David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I wish the Minister well in his new post. It is the first time I have addressed him in this Chamber, and I have worked very well with him in his previous incarnation as Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

I find myself agreeing with much of what he said in his speech. The problem is that the rhetoric in the speech does not match the output in terms of the outgoing Government's performance in respect of education. He said at the start that education is crucial to our ambition, and I agree with that, but the height of my ambition is obviously a bit different to this Government's ambition when it comes to education. Ambition must be matched with intent and resources and we must invest in education, nurture it and make sure that we value not just the education system but also the people who work in it. When one considers how teachers have been treated, particularly newly qualified teachers, and pay cuts and so on, that does not stack up. Many students are in poverty or living on the poverty line; many more cannot afford to go to third or fourth level. Many parents cannot afford to send their children to college and struggle to pay for their children's primary and secondary education because of rising costs. That is the reality for many families so, unfortunately, the ambition that the Government has and its rhetoric has not been matched with resources.

Regarding the Minister's three priorities, again I find myself agreeing with what he says. The first one, if I understood the Minister correctly, was the use of success to make life better. How does that sit with the treatment of teachers who came into the system in 2011, where we have a two-tier, unequal pay structure? I believe in the principle of equal pay for equal work, and I ask the Minister to give a commitment that this Government will deal with this issue once and for all. I have tabled umpteen parliamentary questions on this and have met with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to try to cost going back to a single-tier pay structure, to deal with that inequality. They tell me that they cannot cost it because they do not have the data, and it seems to be excuse after excuse. This is a red line issue for me. It is a red line issue for any pay negotiations and for how we treat people, on the basis of equality, and it should be a red line issue for the Minister if he is committed to using our economic success to make life better.

The second priority is how we support schools and the education system. We do not support it by cutting funding. Capital expenditure in education is down 11% year-on-year. The Government has cut expenditure and capital services in education by more than €71 million. Capital investment in education is down by €22.6 million alone. Overall we have the third lowest level of capital investment to GDP in the European Union. It is less than 2% of GDP. It should be at least double that if we are to bring ourselves to the EU average. The European Commission has criticised the Government for prioritising tax cuts over investment and we can see these in the estimates. We can see them in the Minister's stability programme update report, which shows that the percentage of revenue and of expenditure year-on-year for the next number of years as a percentage of GDP goes down every year, not because we do not have increased fiscal space, but because it builds in the tax cuts that the Minister's Government will impose, as opposed to spending the money that is there to invest in children, public services like education and capital investment.

The Minister's third priority was a question. He asked how we can build a bridge between enterprise and the workplace in an educational context.

I hope the Minister does not take what some might describe as a neoliberal approach to education whereby education is just about meeting the needs of enterprise and the economy. There is a society out there, not just an economy. An economy exists to serve citizens. People go to school and college for a job but also for lifelong learning and to improve their well-being. I am not against fostering innovation and creativity; I believe in it and passionately support it. However, we should not view this through the prism of a neoliberal mindset, which some Government Ministers do.

The Minister's question about the link between enterprise and the workplace is interesting in the context of the technological universities. In this area, I agree with the Minister and the Government. Technological universities should not, in the first instance, ape the existing universities. Their applied orientation, whereby they are more oriented towards the economic needs of a region is good. Given the very high levels of unemployment in the south east, technological universities are a good fit for the region. However, they must be about more than meeting the needs of enterprise. The technological universities must be about creativity and innovation. It is also about linkages with primary and secondary schools and it is a much broader view than just meeting the needs of the economy.

I welcome the €1.5 million which has been allocated to help the process in the south east. I welcome the fact that the two presidents and boards of both institutes have welcomed the €1.5 million. Why is there only €2 million? Perhaps, the Minister might respond to it if he gets the chance. Is more money being provided for the other institutes of technology which are also part of merger processes?

I thank the Minister for his speech. I am afraid it was high on rhetoric. We must, and will, give the Minister fair wind. I have set out my priorities. If the Minister wants to make a mark in education, while there is much he must do about education itself, I appeal to him to examine pay equalisation. It is causing tensions in classrooms and must be dealt with. It is mentioned in the programme for Government and the Minister has an opportunity to deal with it. I very much hope he does.

See this speech in context