously substandard. Outdoor toilets, the lack of a heating system and the presence of rats and mice are still a fact of life in some of our schools. There are also rotten windows and doors, prefabs which were in good shape a quarter of a century ago, no recreational space, wall-to-wall bodies in the classroom and a remedial teacher with no place to teach — the tale of woe goes on and on and in that respect we should be ashamed of ourselves. Conditions such as those which I described are not acceptable even in the Third World.
A wonderful philosophy of education which is accepted by the Minister, her staff, the whole Government and the people is not much good if the reality in the classroom means that the philosophy cannot be put into practice. What good is it for teachers to be involved in wonderful brainstorming sessions, as many of them are, to generate new ideas and improve performance, if when they go to school the next day their efforts are set at naught by bad classroom conditions? Members will agree that philosophy and motivation are destroyed when circumstances conspire to prevent their expression. In many parts of Ireland parents are up in arms because the local school is not suitable for good teaching and learning.
The Minister is certainly committed to equal opportunities and high standards in our schools. She is on record as intending to do much good in the future. However, her commitment is meaningless unless it is accompanied by an active programme geared in a positive and meaningful manner to tackle and eliminate all the substandard schools. The movement and moods of society dictate changing attitudes to education. Currently and for the past number of years, the terrible unemployment is, to some extent dictating curriculum content and philosophical emphasis. Our schools are required to produce pupils who are self-reliant, inventive, imaginative, etc. Science and PE must be taught in the national schools.
The national school is, no doubt, where the seeds of success are sown. We are agreed that the early formative years are the most important in a child's life. If the early education experience is unsatisfactory it may turn children off for the duration of their time at school which does untold damage. That damage is being caused in a large number of our schools every day. Many four year olds start school life in a classroom where they are packed together wall-to-wall and where teacher-pupil contact is rare. Each of us can call up images of a local school where, for example, the computer is still in its box because there is no place to put it; the science area is the top of a radiator; there is no room for artistic expression; PE means a frolic in the yard for five or ten minutes, often a yard and the remedial teacher takes her pupils in a cramped cloakroom. Two hundred of our schools are in a condition which would not be acceptable in the Third World.
Ballymackney school outside Carrickmacross, about two miles from my house, is one such establishment. It was built in 1847, probably one of the first schools built in the country. Pupils there would have seen emaciated bodies being carried to the workhouse in Carrickmacross during the Famine. They would also have witnessed Paddy Kavanagh, the poet, driving his cattle to the fair on a first Friday in Carrickmacross. That school was a fine school in its day — which was in 1847 — and was acceptable in the early part of this century. However, it is unacceptable today. Parents are up in arms because they are getting unsatisfactory backing from their local Oireachtas representatives, and the Minister. They are starting a campaign which will continue until they get a replacement building to which we agree they are entitled.
I visited the school on a number of occasions, the fridge in which they keep the school milk is in the hallway beside the toilets and is an indication of what is happening in that school. It does not have a cloakroom and the remedial teacher appointed recently has no place in which to work. It is also a fire hazard which the fire officer, who has often visited the school, pointed out to the principal and staff members. There was a fire in the school last year, thankfully after school hours, when there was no danger to life or limb. However the Minister will agree that the school needs to be replaced at once.
There are many others. In my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan that is one of 13 schools described as in very poor condition. The High School in Carrickmacross, where I used to teach, was built for 150 students. It was opened in 1971 and is a fine building in good condition today. However, there are now 360 students attending it. When I was a teacher there a couple of prefabricated buildings were erected in the school grounds. The Department of Education now proposes to give the High School more prefabricated buildings. However, this creates a difficulty because the school yard is small. I do not know where these buildings should be erected. They are necessary, but the High School urgently needs a proper purpose-built extension.
If the Minister for Education looks at the file she will see that the school was built for 150 pupils. It was started around 1969 and opened in 1971. Over the years the library was used as two classrooms. Therefore, there is now no library in the school. One of the cloakrooms was used as the secretary's office. One can imagine the difficulties students have trying to get to the toilets which were provided for only 150 students, there are now 360 students. The principal has projected that next year there will be 400 pupils in the school. This is the best example of a school which is inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended. I hope the Minister will look at the file to verify what I said.
Scoil Inver, the local vocational school in Carrickmacross, is like a miniature city. It was built around 1963. There are prefabricated buildings everywhere, built from 1965 on. Some of them are old and dilapidated. The Minister is aware that it is difficult to manage such a school because students are away from the main building and teachers who have to travel to and from classrooms are not in the room at the beginning of a class. Therefore, students waste a lot of time. As we know, younger students, in particular, get up to devilment when they have time to waste and it is difficult to maintain morale in such schools.
Parents are up in arms about this situation throughout the country and are no longer willing to accept substandard schools. There is a good reason for this, every year, around 15 August, the leaving certificate results are issued. A large number of students wait to see if the pattern of their lives will be altered, particularly if they fail to get enough points to pursue their chosen career. There are insufficient places for everyone and, therefore, there must be a points system. Parents are aware of this but they do not want second best for their children. As a result, they are putting pressure on the system. They will not accept poor school conditions for their children. If these children spend their days in poor conditions, parents will correctly assess that the quality of their education will also be poor.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to address this problem in the context of the £20 billion investment in the economy until 1999. Everyone is aware of this investment because it has been given great publicity. Will the Minister give a commitment to this House and the people that the 200 substandard schools will be eliminated over the next five years? If our priorities are correct, this will happen; otherwise, it will not. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
I second the motion before the House. This is a time of shifting emphasis and major change in education. At present, a major convention is in progress which may change the course of education. However, without an increased annual capital allocation for primary and post-primary sectors there can be little change. We are lagging behind in our facilities. The era of the prefabricated buildings must now come to an end. We must provide educational facilities on a par with those in other developed countries.
Our current system of providing facilities is cumbersome as it takes too much time to receive official sanction. Considerable money has been wasted on planning schools which were not built, for example in architects' fees, etc. I know of one case in County Galway where a site was acquired for a post-primary school, £130,000 was spent on planning and architects' fees, etc., but nothing happened. The old school is struggling to survive with its inadequate facilities.
Local authorities should have more power in decision making. Each authority should be given money to spend on capital projects. This would shorten the queue at central level and permission should be based on needs rather than political patronage.
Athenry vocational school, in County Galway, is in need of a small extension. This school was built to cater for 250 pupils. A small extension in the early 1980s allowed it to cater for 300 students. Today the number has increased to 680, but the facilities are suitable for only 300 students. The parents' council has raised £80,000 and a £215,000 low cost extension has been agreed in principle with the building unit of the Department of Education. I thank the Minister for meeting a deputation, she has been gracious and sympathetic to our cause. However, permission to proceed has not been forthcoming. Athenry has the largest rural vocational school in Ireland and I appeal to the Minister to sanction this project. Otherwise, the advent of the transitional year next September will mean that Athenry will not be able to cope with the rising numbers.
