Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Oct 1973

Vol. 268 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27: Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £10,742,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education (including Institutions of Science and Art), for certain miscellaneous educational and cultural services and for payment of sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Education).

I spoke last night mainly on primary education and what I see as the very important position primary education holds in our structure in so far as it leaves the pupil in a position to get the further education which is his right. If he is not brought in primary school to the standard necessary to enable him to take the further education to which everyone is now entitled, then our primary education system is a failure. I do not want to repeat myself but I now have a few things to say on secondary education and other matters affecting this Vote.

In secondary education there is a continuance of primary education. Some type of guidance into the field of secondary education should be commenced at primary standard. When Children of 12, 13 or 14 years of age start their secondary education, their teachers should be able to know the direction that education should take in furthering their prospects in life. Many people will have good prospects of attending university, but others will have shown by that time some indication that they will have to settle for trades or something of that nature. It is crucial that the teacher should have some idea where the pupil is going when he enters secondary education.

There are several groups and several kinds of schemes in secondary education. It is a very good idea that all secondary education facilities in the different schools should be brought together so that teachers from vocational schools and teachers from the ordinary secondary schools would be able to exchange classes and intermingle. That is a very progressive step. It will not be easy to implement it everywhere, but the Minister should consider the interchange of teachers because of the wider range of subjects which must now be available. There should be an exchange of teachers between the different facets of secondary education in the different centres.

Some years ago a scheme was introduced giving free transport to children living some distance from school. It was introduced first for secondary education. At that time I had my doubts as to whether it would ever be successful, but by and large it has been successful. However, many things are wrong with the school transport system for secondary and primary pupils. Another look should be taken at the system. I do not mean to change the whole structure, but the routes taken in some areas are not the most practical. I agree that a certain length of time was needed to establish the free transport scheme, but there is much overlapping and unnecessary travel. This should be tightened up. A better service could be given if the routes were planned by practical men. I know of one instance where a pupil is expected to go a distance to get the bus when, if the bus travelled a more practical route, this pupil could be picked up nearer his home. This is happening throughout the country. The transport system for primary schools is, to say the least chaotic. It is a ridiculous state of affairs when a bus passes a door and refuses to take a pupil to a school traditionally attended by his family because he is within the catchment area of another school. I would agree with that principal if the family had traditionally attended another school or were anxious to change schools. That is only common sense. Therefore, we should have another look at the transport facilities available to secondary and vocational pupils.

There is overcrowding in secondary schools. Some schools have methods of accepting and refusing people who have passed examinations. Pupils who attend a primary school, where there is also a secondary establishment in conjunction with it, may find it easier to get into that secondary school than a person who went to another primary school. If there is an entrance examination all students should sit for it.

Vocational schools try to accommodate everyone who applies. They too are overcrowded. Building in this sector has been neglected by the Department. The Kildare Vocational Education Committee have been anxious to build a school in Newbridge. Some years ago they bought a site for a new school. The Department decided some years later that they wanted to keep all the schools in the town together and that the proposed site was not suitable. That was a pity because there is no doubt that the school in Newbridge is overcrowded. There are temporary structures erected all around it and there is practically no playground left. Pupils take their lunch break on the main Cork-Dublin road. That is the situation there.

There are talks of a new site being bought. I am sure the Minister understands the position but I would impress upon him the urgency of the situation. There is another site available adjacent to other schools in the town but someone somewhere—I know it is not the Kildare Vocational Education Committee—is dragging his feet. The Committee have been pushing this for the last few years. As I have already said, this is a very urgent matter and the Department should let us have a new school.

The same applies to my own town of Athy where there are a number of temporary school structures. I am not satisfied that the Department are doing everything they should. I do not know if the Department or the Office of Public Works are responsible, but I should like to say to whoever is responsible that this is a matter of grave urgency which should be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

There is a primary school in Athy where there are only dry toilets. This school is in Churchtown, less than half a mile from where I live. This subject has been discussed by the Department, the Office of Public Works and the authorities and we have now reached the stage that there is a threat of a strike by the teachers. I would not blame them. Down the years nothing has been done to remedy this. The Department said the school was due for closing. It was then said that there was no danger of it being closed for ten or 15 years. Later it was said that they would knock down the present building and erect prefabricated buildings. The people there did not take kindly to that. A school adds status to a locality. The people felt that if they accepted the "prefabs", they accepted amalgamation. They have never accepted amalgamation.

I visited the Department and the Office of Public Works and it was finally agreed that the present school should be repaired. That was a couple of months ago. There have been inspections and testing for septic tank drainage. The result of the survey was satisfactory but we are still waiting for some action by the Department. Teachers at the school were to have gone on strike during this month but they have not carried out their threat because they expect that the Board of Works and the Department of Education will, between them, deal with the problems of heating and sanitation in the school before any more time has elapsed. It is important that the heating problem be dealt with before the weather becomes worse.

The school is a small one, but the teachers and the pupils are entitled to the same facilities as apply elsewhere. An official of the Department has stated that there is no hope of amalgamation in regard to that school in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is a bad policy on the part of the Department to leave the school in its present condition. I appeal to the Minister to give his attention to this matter and to ensure that the necessary work will be carried out at the school so that there will be a continuation of the services that have been provided there for hundreds of years.

Primary education is of vital importance in a child's development. A child who has had a sound primary education will be able to make the most of his secondary education. Therefore, we must ensure that all the necessary facilities are available in our primary schools.

Only a minority of students commence university courses on completing post-primary education. I am aware that in certain circumstances grants are available for higher education but, despite that, those students whose parents are not in a position to contribute towards university education are faced with much difficulty because the grant payable in respect of third level education amounts to not much more than the university fee. A rigorous means test is applied in determining qualification for any such grant. As other speakers have said, there is a case to be made both for an easing of this means test and for an increase in the grant. Last year a case was brought to my attention of a child who did not qualify for the grant in full because his mother had gone out to work a couple of years earlier so that she might save enough money to enable the family to begin building a house. It is a sad reflection on our education policy that that should be allowed happen. This whole question is one that should engage the Minister's attention.

We heard much talk a few years ago of a merger of the universities, but there is no mention of any such proposal now. The idea was a good one. It seems to me, as a layman, that there should be rationalisation in this field. I am informed that there is a total of five medical schools in the country. Therefore, there must be much overlapping in that sphere. Our doctors are held in the highest esteem all over the world, but there should not be such overlapping of training facilities for them. That is one faculty in respect of which a merger would be worth while. A lot of money goes into the training of a doctor and about 60 per cent of them subsequently emigrate, but that is a problem that will be solved eventually. In any case, vested interests should not be allowed to dictate the policy of any Government and I suggest to the Government that they revive the idea of a merger of university faculties.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I am convinced that he is endeavouring to carry out his responsibilities to the best of his ability.

