Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an ábhar fíor-thábhachtach seo. Sílim gurbh é Tomás Dáibhéis a dúirt educate that you might be free. It was interesting that much of what happened to bring about independence here was because of a widening circle of people who were educated and could see new horizons and a new vision for the country. I thank all of the Deputies who took part in the debate. As was mentioned yesterday, the motion was tabled with the intention of enabling the first debate on education in the Dáil. It was framed in such a way as to be capable of support across the House.

It is clear from the debate that there is full agreement that policies on education and training will be central not only to economic recovery but to the well-being of our people. One of the big mistakes we have made in recent years is to think all the time that everything is measured in GDP. The well-being of a community, society and nation is a much wider concept than GDP. Even within GDP there is a question of spreading the wealth. There is no point in having a high GDP if parts of our communities suffer huge deprivation. At present, the greatest divide in our society is the educational divide. Access to educational achievement and the aspiration to educational achievement is where we find the greatest barrier to opportunities and choice in the lives of those growing up in socially deprived areas.

I thank the Minister for his contribution, which was constructive and welcome. I also thank him for the comments concerning the motion and the mention at the end of his speech that he commended it to the House. In light of this, it would be more appropriate for the Government to do as we do when we believe the Government is right and support the motion in the House tonight and get over the idea that an Opposition proposal must be opposed and that we in opposition must automatically oppose a Government proposal. We speak all the time about using our heads and getting away from the old rotes and habits. Tonight is a perfect opportunity for the Government to state that this is a fair motion and is something it can buy into, and show there is solidarity in the House when we agree on issues. As stated yesterday by my colleague, we also welcome the Government's minor amendment as it corrects a clerical error made when the motion was submitted.

The Sinn Féin amendment contains much of the "same old, same old" approach. There is no consciousness and nowhere are we told from where the resources will come. There is the usual bowing to those who are disadvantaged in society, but there is no statement that those who are well-off should make some contribution so we can transfer money within the education system to those who are less well-off. We have to challenge the view that divorces every individual motion from any concept of where the money will come from because no matter how wealthy the country ever was or will be there will always be a finite amount of money to spend.

I totally reject Sinn Féin's statement, made by Deputy McLellan, that improvements in the education system were only spin. When children went to the three teacher schools of 15 or 20 years ago, those schools had three teachers. However, I recall being asked to open a two teacher school and when I arrived the príomhoide said: "Ba mhaith liom go gcasadh tú leis an fhoireann" and invited me to meet the staff. I thought she was codding because I expected there to be one staff member. While I was aware of the facts in education, I did not associate them with the place I was visiting but there was a caretaker, a secretary, learning support teachers, resource teachers and SNAs. There was a line of staff.

That was not the case in the 1980s or 1990s and anybody who pretends otherwise never went to such a school in those years. There has been an enormous increase in numbers. The figures are provided in our motion and they stand up to scrutiny. There has also been a huge increase in resource and learning support teachers in that time, and rightly so. Of course, we would like to do more but we must live within our means.

I am also interested in the concept of spending 6% of GDP. It is a dangerous concept. If the GDP goes down, does it mean one automatically cuts the education budget even if it is a priority?

See this speech in context