This successful vocational school is a fulcrum around which the future of a vast agricultural hinterland revolves. Perhaps the Minister will inform me — and I am sure Senator Fahey is also interested — that Athenry is now a number one priority for 1994.
There is ample evidence in County Galway of underfunding of the primary school building programme. Throughout the county there are many examples of primary schools which are substandard by modern standards.
There are still schools in County Galway with prefabricated buildings which are often used as an interim solution to an accommodation problem. They are a temporary means of dealing with an urgent need for extra classroom space. These prefabricated buildings were never intended to be used as a permanent solution to an acute accommodation problem. However, failure to provide permanent accommodation now means that there are old, leaking prefabricated buildings around the country. Some of these are 20 years old and are still being used as classrooms. Such buildings have been used for 20 years in Killeenadeema and Kinvara in County Galway.
In Tirellan national school in Galway city an eight teacher unit was built when a building twice that size was needed. For the last few years the staff and pupils at the school could not use the general purpose room as it has been divided into classrooms. Other classes have been accommodated in bungalows in the locality.
Co-education is a policy of the Department of Education when it comes to building a new school. It is a pity that the Department would not show its commitment to this policy by allowing the new central school in Corrandulla, County Galway, to go ahead. For years parents have campaigned and collected money for this project but nothing is happening.
The idea of a new co-educational school was first mooted in Corrandulla in 1972. For 21 years the people of Corrandulla have waited patiently at the whim of successive Governments. As the song says, "21 years is a mighty long time"; I believe, and I am sure that most people here will agree with me, it is too long. We have co-operation, amalgamation, co-education and everything the Department advocates but sanction to proceed with the building does not seem to be forthcoming. One is inclined to feel that the constitutional rights of a community are being infringed. I appeal again to the Minister to give priority to this project as after 21 years; it deserves it.
At the expense of Monaghan.
May I take the liberty to ask the Minister a few questions? Does Corrandulla national school, County Galway, have priority status?
Stabbing his colleague in the back.
Is the proposed extension to Athenry vocational school also a priority? The new bishops survey shows an anticipated decline of 110,000 in the population of the west in the next 17 years and a need for the generation of 23,000 jobs in the region over that short period if the people are to survive there. I ask the Minister to give priority to our educational demands, particularly Athenry vocational school which is providing all that is best in technical skills in the county where the first county enterprise board was established.
Athenry school is a fulcrum for a huge hinterland. This great seat of learning, if given the facilities it so urgently needs, can play its part in arresting the fearsome decline of the west. The rural parish of Corrandulla is totally dependent on a good education within a proper educational structure for its children who are to play a crucial part if the west is to survive in the years ahead.
Many of our primary school buildings are substandard from other points of view — I do not need to elaborate on what my colleague Senator Cotter has stated. Many do not have adequate hand washing facilities and others have heating systems which are unable to maintain a sufficient level of heat. Some have outdoor toilets in this modern day and age. This all adds up to a sad picture of a system in urgent need of a large injection of finance which would bring our schools up to an acceptable standard.
I sympathise with the Minister; as a teacher I know it is a difficult time and that finances are scarce but I believe the Minister has the commitment and interest in education to do a good job now and in the future. I can only hope this evening she will respond in a positive manner particularly to the two specific cases which I mentioned and which are vital to the development of our county and the people of the west.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"congratulates the Government on its public capital programme for 1993 which reflects a commitment to eliminate substandard school buildings in the primary and post-primary sectors; and notes the commitment in the Programme for Government to increasing the amount of expenditure over the next four years to implement a planned programme of replacing and refurbishing substandard school buildings."
I welcome the Minister to the House and thank her for coming to join in this debate. I wish to analyse very quickly the cause of the problem of substandard schools at primary and post primary level which we all agree is a problem which urgently needs to be solved. It is only right that the Fine Gael Senators present should acknowledge, lest their credibility be called into question, that Fine Gael in Government would have to preside over exactly the same situation as we do. They would not be in a position to act differently because of the obvious need for a substantial amount of money to solve the problems of all the schools throughout this country.
I agree with Senator McDonagh that we should be careful not to involve political patronage in this debate but rather deal with the reality. The reality is that the significant amount of money needed to tackle this problem is not available to the Minister this year — and it was not available to the last Minister last year; it will not be available in the coming years either although we hope to see an increase which will allow the Minister to expedite the programme.
It would be important for the Fine Gael Members present to understand why the school building stock is in its present state. In 1987, when Fianna Fáil went into Government I was given responsibility for school building. One of the first things I did was to look at the list of buildings which were in totally inadequate condition and the officials and I picked out the worst. I asked how long it would take to reach the last school at the present rate of progress — the schools mentioned by the two Senators were not included — and I was told it would take eight years. The last school on the list was Athenry.
I investigated why it was taking so long and learned that the cost of building a room in a primary school in 1987 was £50,000. I called in the architects and the technical people and said it was crazy that it should cost so much when a house or industrial and office buildings could be built for a fraction of that cost. We changed the whole system at that time.
A small number of Rolls Royce schools were being built each year in the previous ten years when the Senator McDonagh's party were in Government. Beautiful schools were being built which cost a fortune and were architecturally designed but no progress was being made in terms of the hovels to be found around the country. We changed that and the result was that the Athenry primary school, which was then planned to go ahead for about three years at a cost of £550,000 was built three years later for £360,000. That is why we have so many bad schools at present.
Senator McDonagh is a gentleman and he makes good political points about Galway but he neglects the fact that in the last four years we have built or rebuilt 27 primary schools in the constituency we both represent. There are still a few to go and we accept that but the speed of the programme was increased significantly because, after a battle in the Department, we asked the technical people to design schools of equal quality which need not cost a fortune to build.
Athenry school has been mentioned and I do not want to be parochial about this but the plans for Athenry school cost £130,000 and were left on the shelf for four or five years while Fine Gael was in Government. It was in a queue, but it was way down the queue, and nothing could be done about it.
That is incorrect.
That is not incorrect.
I am not referring to Athenry——
Acting Chairman
Senator Fahey without interruption, please. The Senator will have an opportunity to rebut this argument at the end of the debate.
I am referring to Athenry and the cost——
I am referring to Athenry but not the £130,000 that was wasted. That is another school; the Senator does not have the facts.
If the Senator checks the record he will find that the plans for Athenry school cost about £130,000. I do not know what school the Senator is talking about but I am talking about the school in Athenry and the plans cost about £130,000. The prepared plans costed the school at about £1.5 million and, as the Senator rightly said, we now have a building in Athenry with almost the same accommodation for £250,000.
I am glad the Minister has made significant progress, in an extremely difficult period for her, in identifying the worst cases around the country. In the Estimates she will be in a position to make progress on those bad school buildings. It is only fair that we should point out why we have such a long list of hovels in the primary and post-primary sectors. It is important also to point out that the amount of money which has been available over the years — and I speak against my own party in this respect — has undoubtedly been far short of what it should have been. If we are honest we would admit that, irrespective of what part is in government, the climate over the last few years has been such that the amount of money we would have wished to spend on school buildings was far higher than was available.