The county committees of agriculture are doing fine work in the education field. Our membership of the EEC has given to agriculture a greater importance than ever before. Therefore, we should endeavour to combine certain aspects of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and of the Department of Education. There is need for much education in relation to agriculture. Much remains to be done in that respect but the introduction of agricultural science to most educational establishments is a step in the right direction. The county committees of agriculture are involved mostly in adult education.

I look forward to a continuation of the progress that has been taking place in education for a number of years past. If we can get the groundwork properly done in the primary and continuation schools we shall then be able to assess the type of education pupils going on to secondary schools will be able to assimilate. All of us here and throughout the country admit that nothing but the best in education is good enough for our young people if they are to survive as men and women in the competitive modern world. In that context none of us will deny that money should not stop us from giving a proper education to our young people, or indeed to older people if they want to improve themselves in later years.

Tá sé deacair a thuiscint conas d'fhéadfadh éinne labhairt ar na meastacháin seo gan creidiúnt agus moladh a thabhairt don iar-Aire, an Teachta Faulkner. Deirim é sin mar creidim má táimid dáiríre faoi chúrsai oideachais nach féidir linn a shéanadh gur tharla níos mó agus gur rinneadh níos mó le linn a thréimhse ná mar a tharla le linn tréimhse Aire ar bith eile. Sílim go bhfuil sé tábhachtach é sin a rá. Sílim go bhfuil sé tábhachtach go dtuigfeadh na daoine a thiocfaidh inár ndiaidh cé mhéad a rinne an iar-Aire sin. B'fhéidir nár thugh sé cothram na Féinne dó féin. Ní haon phéagcog é; ní duine é a bhí ag sodar ina dhiaidh na soilsí; ní duine é a theastaigh uaidh rud ar bith a dhéanamh ach leas dhaltaí agus mhuintir na tíre uilig. Rinne sé é go deas, ciúin. Bhíodh sé ag obair ó mhaidin go hoiche. Chuaigh sé deacair air uaireanta, is dóigh. Nuair a dheanfeadh duine eile an rud éasca. ach an rud nach raibh i gceart, chlaoí an Teachta Faulkner, mar Aire, leis an bhfírinne, ba chuma cé chuirfead ina aghaidh.

Is é an cuspóir atá ag cúrsaí oideachais sin a mhúnladh agus cabhair a thabhairt dúinn sa saol seo. Uaireanta tá sé níos tábhachtaí an rud a thugann pléisiúr dúinn a chánadh. Ba cheart an cheacht seo a mhúineadh do ghasúirí na tíre seo. Tuigeann gach éinne céard tá i gceist agam. Caithfimid a chur ar a súile d'aois óg na tíre nách ceart don duine géilleadh don rud a thugann pléisiúr neamhbhuan.

Le déanaí agus mé ag freastal ar an Oireachtas, thug mé faoi ndeara gur glacadh go raibh an an-chuid maitheasa san iar-Aire. Níl a fhios agam an raibh aon chomparáid á dhéanamh acu; níl fhios agam an raibh aon staidéar déanta acu ar obair an iar-Aire. D'admhaigh siad gur mhór an chailliúint imeach an Teachta Faulkner, go mór mhór ó thaobh cúis na Gaeilge dhe, ó thaobh cúrsa oideachais dhe go ginearálta. Deirte gur tar éis a tuigtear gach beart. trua nár tuigeadh é ag an am ceart ach má tuigtear ar cor ar bith é is dócha go mba cheart dúinn bheith sásta.

Níor shéan mé riamh an tsuim atá agam sa Ghaeilge. Níor theastaigh uaim, ná níor chuir éinne go bhfuil aithne agam air i mo leith, gur theastaigh uaim riamh ach an Ghaeilge a chur ar aghaidh. Cuireann sé díomá agus eagla orm uaireanta go bhfuil daoine ann a thabharfadh insteach an Ghaeilge mar liathróidín polaitíochta agus nách mbeadh sásta a admháil gurb é sin atá ar siúl acu.

Tá sin níos fairsinge ar an dtaobh sin ná ar an dtaobh seo.

Cé tá níos fairsinge— na Gaeilgeoirí?

Na peileadóirí.

Má fheileann an bhróg don Teachta thall tá go maith, ach tá súil agam nach n-iarrfadh sé ormsa í a caitheamh. Iarraim ar an Teachta a bheith béasach agus éisteacht liom. Bhí mé ag caint go béasach anseo an tseachtain seo caite le hAire na Gaeltachta. Bhéinn ag súil go bhféadhaimis a thaispeáint sa Teach seo fiú amháin gur mar sin a bheadh sé dá mbeimis go léir ag labhairt Gaeilge. Mar sin, iarraim ar an Rúnai Parlaiminte nó ar éinne eile go bhfuil suim aige sa Ghaeilge cead cainte a thabairt don duine eile. Ba cheart gan é bheith le rá ag éinne go bhfuil an droch-bhéas ag baint leis an nGaeilge. Ní páistí muid, ach, mar a deirtear i mBéarla, you could have fooled me.

Is ag iarraidh a bheith dea-bhéasach atáimid.

Glacann gach éinne anois nach raibh Aire againn ó bhunaíodh an Stát seo a bhí chomh dúthrachtach maidir leis an nGaeilge agus an Teachta Faulkner. Lena linn rinneadh níos mó dul chun cinn maidir leis an nGaeilge ná mar a rinneadh roimhe sin. Is eagal liom nach mbeidh an dul chun cinn céanna ann as seo amach. Is dóigh liom nach bhféadfaí an dul chun cinn sin a dhéanamh marach go raibh sa Roinn aige—an Roinn ina raibh sé d'onóir agam tréimhse gearr a chaitheamh— daoine nach bhfuil a sárú le fáil. Is stáit seirbhísí iad gan ceangail acu le dream polaitíochta ar bith. Is daoine iad a thuigeann cad tá le déanamh, daoine atá sásta a gcuid moltaí a chur ós comhair Aire Oideachais ar bith. Maidir leis an nGaeilge tá tá súil agam go mbeidh an tAire nua sásta chomhoibriú leis na daoine sin. Tuigfidh sé go mb'fhéidir go bhfuil sa Roinn agus sa tír daoine go bhfuil tuairimí acu atá chomh maith leis na tuairimí atá aige féin. Ar scáth a chéile a mhairimid go léir. Níl duine amháin ann ar bhronn Dia iomlán na fírinne, iomlán an chirt. Tá sé de dhualgas orainn go léir éisteacht le chuile dhuinn a bhfuil moladh aige i gcúrsaí oideachais. B'fhéidir go mba cheart dúinn arís an cheacht sin a thabhairt faoi ndeara.

I have been a Member of this House since 1969 and it would be from that time only that I would have read in detail any Minister's speech on the occasion of his introducing his Estimate. The speech which is now before us is unique in many ways. The Minister, on reading paragraph 2 of his speech, seems to regret that in this country as of now we have a situation which did not always obtain, and that is that our teachers are paid for the work they do.

For far too long teachers at primary and secondary level in this country were abused in their profession and did not get financial compensation commensurate with the important work which they did. In recent years —and I say this knowing there is nobody who can contradict me—this recognition had been granted. Apart from disappointing me it amazes me that any Minister in the Department of Education comes before this House and uses as an excuse for fear of not being able to implement an educational policy the fact that he has to pay teachers.

I take words as I find them, and I do not misinterpret them. Here I suggest to you, a Cheann Comhairle, that you look at paragraph 2 of the Minister's speech in which he said:

Educational services are very much labour intensive. Out of every £100 in this year's Estimate for current expenditure, £71 is being spent on salaries and wages. The percentage of the budget for salaries and wages is increasing at an annual rate of 1 per cent.

Then we have the statement that appals me:

The effect of this trend is to preempt more and more the resources available for education and to slow down the growth in the introduction of the many desirable educational innovations which need to be implemented.

I do not like referring to someone who is not present in the House, but one got the impression from the Minister that he was different from all his predecessors: that previous Ministers did not have to pay civil servants or teachers. What is behind this? I do not know if I detect an anxiety on the part of his Parliamentary Secretary to explain? If that is so, I shall give way.

He wants to be well-mannered—perhaps he will be allowed to interrupt as he did not do so when the Deputy was speaking in Irish.

I am sure he could interrupt in Irish also.

The Chair does not want interruptions in English or Irish.

I had hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would enlighten me about what is in the Minister's mind now that, apparently for the first time, teachers have to be paid. All his predecessors had the same responsibility. I fear this may be a warning to teachers that they may not get the increases to which they, like other professional people, are entitled. If they look for increases, will the Minister suggest to them that this will be at the expense of the children and our educational system? I hope the Minister will comment on this and the other matters I have raised when he is replying.

In his speech the Minister described the situation with regard to education as very healthy. It is significant that he did not make any reference to the contribution made by his predecessor. He did not refer to the fact that all the achievements mentioned in his speech would not have been possible were it not for the former Minister, Deputy Faulkner. There are two exceptions which I concede to the Minister: first, to some extent regionalisation and, secondly, Dún Chaoin, and the latter I concede in full.

I will not refer at length to Dún Chaoin. The Minister took action in this matter for his own reasons, whether he has done the correct thing or not. As the man from Cois Fharraige said—ag féachaint a bheidh sé. The Minister has been holding up Dún Chaoin as a marvellous gem which he was most anxious to protect and polish. However I do not know why he appealed to the 50 or 60 students in the all-Irish school in Ballymun. They have been reared a considerable distance from this sacred spot in County Kerry and I do not know why the Minister put it to them that the salvation of Dún Chaoin now depends on Ballymun. It might be said that in his efforts to cover his mistake in Dún Chaoin he has had timpeal na háite sin, gasúirí ó Bhlá Cliath nach raibh an oiread sin Gaeilge acu. Is é toradh na cúirte a thugadar ar an áit sin taobh istigh de chúpla míosa nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge chéanna i nDún Chaoin anois agus a bhí, agus don an chéad uair airimh tá gasúirí Dhún Chaoin ag labhairt, agus scill acu, an Béarla nach raibh acu go dtí an samhradh seo.

In his speech the Minister tells us what the National Coalition last February hoped to do with regard to education. It is important that the three aspirations mentioned by him be looked at and examined. Presumably those connected with education are interested in searching out the truth. From studying what the Minister has said and what he claims, we will have an interpretation of the truth so far. This is very important, because in this matter I am talking about truth in the widest context.

The Minister tells us that the first of the main objectives is to introduce genuine consultation with parents, school authorities, teachers and students. We must accept that the implication in that statement is that, up to his taking over the Ministry, there was no genuine consultation or there was not consultation at all, because he uses the word "introduce" and those of us who have any idea of the meaning of English words take it that when you talk about "introducing" something it is something that is happening for the first time. We take it, then, that the Minister is insinuating, implying, claiming here that until the great God sent the present Minister to the Department of Education there was no genuine consultation.

That is not a very "béasach" way to put it.

I do not know whether I should do this but if the learned professor would indicate to me what is "unbéasach" about it I shall be prepared to listen.

Leave God out of your polemics and say what you have to say about the Minister without bringing God into it.

I am very surprised that the professor should indicate to me that when talking about education I should leave God out of it.

Do not add unctuousness to your bad manners.

If he is concerned that God should not figure in Irish education let him advocate that——

Do not add sanctimony to your bad manners.

——but let him not say to me that I should not introduce God into Irish education.

Do not make a laughing stock of yourself.

We will read the Official Report and we will see what the Parliamentary Secretary said. If he would look at the Official Report he might be reminded of the number of times when he was not as wise or as clever as he thought he was.

I have often regretted things I said.

It is time the Parliamentary Secretary realised that in this House he is not speaking to an enclosed or an enforced collection of law students who must put up with what he says and accept his dogmatising on law. This is a different assembly where I express my view, he will express his, and the public will decide whether he has the monopoly of wisdom or part of it or whether I might have some little bit of it too. I would ask him to wait a while and presently we will have, I hope, the pleasure of listening to him on this matter of education.

Before I was interrupted, I was making the point that the present Minister for Education, this Godsent Minister, indicates in his speech that until his arrival in Marlborough Street there had never been any genuine consultation with teachers or parents or students. He states here that his objective is to introduce genuine consultation; and I think it is fair comment that the implication there, especially in the use of the word "introduce", suggests that genuine consultation did not exist before his arrival. I hope that, when replying, he will indicate the areas where he considers this has not occurred and explain to the House how it was he who first introduced and established consultation with parents, teachers and students.