I wish to make another point arising from my experience in the Department which I believe could solve many of the existing problems without spending a huge amount of money. I am speaking of small jobs which need to be undertaken — perhaps building an extra room — to alleviate pressure on prefabs. There was a good example of this in Offaly where a team got together and planned a little building. They asked for a certain amount of money and got on with the building. There is no reason that should not be done. The officials in the Department say no because they maintain that quality, etc., will not meet the required standards. There are examples of where this has been done and I can give the Minister the relevant details.
In Galway a new room was built and the cost to the Department was £4,000. The good people of the area near Headford, which Senator McDonagh knows, decided to ignore the Department and get on with the job. They employed their own tradesmen in the parish — a rural parish — and built a room, the finest in any school in the country. It cost £10,000 but the Department said it would cost £50,000, and the people raised £6,000. There are numerous examples throughout the country where schools need an extra room and if the Minister gave the schools the price of a prefab — between £10,000 and £15,000 — she would get a room that meets the highest standard of any building in this country. I urge her to allow those small projects to go ahead and to let people with initiative, enterprise and enthusiasm get on with the job.
The Department does not want this to happen — the officials may disagree with me — because there is a fear that the work being done by people in, for example, the Office of Public Works will no longer be necessary. I do not accept that. Instead of the Department having plans drawn up and putting the job out to tender in the traditional way, if the Department would allow the local community to do that work there would be no threat to jobs in the Office of Public Works or the Department. I can list a number of cases where those jobs can be done for a fraction of the cost estimated by the Department. Many of the urgent problems of poor toilet facilities or poor prefabs can be solved by the local communities. I urge the Minister to consult with her officials and look seriously at such an initiative. This would alleviate conditions in many schools and leave the Minister with more money to spend on the big projects which we all agree are urgently needed.
The Minister has made a major contribution to solving this problem during her short period in office because she sets priorities. This Minister, more than any other, has been careful to prioritise projects according to criteria she has laid down and I compliment her for that. We are politicians and we know that is a difficult thing to do. I hope that she will continue her good work.
I welcome the Minister to the House and compliment her on her work since she was appointed Minister for Education. I realise that it is a very difficult task but she is capable of fulfilling what is demanded of her and I look forward to many improvements in the education area.
This motion relates to an area where there is urgent need for development. Unfortunately, many pupils attend schools where the conditions inhibit the education process. They receive their education in overcrowded, leaking and substandard classrooms, many of them in ancient prefabricated buildings. These conditions are commonplace throughout the country. The Minister recognises this and has set about eliminating the problem.
Many schools do not have the facilities to teach the practical, vocational aspects of the curriculum which are most important. What is needed and sought, particularly by the teachers' unions and the Members here, is the commitment to implement the provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to upgrade and/or replace all substandard school buildings by 1997. This is vital. The upgrading of facilities, particularly with regard to science, technology and practical equipment is also needed.
A recent survey of almost 1,000 Irish primary schools showed that one in ten schools was over 100 years old and that many schools operated in the most appalling conditions. In order that learning and teaching take place in acceptable conditions and that there is space and opportunity for all aspects of the school curriculum, particularly art, physical education, drama, etc., urgent action must be taken. There is a need for modernisation of all substandard schools in order to achieve equal educational opportunities for all our children.
Much of the money spent in recent years was on building new schools in larger towns and cities. While country schools have not been ignored, they have not fared very well in the programmes of recent years. I live in a rural area and I see the situation in two local primary schools in my area. I was a member of a recent delegation to the Minister on behalf of one of them. She was gracious in meeting us and she has given the board of management and the parents in that school some hope.
I was also a member of a delegation from St. Patrick's CBS national school in Portarlington which has 213 pupils, six classrooms and two prefabricated classrooms. The two prefabs have been there since 1971 when the school was told they had a lifespan of seven years. Now 22 years have passed and everybody's patience is running out. The Minister accepts that the parents and teachers are reasonable in their demands and they realise she does not have an endless pool of money.
Sometimes people believe that if they do not demand everything, that if they are not aggressive in their demands they will not get anything. For that reason I welcome the Minister's commitment to prioritise schools. She should publish the list of schools in which she will invest over the coming year. If people believe that fair criteria are set for getting additional buildings or classrooms and that those criteria will apply throughout the country and that their project has been given the proper priority on the list they will accept this. Many people say they have been waiting too long to have their schools brought up to the required standard; they have been given so many promises that they are running out of patience. The school in my area, which my children attend, is a ten teacher school with four permanent classrooms. The school has three prefabs and two classrooms are in the local community school. This means five classrooms are not permanent structures. Improvements have been promised since the early 1970s but the people are running out of patience. They are reasonable in their demands; they are not looking for five new classrooms. They are willing to accept two new classrooms for the moment. They only have running water in four of the classrooms which were built in the early 1960s and, in all fairness to them, I believe they can reasonably expect that the Minister would look after them as soon as possible. What they want to be told is when they are going to get their classrooms. They want a reasonable timetable. They do not want to be told that their request has been approved but planning permission has to be obtained and that the project will then go to the next stage, etc., and the people never know when they will get the school buildings. This is true for many schools throughout the country.
Rural areas fare worse than urban areas and middle class areas fare better than deprived areas. This is unfortunate because the parents in middle class areas are aware of the importance of education and of raising funds to improve their school buildings. They also have the initiative and know-how to go about fund raising unlike parents in deprived areas. This means that the children in these areas end up being doubly disadvantaged. I know this is an area close to the Minister's heart and that when she has the funds she will target the most deserving areas. I ask her to do this and to target the rural areas as conditions in some of the schools are appalling.
Primary school administrators are willing to state publicly that their schools are in bad condition. However, due to competition, secondary schools do not publicise their bad conditions as readily. One of the contributory factors to the problem in secondary schools is the lack of a coherent and consistent approach to rationalisation and amalgamation. Rationalisation in schools can take a long time to implement, and in the meantime, nothing is done to the school buildings and they fall into a state of disrepair and deteriorate below acceptable standards. There is a need to establish a scheme for dealing with amalgamation or rationalisation that will ensure essential maintenance and repairs are carried out while the matter is under consideration.
There is also a need to establish a priority list of projects which are planned in order to indicate to all concerned their place in the queue. Local educational bodies should have a role in advising on these developments and the list should be publicly available.
I compliment the Minister on what she has done so far and urge her to continue the good work. This is an area which needs attention because of the lack of funding for a number of years. I know the Minister is new to the position so I do not blame her. This work is most urgent. We must look after the education of our children at primary and secondary levels in all substandard schools. The commitment given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress must be honoured and I ask the Minister to commit herself to that and to look at the schools in my area which I mentioned. I know there are similar schools all over the country and we would all be happy if she would prioritise them, give us a copy of the criteria she has set down and publish the list so that everyone will see that the matter is being dealt with fairly.