I make no apology for saying that I regard the present holder of the office as possibly not entirely suitable for the position in so far as I detect in him a very definite reluctance to listen to anyone other than himself. If education is about anything it is about the pooling of our resources; if education is about anything it is about the pooling of our thoughts and a preparedness on each side to accept that nobody has a monopoly of revealed truth, that each person might have a little of it and that if we all pool our thoughts and extract the essence of them, we will emerge with more enlightenment and more truth than we had prior to our embarking on this exchange of views. I hope I have established that the Minister has not been indicating the true position when he suggests that it was only with his arrival in Marlborough Street that genuine consultations were held with all those associated with education. The Minister gives as his second aim the transfer to an independent educational body of authority for examinations and courses. I have not anything to say on that except that, if the Minister is fair and concerned with giving credit where it is due, he will agree that this is not an innovation and that this was already in train before his arrival in Marlborough Street.

His third objective is:

To see to it that the policy of selective compulsion which had proved so disastrous for the Irish language over the last 50 years would be replaced by a genuine policy based on respect for and promotion of the Irish language.

Certainly, I was as quick as the Minister or anybody else to go on record as expressing doubts or fears about the situation which obtained in the matter of what was called "compulsory Irish". I was reported in the three newspapers as far back as 1969 as having said that I thought what was called "compulsory Irish" was not helping the language so far as the intermediate and leaving certificates were concerned. I conveyed my concern to the Minister. I expressed my concern elsewhere. I was happy that other people had the same point of view. The concern was as to what might replace that which was described as compulsory Irish so that the promotion of the language would not suffer.

It was in that state that I found myself prior to the change of Government. I realised the matter was important. I could appreciate the position of a parent looking at the stress of his child, worrying about something in regard to which there was really no need to worry because we could show that it applied in any year's examination to only .02 per cent of the students who sat for the examination. Nevertheless, it was causing distress and it was not helping the language or the regard people should have for the language. I was not able to indicate the system which would replace it, a system which would guarantee that all the children of Ireland would continue to get instruction in the language of their forefathers, the language of their country, the language that would give them their identity, the identity they would have above all else to show that they are Irish and not of another nationality.

A fortnight after the Minister assumed office he removed selective compulsion and he did not replace. I would take issue with him on his claim in regard to the promotion of the Irish language and Irish culture. It gives me no great pleasure to say that as of now the language is in greater danger than at any time in the last 50 years. The Minister promised he would introduce a subject called "Irish Studies", some makeup subject. He had this ready and we were ready for the off. This would replace compulsion. He had a policy. This subject called "Irish Studies" was to be introduced in this school year. A week ago the Minister wrote to secondary teachers in this city asking them if they had any ideas about "Irish Studies". He apparently has not many or any.

Last April he stated he was removing this thing called "compulsion" in the matter of Irish and, in order to guarantee that the interest of the student would be maintained, he was introducing a special subject called "Irish Studies". We asked here how the present timetable would be maintained. I asked specifically whether the Minister proposed increasing the school day or eliminating some other subject. He explained that Latin was now no longer necessary for entrance to university and that could be played down and "Irish Studies" could perhaps be played up. The impression was given that he knew what he was about and the form this subject would take. Yet, in October, he writes to teachers, overworked teachers, asking them for their ideas. These are the teachers about whom he is not too happy; he is not too happy about the situation that he has to pay them, as he said in the second paragraph of his speech introducing his Estimate. He writes to these teachers now asking them could they tell him what might constitute this new subject "Irish Studies".

That is what I call consultation.

Sorry to have interrupted. Carry on. But I believe the Deputy heard me all the same.

I presume again that later on we will have the pleasure and the benefit of listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.

As soon as ever the Deputy finishes.

I want the Minister to substantiate the claim he makes that he is promoting the Irish language. Where exactly is he promoting it? Those who are interested in attracting youngsters to the Gaeltacht are not too happy about the position. This year the increase in numbers over last year was marginal. As a percentage it was less than the increase occurring over the last 15 years. What plans has the Minister to compensate for that which existed in the matter of what was called "compulsion" and that which gave to all our children the opportunity of studying their own language.

We will stay with the English a little longer. I want to quote now from the Minister's opening statement:

In the short period of time which has elapsed since these commitments were entered into, the progress made in achieving these stated objectives has, I submit to the Dáil, been substantial; not only that, but considerable progress has also been achieved under other headings as well.

I think the Corca Dhuibhne man's word for this is "baois". I have a certain respect for words and "substantial" to me means substantial. If substantial progress has been made, one would imagine that the Minister could indicate where exactly it has been made. One would imagine he would not come before this House giving a statement of all that had been obtained under his predecessor, the only two exceptions being, as I have said, the case of Dún Chaoin and the case of regionalisation. There is nothing else here that was not there before the Minister went to Marlborough Street. If the Minister, when replying does not give some indication of where substantial progress has been made, we must assume that his interpretation of the word "substantial" is one which is peculiar to himself. The Minister has said:

When I come to the individual Votes for which I am responsible I will treat of my policy in greater detail.

That was a promise but it is not fulfilled. There is nothing there about any new policy that I can see, rather is there a statement of the anxiety of the Minister that he will not be able to maintain the existing policy of his predecessor. If that is the position, let the Minister say it. I would be happy to concede that in doing so he would be doing a good day's work. In doing so, he would be attempting something which I do not think he would be able to achieve, but at least I could accept him at his word. I do not want him to come to this House and abuse the English language to the extent of giving the impression that he is doing something substantial when in fact he is not succeeding in maintaining the position that existed before he arrived.

In passing, may I say I was surprised that the Minister did not tackle all the problems that are and will be in the Department of Education in a correct fashion. I had the pleasure of meeting the Minister elsewhere when he was a Deputy in Opposition. I accepted his sincerity, his industry and his straight forwardness. I regret that the feelings I had about him have not been sustained in regard to his behaviour and his approach since he came to office.

There are some small points to which I should like to refer, not at any great length, but I think they are worthy of some little comment. I notice a term here which I have not seen before and which I would be hoping might not gain any great prominence, a reference to third level, non-university education. I hope it does not indicate the beginning of what existed 25 years ago in respect of what was then called practical education and academic education. I hope that, having eliminated it as best we could at post-primary level, we are not going to find ourselves having to put up with it now at third level.

Third level education, whether in our regional technical colleges or universities, is important. Perhaps a case can be made that the practical and regional college third level education is even more important—and as far as I am concerned, it is in some cases— than university education. We should get away from this notion that has bedevilled Irish education for so long, this educational aristocracy-type thinking, and that we would realise that education is not confined solely and absolutely to our universities, that there are people who never saw the inside of a university and whose contribution to society and to the wellbeing of Ireland is every bit as good as that of any graduate or academic.

Having mentioned our universities, I should like to refer again to the question which I put to the Minister during the year, in which I directed his attention to the fact that our universities were selecting H. Dip. students, that their concern appeared to be for numbers and honours, and that I thought the Minister, as a future employer on behalf of the State of these graduates, should have an important say in the selection of those students. His reply to me was that he did not want to be accused of trespassing on the autonomy of our universities.

The day for the acceptance of that regard for our universities is gone, as far as I am concerned. That perhaps was acceptable and pardonable in the days when universities were the domain and the property of private individuals. Now, however, as indicated in the Minister's speech and in the Estimate, there is a sum of £15 million going to our universities. At the same time, there are in my constituency—notwithstanding the promises and the statements made by the Minister children who perhaps may not move beyond primary school level, who are obliged to sit in classrooms often not very well aired or furnished or heated, with 49 companions, in order to get, possibly, the only education that they will get to equip them for life. The day is gone when the parents of children who, because of economic and social conditions cannot hope to benefit from third level or university education, will say: "You can have the £15 million which belongs to our children and we will not dare to interfere or to question you as to how it is spent."

Some students from University College, Dublin, and from Trinity College are not prepared to share the same facilities for veterinary education. They are not prepared to share the services of lecturers. But, at the same time, 50 unfortunate children must share draughty prefabricated classrooms. That situation cannot be allowed to continue. I do not see why we should accept it. On other occasions people have stamped me as an anti-intellectual when I spoke on such matters. I have been spoken of as one who forgets what the university did for him. I am speaking here as I was encouraged to do when attending university: I am speaking the truth as I see it. There is dissatisfaction with the position. I have instanced the case of UCD and TCD not being prepared to share veterinary education facilities at Ballsbridge.

It is time we had a thorough examination of third-level and university education. We should ask ourselves what exactly is it all about and analyse it carefully. We may be continuing to look at university education in an over-idealistic fashion. We see in university education that which ideally improves the person much beyond his fellow citizens who have not had the opportunity of such education. Third-level education is something which, to some extent at least, has replaced the old capitalistic system. It is something which people are striving for and are encouraged to strive for. They are told that if they have university education they will enjoy a better standard of living, live in a bigger house, drive a bigger car and because of their importance they will be able to insist on getting treatment which is superior and better than that obtainable by other sections of the community. That might even be accepted if the people who enjoy that privilege were paying for it themselves. People forget that in the case of veterinary students because of their desire and the desire of the authorities to maintain their status position, the cost to the taxpayer is approximately £1,200 per student per annum.

Some time ago I spoke to the Minister for Finance about workers earning £2,500 per annum who from now on will be denied children's allowances. The Minister's reaction was that these people have been subsidised if they are now earning such money and they should not get children's allowances. We are prepared to subsidise the children of the rich to the extent of more than £1,000 per annum for veterinary education. That is the cost to the community. I know that the students themselves pay something. This also applies to medicine and to all the professions. If there is an obligation on society to provide a higher standard of living or more material advantage for a certain section of our people, there is an obligation on those people, in return for the concession which the rest of the community are giving them, to indicate this indebtedness to the people. In the case of professional men who have been so subsidised what happens? Their thanks to society is to charge £2, £3 or £5 per hour for their services when they graduate.

When we talk about university education we must accept now that university education is not what it was some time ago. The approach to such education is not what it was. We are subsidising a section of society to the point where they can charge much bigger fees for their services than would have been possible if they had not got university education.

Would the Deputy name one country in the world in which that is not so, even allowing that part of the premise he is going on is correct?

The question put by the Parliamentry Secretary does not prove that what I am saying is not true.

It proves it is ridiculous.

We may be able to examine the situation here and perhaps give a lead to other countries if what obtains is not fair or, what I would term, true and absolute socialism. What obtains is pardonable if everything else is catered for. But when, as the Minister says, there is such need for money, when he fears he will be unable to maintain the high standard set up by his predecessor, Deputy Faulkner, in primary and post-primary education, when he fears he may not be able to continue paying civil servants and teachers if he is to implement this policy, I think there is an obligation on us to look at our resources and if possible make savings here and there in areas other than that which the Minister would indicate.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but I do not understand what the point is. Would the Deputy explain whether he is suggesting that somebody should go to the trouble of spending years acquiring a professional education, with or without a State subsidy, and not achieve some material benefit from it afterwards in the form of the fees the Deputy spoke about?

I shall try to answer that. In a moment I shall come to the legal profession. My point is that there is an impression abroad that students at the university are making a tremendous sacrifice—I can see it; some of them are—with a view to benefitting from a level of education which will subsequently be very beneficial to society; that they are doing this motivated by some marvellous regard for higher education and without any cost to the community.

I do not think the Deputy paid much attention to the students with whom he was in the university because that view is not abroad. Nobody is so unrealistic to suppose that students have that idea. Their motives are mixed.

I am making the point that society at large does not seem to realise—and indeed some of the students do not—that the sacrifice these students made to help them towards third level education is not solely their own and that tremendous sacrifices are being made not willingly by the people but forced upon them by the State, people who cannot benefit from education beyond the age of 15. I want an examination of the situation so that if, as I have indicated, there is wastage at third level a saving should be made there and the money saved would be better employed in providing more education for those who will never get beyond post-primary level. That is a valid point. I hope that, in the new company the Parliamentary Secretary shares with the intellectual socialist who is associated with him in planning for all the people of Ireland, he will have a look at this. If there is any merit in what I have said and if we are paying too much attention to the whims and the needs of the veterinary students at Ballsbridge he will have the matter investigated and, if he can save money there, have it made available to less fortunate people in other parts of the city.

The veterinary students are a very small part of the problem.

So are the legal men. Here, I am taking the Minister's own definition of his responsibility in providing for the needs of society. A need which all adults experience at some stage is the need for a legal adviser. In any other profession, veterinary surgeon, teacher or engineer, if there is awareness of insufficient supply certain taps can be turned and the supply becomes available. Here, I am taking the statement of the Minister as to how he is obliged to consider the needs of society in the matter of education and also taking the fact that during the year he answered a question of mine regarding his responsibility in the matter of knowledge of Irish for members of the legal profession. I shall take a moment or two trying to establish that, while society has an urgent need every day for the advice of professional legal men, society seems to have no control over their availability. I meet frustrated people every day, people who have had business with solicitors but because solicitors are so overworked and because of the relative insignificance of the business these people have the solicitors are lured away by larger fees and cannot attend to them. They come to me in frustration and I say: "I am sorry; this is all controlled by the Bar Council.

The Minister for Education or the politician, apparently, is unable to do much about it".