I welcome the Minister to the House. Nobody can deny that sub-standard schools exist and to do so would be myopic. No doubt Senators from both sides of the House can reel off a list of buildings used as schools that would not pass even the most elementary examination, let alone the strict criteria now being applied to all buildings to which the public have access. Generations of parents and children have acquiesced in this situation.
These buildings have not deteriorated overnight. Senators Cotter, McDonagh, Honan and Fahey admit this. These buildings have been slowly decaying over the years and in many ways that begs a question. Why have parents cheerfully allowed their children to go into classrooms that have not improved since their own school days? It always amazes me why, up to recently, teachers have been content to teach under the most atrocious conditions. It is a pity Senator O'Toole is not here but he would have to admit that——
He is sick.
——the campaign to raise the standards of our schools is a recent one, yet many of our schools have been decaying since the 1960s. It is an indictment of us as parents, as educators and as a people that we have allowed the situation to continue over so many years and that every community has tolerated substandard conditions in our schools.
There is little point in any Senator complaining to the Minister that she is not doing enough because that would be blatantly untrue and unfair. This Government has made a commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government, and I quote:
We will allocate an increased amount in each of the next five years to implement a planned programme of replacing or refurbishing sub-standard school buildings.
As an indication of a start to that programme I would like to draw Senators' attention to the fact that the capital programme provision for primary schools in 1992 was £16.7 million and in 1993 it was increased to £18.7 million — 12 per cent. The increase for post-primary schools was even more dramatic — from £19.5 million in 1992 to £24.5 million in 1993, 25 per cent. This shows the Government's commitment to that promise of an increase over the next four years to implement a planned programme of replacing or refurbishing substandard school buildings.
I am sure that if, in the morning, the Minister had £100 million or £200 million she would have no problem using that money to modernise and fully equip our primary and post-primary schools. However, that money is not available and, in that context, we must welcome her commitment to draw up a priority list of schools where help is needed most urgently.
I will resist the temptation to reel off the schools in my area that are in urgent need of replacement——
The Senator must get it on the record of the House otherwise she cannot say it outside. One cannot put anything in the local paper unless one says it here.
Recently I had the opportunity to let the Minister see some of these substandard schools; there is nothing like first hand experience. If we can show the Minister that prefabs are falling down and that children have to cross link roads to go to school, that will have a more dramatic visual impact than anything I can say here.
In the National Development Plan more than £60 million has been allocated to the post-primary sector and it is hoped that this extra allocation to a section which up to now did not receive any Structural Funds, will go some way towards allocating more money to the primary sector. Although Structural Funds cannot be used for equipping and building primary schools, the fact that money is going towards post-primary schools will, I hope, mean the Exchequer can divert money to the primary sector.
The number of schools owned by the Department of Education is infinitesimal. The ownership of schools is usually vested in trustees such as religious communities or the bishop of the diocese on behalf of the local community. Therefore, many schools are the responsibility of the population of the area. As Senator Honan, said there are depressed communities in isolated rural areas where it can be difficult to bring people together. However, there are schools in bad condition in areas which are not deprived. I am not happy with the level of commitment from local communities. Generations of parents have accepted sub-standard schools and if they had put their minds to it, they could have improved them. Senator Fahey mentioned local initiatives and encouraged the Minister to reconsider them. I fully agree with him. Often if a local community decides, it can do a job for £4,000 to £5,000 that might cost the Department £15,000 to £20,000. A scheme should be piloted to give local populations more responsibility for the schools into which they send their children.
In the post-primary sector, especially in some of the smaller schools, not enough money has been ploughed back by the school management. This has happened often in schools not owned by religious orders. We all owe a debt to those orders who kept schools going by using the salaries of the religious teaching in the school to run it and add to the buildings. However many other private schools used the capitation grant for purposes other than those for which it was intended — increasing the facilities or the upkeep of the school. Some of the atrocious conditions in these schools are not the responsibility or the fault of various Ministers of Education.
I thank the Minister for her commitment to education, particularly to primary schools in disadvantaged areas. Her recent initiative to give extra capitation to these schools will do much to improve the facilities for the children involved. I also thank her for her commitment to draw up a priority list of schools. I hope the school I showed her will be among them.
I have no intention of preaching to the Minister, I would be preaching to the converted. She takes no more pride than any of us in substandard schools. While overcrowding and prefabricated classrooms may be bad, the lack of basic sanitation in some schools in 1993 is inexcusable. I hope the Minister makes that her first priority. Often in the most deprived areas people speak least about their woes but the most primitive conditions prevail.
The Minister's commitment to reducing class sizes in primary schools is welcome. She has reduced sizes from 25.1 to 24.21 pupils per class. That is an achievement because overcrowding is a serious problem is some areas. The Minister should continue within Government with this effort until she achieves a reduction to what she considers acceptable.
The Minister is right to concentrate on deprived areas because the school can be an oasis for children. It is essential that children from deprived backgrounds go to schools which are warm, bright and pleasant. This can be the best part of the child's day. I applaud teachers in those areas for what they do for children who often come from homes where there is abuse, violence, poverty and unemployment. One can understand how reluctant they may be to go home from school as it may be the only place they receive warmth, love and light during the day.
We have been concentrating on school buildings and Senator Honan rightly spoke of the need for additional rooms for art, physical education, etc. We should make these facilities available to all our children, not just the most privileged in our society. It is now recognised education is more than the basic "three Rs". This can be the time of real joy in children's lives. The Minister has done much there already and I urge her to continue.
Schools may be the best places in which to influence the health of the child. While there are medical examinations in schools, I ask the Minister or her officials to liaise with the Irish College of General Practitioners and community health officers on immunisation. Rates of immunisation have fallen alarmingly and are down to 50 per cent in some areas. It is in those areas one finds the most deprived children. There may be a 94 to 98 per cent uptake of immunisation in Foxrock while in deprived areas of the city — which I will not name as I do not want to stigmatise them — the immunisation rate may be 40 to 50 per cent. I would not recommend a compulsary immunisation "passport" to enter primary schools, as they have in the USA, but if the Minister spoke to the general practitioners and community health officers it might become de rigeur to have one's child immunised before going to school. It would place an additional burden on teachers but they might readily accept it. Two children have died from measles in Ireland this year and I have not heard much outcry about that.
I am glad of the opportunity afforded by the motion to state the position of my Department and the Government on school buildings. Despite significant investment of the order of £200 million in the five years 1988 to 1992, the condition of many primary and post-primary schools needs to be improved. Much of the substandard accommodation is, as Senators pointed out, prefabricated and has reached or is nearing the end of its useful life. Some should perhaps be declared dead. My objective is to replace such accommodation with permanent buildings where long term requirements justify such a course.