This situation was perhaps permissible in the old days of the educational aristocracy but in present circumstances, when those people who are frustrated through taxation contributing to the education of legal men, I think the time has come when the Minister representing the State will be obliged, by reason of the obligations on him to cater for the needs of society, to have a say in the number of solicitors qualifying in any one year. The public need must be satisfied and we should not have a situation where a small number in any profession are perhaps earning more than they can cope with while others could be accommodated in that profession. We now have so many with leaving certificate education and there is such a great need to absorb as many as possible into the different professions that we might open up those gates which for so long have been closed to certain people.

We should realise that in the legal profession, the same as in the medical profession and the teaching profession, there is a need and a place for the son and the daughter of any parents, whether they live in Dublin, in Cork, in Foxrock, in Cabra, in Finglas or in Cabinteely. In the years to come when we take up the newspapers and see pictures of people who have graduated in all of the professions, I hope that, with the same frequency as we see addresses from Howth, Sutton, Foxrock, Cabinteely, Blackrock and Killiney, we will see addresses from Ballyfermot, Cabra, Finglas, Coolock and Artane.

Is the Deputy saying that some artificial limit is imposed on recruitment to the legal profession by some professional body over which the Government have got no control? If so, he is wrong.

May I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should allow Deputy Tunney to continue. He can make his own case later.

The Deputy is saying that in the legal profession it would appear to him that those who engage in the pursuit of that profession seem to have a monopoly of names and addresses, and he is leaving it at that.

Do not leave it at that.

The Parliamentary Secretary should allow Deputy Tunney to continue.

He is making a very damaging and nasty insinuation which I am sure Deputy Andrews would be the first to contradict.

I have something else on my mind at the moment and with permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I will be introducing it shortly. I should like the Government Chief Whip to remain there. It is of interest to him.

I do not know what position obtains on that side of the House. I am aware that I have the privilege and honour to associate with other Irishmen in a political party. I am mindful of the policies of this party and I have sufficient faith in myself to say at any time what I believe in and offer criticism of anything appertaining to Irish society. While some of my colleagues might not agree entirely with what I say, none of my colleagues would deny me the right and, indeed, the obligation to say it.

The time has come when the Minister for Education, in pursuit of his interpretation of his position in looking after the needs of society, must involve himself in the education of the legal profession. I said on some other occasion that I never bought my hat on the way out of Croke Park.

I want to refer now to matters in the Minister's speech. The record will show that it is not because I find myself on this side of the House that I say this. Last year and the year before I referred to the situation obtaining in our primary schools. I referred to the injustice which existed there in the name of primary education. Efforts have been made to correct these difficulties. I referred in what might be described as detail to the situation in which the majority of our primary school teachers were young men and young ladies who came from counties outside Dublin. We had little children sent to our city schools because their parents had not the time or the ability to continue their education. Ideally they were sent to a place which would be an extension of all that was best in those homes.

I said that I could see the situation arising in which a young child, having been told of this great new life on which he was about to embark, and looking forward to it with great excitement and great anticipation, would discover on his first day that he could hardly understand the accent of this wonderful person who was, for the purposes of school, replacing his parents. I am not in any way criticising the fact that accents exist. Thank God for them. We have our Mayo, Kerry, Belfast, Donegal and all our different accents, all of which are Irish, and all of which contribute to our diversity and identity. They are understandable and intelligible to an adult, but they present a certain difficulty to a child of four or five years of age and make it more difficult for him to accept his new educator as representing an extension of what is happening in his home. This person would introduce him to the fantasy of adventure and the excitement of pursuing exercises, all of which would help to develop his mind and equip him for the life which was ahead of him.

Because of this and other matters we get a frightening incidence of absenteeism in our primary schools in Dublin. The lessons and the exercises presented to the city child are invariably rural based and refer, generally speaking, to the farm, the bog and agricultural transactions about which this little child has absolutely no experience. There seems to be a certain reluctance on the part of our educators to base the exercises on the life and the environment of the child. Why should a primary teacher in Dublin not base problems in arithmetic on the number of flats in a tower, the number of people in the flats, or the cost of travel to school as against the free transport provided for his counterparts elsewhere? I cannot understand the reluctance to base school life on the environment the child knows and not on a life alien to him.

There are problems in teaching the Irish language. The impression is given that one would not have a licence to speak the Irish language unless one could treat of a way of life and of trades and occupations far removed from everyday life. This has changed somewhat. Why should lessons in Irish readers, and quite often lessons given by the teachers, deal with painful experiences—for example, a visit to the dentist? Why should I have had to learn the Irish for "injection" before I knew the Irish for a "fish and chip shop"? This approach does not encourage the child to speak Irish. I have been and will continue to be critical of decisions which the Minister has made. I will concede that he is as interested in the Irish language as I am. I would appeal to the primary teachers to emphasise the speaking of the Irish language. I would be happy to hear that they do not bother with the books. Even in sixth class they need not necessarily speak to the students about the Aimsear Fháistineach, the Modh Choinníollach or the Tuiseal Ginideach. These had an adverse effect on me, and anybody else striving to learn the Irish language, by associating pain and distress with Irish rather than emphasising that it was a pleasurable, exciting and inviting subject.

I have not given expression to all the matters which were in my mind. I hope some of the matters to which I have referred will engage the attention of the Minister. The Minister does not impress me as the type of person who might be prepared to accept that there is something in what others say. I had intended developing further the importance of personality and suitability in teachers. For too long we have accepted that, if a man has a B.A. honours, he is a marvellous teacher, and that the higher his honours the better teacher he would be. From experience we know that is not true. At primary school level the important point is that the teacher is trained to teach.

I do not like going against the stream of thought but I am not convinced that it is necessary for a primary school teacher to have a B.A. degree. I can understand that he or she would desire it, as I can understand the question of status and of its giving him or her a certain mobility. Unlike other teachers the primary school teacher can boast that he has the ability to teach. The Minister's predecessor accepted these recommendations and their desirability, but the motivation for the degree should be that it would benefit the child. As I have said on other occasions, the most important teacher is the primary teacher. He is the best qualified teacher. However, if primary teachers are afraid they are not getting the recognition they deserve I concede that is the least they are entitled to.

When I had the honour of holding the office now held by Deputy Bruton, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, I recall somebody asking me for my views on what I might achieve. I said that I compared myself with a labourer trying to move a mountain with only a shovel. I note that my successor's area of responsibility has been extended. I wish him well in his post and hope he will be successful in implementing all he considers to be necessary.