The Programme for a Partnership Government states we will allocate an increased amount in each of the next five years to implement a planned programme of refurbishing and replacing substandard school buildings. The issue of substandard accommodation frequently relates to the use of prefabricated accommodation. Much of the sub-standard accommodation is prefabricated and has reached, or nearly reached, the end of its useful life. My objective is to replace such accommodation with permanent buildings. However, this type of accommodation has played an essential role over the years in meeting the demand for additional places, often at short notice. The objective is to replace such accommodation with permanent buildings, but of course, we have to prove that there is a long term requirement.
There will always be a role for prefabricated buildings to meet urgent, additional or short term needs. When one looks at the demographic trends, it can be seen that while parishes may require extra accommodation for both primary and post-primary levels for two to four years, they will not require it after this period. Most children in the school population are 13 years of age and will be in the system for the next four to five years — one of the Senators already referred to the introduction of the three year senior cycle. However, since most of the school going population have passed primary level, one will rightly and justifiably have to concentrate on the quality of their buildings.
Many parent deputations have met me and asked for the newer 1992-93 type prefabricated building because they are longer lasting and different in shape from those referred to here, such as the dark grey building that Senator Kelly showed me — I will not mention the area in question. Indeed, those prefabricated buildings are in a terrible condition and have been kept in service for far too long. There is and always will be a role for prefabricated buildings. I assure the Senators that the prefabricated buildings currently supplied in some of the areas are of a higher standard, but the lifespan of a prefabricated building is different from that of a permanent one.
In 1993, the capital allocation for primary schools will be £18.7 million, an increase of £1.9 million, or 11 per cent, over 1992. I accept that despite the demographic decline, there is an urgent need to continue a high level of investment in the capital programme of primary schools. The Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-97 reflects this necessity by undertaking that there will be increased expenditure in each of the next five years of the school building programme. Progress has been made and it will continue, especially in upgrading the primary school accommodation. Over £85 million has been spent in the last five years on this programme. Over 230 major capital projects were completed and 7,000 individual grants for minor and emergency works have been paid. This year alone, major building priorities are underway at over 50 primary schools and there are upwards of 1,300 other schools where one or more minor or emergency works of a capital nature are being grantaided.
It follows that the entire capital programme has had, or will have, an involvement this year of approximately 45 per cent of all primary schools, which is worth noting. While the demands of their own localities are foremost in the minds of many Senators — and they are right to bring them to my attention — I hope that in each of their areas, there is at least one minor capital or school programme that is either in progress or has been completed. Senator Henry referred to the sanitary conditions in primary schools — I am sure that many Senators can think of similar problems in schools in their regions — and I hope that, as a matter of priority, we will be able to look at and quantify the problem.
I am confident that we are making progress, but as long as we have schools without proper sanitary facilities, prefabricated buildings that are too old, a demographic decline in some areas and a growth in others, we will have to address the problem of upgrading the existing stock. This is in contrast to the past, where considerable resources were required to build new schools on green field sites in new areas. The likelihood of these kind of large scale demands will decrease, given our demographic trend, but we will also have to address a more challenging and difficult problem for local representatives; rationalisation of our resources.
I thank the Senators for their good wishes and support of what I am trying to do. We have limited funds and I will be calling on all Senators, as public representatives in their areas, to help to ensure that the resources available are targeted at the right areas and not wasted, which would be irresponsible. I am optimistic that the level of expenditure over the next five years, promised in The Programme for a Partnership Government, will be delivered and that when this happens, it will be seen as the time when we systematically tackled the problems which have not been tackled in such a way over a large number of years.
The 1993 capital allocation of £24.5 million for post-primary schools represents a £5 million, or 26 per cent increase, over the 1992 expenditure. There are, at post-primary level, 400 projects, about 100 of which started this year, ranging from major contracts for new schools to minor emergency works funded from this allocation. These are much more expensive projects than those at the primary level.
We need to create schools of proper sizes. It was mentioned that schools were built for much smaller numbers. These parishes expect, certainly at the end of a four or five year programme, that there will be a static population expectation at post-primary level. If the rationalisation programme can be brought forward, we will ensure that the promised funds will be properly targeted.
The curricular proposals expect the schools to be larger than some of the smaller schools currently operating at second level. Even since I became Minister, there has been an expansion of subject options, among other changes, which have been introduced to the curriculum at second level. The decline in enrolment of the mid-1990s is only beginning to be felt in the first and second years at second level. There is also — this is a challenge to all of us as parents — a decline and a decreasing involvement of the religious in the ownership and management of schools. These issues will have to be considered as we plan to spend money on accommodation.
Many associations and organisations are rightly addressing these issues at the convention taking place at my invitation in Dublin Castle this week, which opened on the same day as the introduction of the National Development Plan. This in itself is significant. I announced, through the Structural Funds, a £6 million capital programme for second level over the next six years. This is the first time the funds have been applied to the capital programme at second level. It came about because I have a commitment to the capital programme and because the rules governing the operational programme for Structural Funds allow for such use. Let us all be grown up and accept that the rules now allow it. As a result of that and the commitment, I was able to put aside a £60 million capital programme budget at second level.
I know some Members of this House and others will be critical that there was no application for Structural Funds at primary level. This simply is not possible under the operational programme regulations. The commitment of the Government will source funding not only at Brussels level but also at national level. I expect to be able to deliver on the commitments in the Programme for a Partnership Government. I repeat that the source of funding for the capital programme is not important. What is important is how much funding is channelled to primary and post-primary areas, regardless of the source.
In conclusion the detailed programme of work for 1994 will not be finalised until we have a definite allocation. However I assure the House that following the good start already made in 1993 in honouring the Government commitment to replace or refurbish substandard school buildings, I will continue to advance this programme in the years 1994-97. I will ensure that the programme is continued in 1994 and beyond.
I have already expressed my conviction for the need of a more orderly approach to the process by which major building projects are selected for release to construction each year. It is my intention that future decisions on the programme of major projects, through the architectural planning process right up to the signing of the contract, will be based on objective criteria related to relevant educational building and financial factors. From all sides of the House there has been a recognition this evening that we are proceeding along those lines. Equally there has been a recognition that it is not always for the Minister of the day to proceed in an orderly way.
I thank the Senators for recognising the difficulties and I hope at the end of a term of an orderly approach of a building programme that each Senator, regardless of the side of the House they are on and the people they represent, urban or rural, will be able to say there was a systematic tackling of the building programme and that the greatest needs of their community were met first. If the Senators continue to support me, at the end of the programme's four year term, we will all be satisfied that we played our part in ensuring that the conditions under which our children are educated have improved.
I have been in touch with the managerial bodies and the unions at primary level and discussed the criteria and I have asked them to respond. The second level criteria will be completed this week and I will discuss them with the managerial bodies, the trade unions and parents. I will be delighted to share that information with the public representatives in both Houses. In disclosing the criteria on which the projects are selected and prioritised I hope we will be able to advance, through the planning process, and to indicate on a regular basis the individual projects. It will require courage and I ask the Senators to bear with me. I know there are a number of teachers here and I think the House will be sympathetic to and empathise with somebody who is setting up this type of process.
I have noted Senator Henry's point about immunisation. Although it is beyond the scope of this motion, it is no harm to take the opportunity to address such a concern to a Minister in this Chamber which is noted for welcoming Ministers to its debates.
Senator Cotter started a list of individual projects, and that practice was carried on across the House. I will take particular note of the building projects mentioned. I will look at the progress being made on those projects and I am sure Senators will take the opportunity to ask me for informal updates on their particular concerns. The Senators appreciate that the 1993 money has been well spent and we are now deciding how much will be spent in 1994-96.
I thank Senators for their welcome and I thank the Government side for putting down the motion. I assure the Members on the other side that if we tackle this issue together in an orderly way we will not score goals but we will be victorious.
I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on this debate and on this motion. I welcome the Minister to the House.
I understood I was to be the next speaker.
You are next on the list, Senator.
The order of speakers normally crosses the House.
It has crossed twice.
I wish to make some points vis-a-vis the substandard buildings of primary and post-primary schools. I entered the Lower House in 1981 and the major problem I encountered then was school building. Since that time a total of 14 schools were required immediately. In some cases prefabs were used for about 20 years. More prefabs were being provided at a continuous cost to the State and they were becoming more expensive as the years passed. We made substantial progress over a period of years but, with an expanding population in the county — now heading to over 106,000 — I am sure the Minister is aware of the request for another school, even though the building of one has just commenced in Ashbourne — the Minister was at the turning of the sod. However, there is pressure for another school. At present 1,000 children each day are bussed out of Ashbourne, which has become the second largest town in the county.
There is a similar situation in Dunboyne which has almost as many students attending 27 schools. This means there is no community spirit in the areas those students come from and it is sad that situation is allowed to develop. Communities and students do not know their neighbours after a few years at a second level school and that is the start of the breakdown of community spirit. I hope Dunboyne will be moved up the list because it is a rapidly expanding area.
I have another problem. I wonder what the Department's line will be in the future. I heard Senators mention that some parents are getting together and adding on a vitally needed room in a primary school. I am a parent of two children going to a primary school in Oranstown, Kells, which has one prefab. It was a two teacher school up to a few years ago. There is no room, except the classrooms, where they can have their lunch. There is no all purpose room to put on shows. The school has to use the local church facilities. This is an expanding area. What would happen if this community provided £10,000 for the room that is required? In a year or two they will probably be eligible for a fourth teacher. Will the Department tell them to use the existing classroom, despite the investment by parents? I am sure this is happening in many areas.
Will the Minister ensure that where parents and boards of management provide a badly needed extra classroom for children during inclement weather conditions, departmental officials do not automatically assign that type of accommodation if and when an extra classroom and teacher is approved? However, I fear this will happen. I attended a meeting recently and parents were concerned that this may be future policy. I hope the Minister will not allow this to happen in the event of an extra teacher being acquired and that the general purpose room will continue to be available to the children.
Rationalisation is required in relation to what the Department, architects and officials believe can be provided at a reasonable cost. When the chairman of a board of management contacts the Department he or she will be told that certain standards must be adhered to. Consequently, local people cannot get together to provide or to build a school because Department guidelines must be followed. The cost of such buildings — many Members mentioned this — increases considerably and places them out of the reach of local people.
A radical new approach is needed and I have no doubt that what the Minister said tonight will be the approach adopted in future in relation to providing accommodation at a reasonable cost. I am sure the Minister will agree — and she has had the opportunity to visit schools in the past couple of months opening extensions etc. — that the purpose built school in Drogheda was reasonably priced and adequate for teachers and students. This school will last for years and it is as good as those which cost considerable sums of money.
The Minister accepts there is a shortage of funds. This year's budget under the capital programme has increased by 23 or 24 per cent over that of 1992. However, the 1992 budget was non-existent. Approximately £2-£4 million was allocated and three new schools commenced in 1992 will be finished this year. I am disappointed that primary level has not been included in the criteria under Structural Funds given that the Minister has been successful in obtaining £60 million for post-primary level. Perhaps a serious attempt could be made to deal with problems at post-primary level at the cheaper cost developments I mentioned. The substantial sum obtained under the Structural Funds will help to solve the problems of children in dilapidated school accommodation.
Yesterday I attended the Order of Business in the Lower House. Five Deputies tried to raise matters in relation to inadequate post-primary accommodation in their constituencies which shows the seriousness of the problem. We must focus our attention in 1993 on low cost developments. The Department must no longer say this was done under our guidelines and that it is 100 per cent correct. I am not saying the locals will not do it as well but it can be done at less cost. It is sad that some students must attend primary schools with deplorable accommodation. Their improvement is the priority of all politicians entering the Houses of the Oireachtas because it will continue to be a problem unless it is adequately dealt with.
Progress will be made in these areas in the next 12 months, if Department officials are committed. Many problems may be solved if dealt with in a positive and constructive way. People must be realistic, they should not expect a Rolls Royce type school in a short time, but they cannot be expected to wait five to 20 years in costly prefabricated accommodation. If finance was made available for the original school, these problems could be solved at a reasonable cost.
I compliment Senator Cotter on his endeavours to highlight this problem. I hope the Minister will return to the House to discuss third level grants and other problems. Many local authorities have failed to approve third level grants in time for college registration. A further delay is caused when approvals are sent to the Department. I have overstepped my brief, but it has happened before and the Minister welcomed it. I hope the Minister will take on board some of these problems and I am sure all Members have a long list of problems in relation to worried parent and students.
I welcome the Minister to the House and thank her for her contribution. I acknowledge her commitment toward the elimination of substandard buildings at primary and post-primary level. Although the commitment is small, there has been an increase of 12 per cent in the allocation to primary schools and of 25 per cent to post-primary schools. There is an overall commitment to try to upgrade schools at all level. Schools reflect the ethos of our environment. If we do not have a proper school facility, it is a bad reflection on the community. The school is the centre of the universe for many people.
While I do not want to localise the issue, I come from a densely populated area and I must mention Knocklyon community school. A commitment has been given in this regard and I hope the Minister will take it on board. However I will not dwell on one school; I will talk about the problems on a national basis. I am aware of the problem having visited many primary schools in disadvantaged areas of the city and I would dread having to work there because of the greyness of the building, the dereliction of the walls, the dampness, the poor lighting, the lack of proper toilet facilities, a physical education room and an art room, all in areas where they are necessary, particularly for students who may not be academically bright but who would do very well in the area of hands-on education. There is a huge lack in terms of engineering and woodwork rooms which affects those who want to become involved in hands-on education.
We have to involve the people in urban areas where we are concerned about keeping students at school and getting less academically oriented students involved in alternative areas. There is no difficulty where students can be put into a room with a teacher but where more intensive tutoring is needed and project work has to be dealt with, the facilities are inadequate.