I realise that it is not easy to run the Department of Education. There are many mountains to be climbed and no one is more special than another. We are aware now more so than ever before that education does not finish when a child leaves school. There is need for much change in our attitude towards education. One area in which change might be considered is that of the set timetable—for instance, Béarla, 9.45; Gaeilge, 10.45. At least we might examine the possibility of fifth and sixth year students spending an entire week studying, say, geography. Perhaps, there might be a greater interchange of teachers whereby the rigidity and regimentation which make school so unattractive to students—and, at times, to teachers—might be removed.

We must endeavour to remove the erroneous and damaging impression that schooldays were a period to which one was subjected for a time and at the end of which one would emerge with a portmanteau of knowledge to be carried under the arm for the remainder of one's life and that that was sufficient. We must realise that change is taking place so quickly now that that which is new today is old tomorrow, that people who have been trained for certain jobs find themselves redundant at a very early age and that unless the nature of education is such that they have been trained in the ways of adaptability, unless the system is such that they can opt to go back to education, they will bear a resentment towards society and towards legislators in general.

We should not talk of a fixed policy in relation to education because there must never be a fixed policy in this sphere. Rather, there must be a certain amount of flexibility, of experimentation and of a moving away, where necessary, from the traditional. However, we must remember, at the same time, that change for the sake of change is not sufficient and that there are certain fundamentals from which we must never depart.

Deputy Bermingham referred to what was said by Deputy Power in regard to the use of the cane in schools. As one who spent some time teaching I would not advocate the use of the cane; but I would say that in any establishment there must be at least controlled freedom. We must remember the proverb—nach mbíonn an rath ach mar a mbíonn an smacht.

Reference has been made already to schooling being a preparation for life in the sense that it prepares one for a job; but in this age of advancing technology, when actual working time is diminishing, it is important to educate for free rather than for engaged time.

I could not conclude without making reference to a statement made by the Minister but of which there is no mention in his brief, that is, his attitude towards the teaching of history in our schools as expressed in that statement. I have no wish to generate any antagonism or to say anything which would lead to controversy in this regard. However, I would say to the Minister that, as one who has four children receiving primary and post-primary education, I am happy to leave those children in the hands of the ladies and gentlemen who are qualified to teach them. History is a treatment of the past. A proper study of the subject can teach young and old alike where mistakes were made and where tragedies might have been avoided and I would not be happy with a proposal for a change in the treatment of the subject. I regret that I have not got the Minister's exact words but I listened to him when he was interviewed on the radio, and he said he wanted greater prominence given to Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins.

Hear, hear.

I notice that a colleague of the Minister's has said, "hear, hear".

Right you are, Sir.

I think he is embarking on very dangerous ground, especially when in the same interview the Minister said that, as he saw it, history or the treatment of history should not glorify anybody or that it was not the function of history to present anyone of the past in any special position. If that is his interpretation of what history should do— again I do not agree with him—why should he not be consistent? Why does he say that it should not glorify anybody except Arthur Griffith?

The Minister never said such a thing.

Was the Parliamentary Secretary listening to the programme to which I have referred?

I am listening to the Deputy.

Was the Parliamentary Secretary listening to the programme?

No, but I know the Minister better than the Deputy and he never said that nobody should be glorified except Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins. That is what the Deputy has alleged the Minister said and it will appear on the record.

What I want placed on the record is that I listened to the Minister when he said that his interpretation of history was that it should not attempt to glorify or aim at glorifying anybody in particular.

That is another matter.

If the Parliamentary Secretary was not listening to the programme, then I venture to say that he hardly knows what the Minister did say.

The Deputy is making the definite allegation that the Minister said nobody should be looked up to or respected except Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins.

We should not enter into an argument on this matter.

I have not had the benefit of the legal training which the Parliamentary Secretary has.

The Deputy is out on a limb and should come back off it.

Deputy Tunney without interruption.

If the Minister, as he has done, conveys on the one hand that he proposes changing history to the extent that no patriot will be glorified, I find it difficult to accept how he would say, and he said during this interview, that this was his personal view, that Arthur Griffith had never got the recognition to which he was entitled.

That is quite a different matter to what the Deputy alleged some minutes ago.

I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary will be making his contribution later and I ask him to reserve his comments for that.

I will not spend two hours on it, and I cannot track everything that the Deputy has said.

History, as I have said, is a treatment of the past. I am not saying that history should glorify anybody. History should be a true statement of fact but I do not want removed from our history books the fact that over centuries—even the English themselves will not deny this—we were subjected to a certain amount of bullying and suppression by our strong neighbour. Rather would I be prepared to move on from that to show that even though the neighbour was strong, indulged in violence, used the gun, oppression and suppression we are still here and we have survived that.

The Deputy can thank Michael Collins for that.

And in that way I will be showing the futility of brutality, oppression or violence. On the other hand, I do not want removed from our history books a treatment of the past and a treatment of all that which men who were idealistic about Ireland would have followed. Patriotism can be of many things and it can be interpreted in many ways. I would venture to say that one of the definitions might be that patriotism treats of the pursuit of the fulfilment of the ideals, the unfulfilled aims and ideals and aspiration of men and women of past generations. The wishy-washy, milk and watery treatment of that, as proposed by the new Minister for Education, would lessen the quality of my sons and daughters and I want none of it.

Chuir an Teachta Tunney í mo choinne as ucht cúpla focal achrannagh a thabhairt isteach sa díospóireacht ar an mBille chun cruth nua a chur ar an gComhairle Ealaíon. Mhol an Teachta Faulkner a tráchtadh chomh minic sin air le dhá uair an chloig anuas, go mba chóir an focal "stiúrthóir" a fhágáil sa Bhille fiú amháin sa leagan Béarla. Bhí sé ann cheana féin sa leagan Gaeilge agus ba chóir go mbeadh. Dúirt mé féin nach bhfaca mé ciall ar bith le focal Gaeilge a fhágáil i leagan Béarla, nó a mhalairt, agus dá bhárr sin cháin an Teachta Faulkner agus an Teachta Tunney mé. Má tá an ceart acu, ní bheadh sé de cheart agamsa léirmheas ar bith a dhéanamh an an rud atá amaideach, ar an rud atá seafóideach, gan a bheith i mbaol an focal "achrannach" a thuilleamh ón Teachta. Bhí sé féin sáthach achrannach agus sáthach searbh i dtosach báire inniu: d'éirigh sé beagán níos síochánta ar ball, acht i dtosach báire bhí sé féin sáthach searbh agus sáthach achrannach ar chaoí nár thaitnigh liom chor ar bith. Mar sin féin, déanfaidh mé iarracht gan aithris a dhéanamh air agus ní choinneoidh mé an Teach thar leath-uair an chloig, tá súil agam.