I am concerned about the pre-fabs. I noted in the Minister's contribution that she is aware of the condition of these prefabricated buildings. I know nothing about the new ones to which she referred for the 1992-93 year but I will take her word that they are an improvement. While prefabs can be a short term solution we would all love permanent masonry buildings. We must think of the future and not concentrate on the short term solution, money spent on permanent facilities might be money well spent. We should go for fundamentals first and if we get those right then other improvements will follow.
I wish to refer to programmes which are community oriented such as the VTOS programmes, which are very successful in ghettos and in areas with a high rate of unemployment. The Minister should give priority to such areas so that the schools will become the centre of attraction for the people there, lift their morale and give them a feeling that something is happening there, that they are not down in the dungeons in a built up area, that they can now come into the local school building which is environmentally attractive and which promotes self esteem in parents and students.
While a good learning environment is important for students, it is equally important for teachers who will be motivated if they go into a nice classroom and feel there is a good atmosphere. I visited a school the other day and I would hate to have to go in there every day to try to teach students. Teachers also need a boost because if they are happy, no matter what the conditions are like, they will bring the children along with them. We must bear in mind that we are talking about the psychological impact on our students, teachers and the community at large. The school is the key building of a community and if it is right we will solve many problems in relation to the needs of the individual and the family. The school is an area where we can bring those different needs together.
I thank the Minister for listening to the Senators' views, it is important that she is available. I acknowledge that she is concerned and the fact that she comes from an educational environment will make her more sympathetic to our needs.
I join the other speakers who welcomed the Minister for Education to the Seanad. The motion before the House this evening challenges the whole basis of the development of school buildings in primary and post primary education. The portfolio the Minister inherited came to her with an empty purse, because, although money had been spent, very little had been allocated to educational facilities and buildings.
We have arrived at a crossroads in education and we should examine how we can proceed from here. It is essential that we should work together to see what money can be obtained from the £20 billion under the National Development Plan to go towards, the development of educational facilities. I am aware that there is a problem in regard to primary education but that money can be allocated at post primary level. Approximately £8 billion of the money to be disbursed under the National Development Plan will come from the European Community, £4 billion from the Exchequer, £4 billion from the semi-State bodies and £4 billion from the private sector. These are vast sums of money.
Whether we are talking about the European Community or education, our remarks must relate to the person in the street. Vast amounts of money will be spent on infrastructure. Millions will be spent on bridges and roads, in developing golf courses and hotels, but while it is wonderful to have good roads, if a young boy or girl walks to school on a wet winter morning, gets wet on the way and arrives in a substandard school he or she starts out in life at a distinct disadvantage to other students who go to school in proper buildings.
We must see how we can make some of this £20 billion relate to ordinary people growing up and their parents. Young people whose parents are unemployed — even their grandparents have been unemployed nowadays — face huge problems. At least if a person is working he or she has a chance of meeting somebody else who is working and will know what is happening on the jobs front. Many people do not have work and they feel they have been ghettoised, they are probably living in poor housing as well, so many of these young people start off at a major disadvantage.
I listened with interest to Senator Ormonde and I agree with much of what she said. She was talking about a happy school and happy surroundings, that is of importance because young boys and girls of school-going age are in their formative years when it is essential to work in a proper environment. I visited schools in Laois-Offaly where the students work in surroundings totally unsuitable for the educational process. If a child is in a clean, bright, warm school, that child and the teachers will go to school happy and looking forward to the day. It puts both pupils and teachers into good humour, the parents of those children are also happy because they know their children are happy in school. It is essential that children and teachers are happy.
Progress can be made in schools where everybody is content and where the pupils compete on an equal playing pitch with other schools. But more importantly nowadays our young students, are competing not just in Ireland but in the highly competitive European jobs market where they will be up against pupils of other nationalities who have been taught in schools far superior in many respects to those from which they are coming.
I am not criticising work by the Department of Education, its architects and staff. We can be proud of much of the work that has been carried out by the Minister and her predecessors from both sides of the House, as well their staff. They have achieved a lot. The community school in Birr, County Offaly, is on a par with any school in the country or in Europe and there are many such schools in different towns. It is essential, however, to tackle the problem of poor school buildings and try to improve primary education particularly. There are around 500,000 pupils in primary education, some 600 schools are in a substandard condition while another 220 to 230 are in a more serious condition. The situation at primary level requires sizeable funding from the Exchequer to remedy it. Parents would prefer to see tax revenue going in that direction rather than in others. We should consider spending moneys from the £20 billion National Development Plan on post primary education. The man in the street does not feel well disposed towards developments in the EC when he sees huge cars on new roads while his son or daughter has to attend a bad school.
I would like to say a few words to the Minister about post-primary education in Portlaoise. Originally, a decision was taken to build a new vocational school there. There were also plans to improve and upgrade the Christian Brothers' school. There is a proposal now before the Minister to build one post-primary school in Portlaoise. As a representative from Laoighis-Offaly, I think a monumental blunder will have been made if the Minister proceeds with only one school there. If she wants to make a name for herself in Laoighis-Offaly and to do something of importance there, it is essential to have two post primary schools in Portlaoise. There are appoximately 1,100 to 1,200 pupils in the current schools. The post-primary catchment area accounts for 2,400, and if there is only one school it will lead to major problems in years to come. The projections for Portlaoise indicate a post-primary school population of 1,500 to 1,600 which is far too much and requires examination.
An extension is also required for Rathdowney vocational school which is grossly overcrowded with many pre-fabs. This situation needs to be looked at. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, has announced an extension to the school at Clonmacnoise, and I am very pleased that is proceeding. I would also like to mention Edenderry boys' national school which is a fine school but it has to cater for 285 pupils, including 15 handicapped and 40 remedial. The hall in the school has been sub-divided. I visited it twice and it is grossly overcrowded and cold. I do not know how the teachers and pupils put up with the cold.
I wish the Minister well in her job which is a tough one, but I am sure that, with the goodwill and co-operation of people, she will get on well in it.
I notice you gave us a tour of the constituency. Senator Farrell, you have approximately five minutes.
I could have spoken about Longford-Westmeath as well but you might not have liked that.
A Aire, ar dtús báire, cuirim fáilte romhat chuig an Teach seo agus guím comhghairdeas Mhuire ar an obair atá á dhéanamh agat.
The Minister has a difficult job. I do not know who said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but the Minister has come in new to the job and to this House. That is a great advantage because she is not contaminated by bureaucratic jargon. Therefore, she will be prepared to attack things when she does not know the danger that lies behind them. That is good and will mean a good shake-up.
I wish to pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor because in north Sligo there are no bad schools or problems with overcrowding. There is, however, a small two-teacher school in south Sligo at Bloomfield that needs attention and I ask the Minister to look at that. The greatest mistake we made in education was to close two-teacher schools, which were homely. The teachers knew the children and the parents and the children knew the teachers. It was a great set up and we have paid a big price in vandalism, school drop-outs and the rest as a result of our big conglomerates. I opposed them all the way and I am more convinced today than ever that we are now reaping the harvest of what we thought we would save by creating big schools. We made them impersonal.
An old colleague of some Members on the other side of the House, Eddie Filgate, has compiled a lovely book entitled Poems from Yesterday's School-books, which should be on the curriculum. One poem entitled The Village Schoolmaster sums it up:
Beside you, straggling fence that strikes the way,
With blossom'd furze unprofitably gay,
There, in his noisy mansion, skilled to rule,
The village master taught his little school.
The school was the hub of activity in rural areas and towns where children walked the streets, they knew everybody and everybody knew them.
There is also a project school in Sligo which I would like to see receiving attention. The Minister might consider using her charm because there is a school that is almost vacant in Sligo, I suggest that it should be given to those people, but sin scéal eile. It is, however, something that the Minister might work on.
I appeal to the Minister never again to invest in pre-fabs. They are only boxes with a bit of felt and they do not last. They are not cheap because a foundation still has to be built for them. It would have been better to build the classrooms with blocks which are more solid.
As a graduate of the local technical school, I think the "techs" took a wrong turn when they went into secondary education. They created a vacuum which was filled by AnCo and FÁS. Those technical schools were for those who did not have an academic brain but who were good with their hands. At the "tech" one began working with one's hands and then started reading to learn more about the chosen work. Students were learning academically, not as a chore. It was a double way of learning. Many of our nurses, technicians and electricians graduated from those technical schools. For example, many technicians or electricians in the ESB or An Post graduated from such schools. However, the technical schools got involved in theory and moved away from practical work with the result that there are people who could write 40 pages of foolscap about the shape of a penny without mentioning that it is round. By contrast a person who knows would say it is round and has to be hammered down to make it flat and round. There are too many people today who know how everything can be done, can tell us how it should be done but are unable to do it. That is why there is a such a lack of jobs today. We do not have people who are capable of undertaking the work.
I appeal to the Minister to give the technical schools priority in the drive towards job creation. The technical schools realise they made a mistake when they made the change. There are two types of student, those who are of an academic disposition and want to attend secondary schools, and should do so, and those who have made a good living, have done well, have good jobs and created jobs. Such people are good with their hands and know how to work; they got the opportunity in the technical schools.
These schools should be developed to again give people these opportunities. What happened is that a policy has been developed which allows students the opportunity to learn everything and then select what is good. However, students can only do so much. I appeal to the Minister to consider my views and to get back to the two streams. The Culliton report favours such a system. If the technical schools reverted to what they were I believe this would do much to solve the unemployment problem and create a better work force.
Senator Cotter to conclude, I understand the Senator is giving time to Senator Burke. Is that correct?
Yes, a Chathaoirligh, I propose to give two minutes of my time to Senator Burke.
I thank Senator Cotter for sharing his time with me and I welcome the Minister to the House.
While much has been said about primary and post-primary education in the House today, I wish to discuss the capitation grant. The increase from £28 to £33 is, we feel, inadequate. The Fine Gael education spokesperson carried out a survey throughout the country and most primary school principals have indicated that the capitation grant would need to be nearer to £100 per pupil. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this proposal as most teachers and parents feel they act as fund-raisers to maintain the schools by paying for fuel, etc.
I thank the Minister for the grant to provide the necessary facilities at the New Abbey national school in my area and for the recent announcement as regards the Davitt College in Castlebar, which we appreciate. However, there is one other pressing need the area of which I am sure that the Minister is aware, namely, our regional technical college. I cannot let this opportunity go without raising the matter, especially as the Taoiseach recently announced that the Government would give the matter immediate priority and that courses could come on stream next year.
I am pleased with the way the debate has proceeded. It is relatively unusual for this House to have the kind of rapport that has been established in this debate. This largely arises from the stance taken by the Minister. She did not attend the House this evening to wage war but to exchange views and to be realistic. She has accepted that there are stark realities and stark facts which it is better to address than to pretend they do not exist. I commend the Minister for her approach. Indeed, the rapport was so good that the amendment to the motion was not even seconded——
It is a Government amendment, Senator, and therefore does not have to be seconded.
The amendment does not have to be seconded?
That is the procedure.
We were willing to second the amendment.
The comments from all sources and from everybody in the House were so favourable that I cannot see anybody voting against the motion. Everybody has accepted, including the Minister, that there are serious problems, especially with school buildings. The figures I submitted were not seriously challenged, and I believe that they are conservative figures. For example, I have heard members of the INTO talk of 1,000 schools which they consider to be substandard. Much depends on the criteria used; it could be argued that every school without a general purposes room would be substandard to some degree because such a school is unable to fulfil its requirements under the new curriculum.
I welcome the Minister's attitude and approach. There are a few points Senators raised which I would like to address. The Minister mentioned that we would have a £60 million capital programme for second level schools over the next six years. That is to be welcomed. Will this programme consist of additional funding or will some of the Government's commitment subside and will it end up as the same old can of apples?
The Interregnum programme that operates along both sides of the Border is intended to be additional funding, yet the following has happened in the last two years. We get £450,000 from the Interregnum Fund and the Department's allocation is cut by 15 per cent. If that is additionality there are funny asses pulling carts these days. It is not additionality, and while I welcome the Minister's announcement I hope the Department of Finance or the Government will ensure that such funding is additional because it needs to be.
The amount of funding required was mentioned by a number of speakers. Senator Fahey suggested that the Minister should simply give grants to communities and allow them to proceed as they deem fit, and Senator Kelly made a similar point. However, if the Department was to provide money it would have to ensure that it was properly spent. Communities would say that money spent on schools is community money, irrespective of whether it comes from the Government or from the community.
We are considering free education at national level, which must parents would now regard as a myth. However, I believe that many communities would not be happy with the suggestions made that they be allowed to proceed as they deem fit with grants given by the Minister. While I sympathise with the views of handing responsibility to the community such responsibility would have to be monitored. If that could be done it would be welcome.
I was surprised that the two representatives from Galway did not appear to agree. Senator McDonagh made such a powerful case for Athenry vocational school that I am surprised the Minister has not already reached for her cheque book. It was a fine performance and that may be why Senator Fahey did not fully agree with him. That led to a little discord and disunity and perhaps that is why the Minister did not take out her cheque book.
I believe that the debate was worthwhile, especially at this time of year because before Christmas the Minister will have worked out with her advisers the capital programme for next year. This debate has been timely because last Monday, 11 October 1993, a £20 billion investment was announced for the economy.
As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, parents today will not accept low standards in education because they know there is a connection between low standards in schools and low standards of achievement. They are beginning to strongly express their dissatisfaction and they will continue to do so. They will compare the £20 billion which is being talked about with the approach we have taken towards investment in education. They will look carefully at what the Minister proposes to do and what she achieves. I hope her achievements correspond closely to her proposals and to what her attitude leads us to believe will be the case because we must improve school buildings and give our pupils and students every opportunity to fulfil their potential. Now that everybody has spoken on the motion I would be happy if it were accepted.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Burke.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl; Senators Cosgrave and Burke.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit on Wednesday, 20 October 1993 at 2.30 p.m.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 October 1993.