Ba mhaith liom cur síos ar a lán rudaí go ndearna an Teachta Tunney tagairt dóibh ach mór mhaith liom an mhoil sin a chur ar an Teach. Níl ach dhá rud i gceist agam; agus i dtosach ba mhaith liom a rá gur baolach liom nach dtuigeann an Teachta Tunney comhnascadh na nOllscoil beag ná mór. Dúirt sé a lán rudaí anseo inniu a chuireann an smaoineamh i mo cheann nach dtuigeann sé an cheist ina h-iomlán. B'fhéidir go dtuigeann sé codanna dhí, agus is cinnte gobhfuil ceist na dtréidlia go ndearna sé tagairt dí achrannach go leor. B'fhéidir go bhfuil an ceart aige léirmheas de chineál éigin a dhéanamh air, acht níl dáimh ar bith i gColáiste na hOllscoile atá ar aon dul leis an dáimh san ábhar céanna sa Cholaíste eile. Níl sé chomh ar aon dul leis an dáimh san ábhar céanna sa Cholaíste eile. Níl sé chomh simplí sin flú amháin an caiteachas a laghdú trí na dámha a chur le chéile, iad a comheascadh le chéile mar a chuirfí dá fhoireann peile le chéile, cuir i gcás; níl sé chomh simplí sin ar chor ar bith; agus duine ar bith a bhfuil an smaoineamh sin nó an dearcadh sin aige, ní thuigeann sé an scéal.

Tá an scéal ag dul thart le blianta fada anuas ag lucht léirmheasa ins na nuachtáin agus eile gurab é atá ciontach leis an mhoill atá ar cheist na hOllscoile i mBaile Átha Cliath ná meon na múinteoirí iolscoile—go bhfuilid siúd naimhdeach don smaoineamh toisc, b'fhéidir, a bheith i mbaol postanna deasa a chailliúint nó ísliú céime de chineál éigin a fhulaingt. Ní fíor é sin. Is bréag é sin agus is baolach liom go ndearna an Teachta Tunney an bhréag sin— b'fhéidir nach raibh séi gceist aige— a scaipeadh níos fuide ná mar a bhí sé scaipthe cheanna.

Tá an cheist seo an-chasta ar fad agus sé is mó atá ciontach leis an gceist a bheith casta agus leis an gceist a bheith achrannach ná go ndearna an t-iar-Aire, Donnchadh Ó Máille, síocháin Dé lena anam, réiteach, nó gur mhol sé réiteach na ceiste sin gan uair an chloig a chaitheamh i gcomhairle le duine ar bith, gan na fadhbanna; ceachtar de na coláistí a thuiscint go cruinn. "Stroke" polaitíochta a bhí ann agus tá súil agam nach bhfuil mé ag cur oilc orthu siúd—bhí meas mór pearsanta agam air—go bhfuil an meas céanna acu air; ach, mar sin féin, caithfidh mé é sin a rá. Ní dheaca sé i gcomhairle le duine ar bith nó le coláiste ar bith nó le dáimh ar bith. Níor thuig sé nó níor thuig éinne san Roinn a bhí faoina chúram, na ceisteanna a bhí sé ag iarraidh a na ceisteanna a bhí sé ag iarraidh a réiteach.

Dúirt an Teachta Tunney ar ball go raibh sé i bhfad níos measa briseadh isteach ar dhuine atá ag labhairt Gaeilge ná ar dhuine atá ag labhairt Béarla. Bhí an Teachta Wilson ag cur isteach ormsa. Dar leis an Teachta Tunney go mba chóir dúinn a bheith níos béasaí, níos múinte, i nGaeilge ná i mBéarla. Sin fáth amháin ar chlis chomh dona sin ar chúis na Gaeilge agus nach ndeachamar níos fuide ná "Dún an doras", nó "oscail an fhuinneog". Níor múineadh dúinn agus níor fhoghluim muid sna scoileanna conas rudaí eile a dhéanamh tré Ghaeilge, conas a chur ina luí ar daoine eile an spiorad a bhí istigh sa duine, conas a bheith feargach trí Ghaeilge nó suirí a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil mé in ann é sin a léiriú i gceart, acht tá dlúth-bhaint idir dearchadh an Teachta Tunney agus na fáthanna ar chlis chomh dona sin ar an nGaeilge le leathchéad bliain anuas.

Anois, ba mhaith liom tagairt d'ábhar ar thagair an Teachta Faulkner dó an tseachtain seo caite. Dúirt sé, agus polasaí an Aire atá anois ann á cháineadh aige, go raibh sé féin den bharúil go mba chóir athsmaoineamh a dhéanamh ar an bpolasaí i leith na Gaeilge éigeantaí. Dúirt sé nach raibh sé féin sásta leis an bpolasaí sin agus táimíd ina dhiaidh a chloisteáil ón Teachta Tunney nach raibh seisean sásta leis ach oiread. Ní hé amháin nach raibh sé sásta leis, acht deir sé go ndeacha sé chuig an Aire a bhí ann san am sin, sa bhliain 1969, chun a imní a chur in iúl dó. Ní cuimhin liom anois cén Aire a bhí i mbun na Roinne san am sin, acht ní raibh sé chomh hoscailte ina aigne ná chomh sobhogtha agus atá nó a bhí an Teachta Faulkner, más féidir linn creidiúint a thabhairt don mhéid adúirt an Teachta Tunney inniu. Dá mbeadh imní ar an Teachta Tunney—is múinteoir é leis —faoi pholasaí Gaeilge na haimsire sin, céard a déarfaimís faoi Aire a bhí i n-ainm "aigne oscailte" do bheith aige sa Rialtas ag an am sin, agus céard déarfaimís faoi Aire mar an Teachta Faulkner a chuir ina luí ar an Teach seo seachtain ó shin go raibh sé mí-shásta. Dúirt sé i gcolún 530 den Tuairisc Oifigiúil:

Le críoch a chur leis an chuid seo den díospóireacht ba mhaith liom a rá arís nach raibh má in éadan deireadh a chur leis an Ghaeilghe mar ábhar go dteipfeadh scoláirí san scrúdú ar fad mar gheall air, ach tá mé cinnte go raibh gá len a lán taighde fé dtaobh de dá mbeimid chun rud éigin a chur in a áit leis an pholasaí náisiúnta a chur i gcríoch. Bhí an taighde sin ar siúl.

Ach ní dhearna sé an taighde sin, agus cé go raibh a fhios aige agus ag an Rialtas san am sin go raibh daoine dá gcuid féin cuir i gcás an Teachta Tunney—ag cur a gcuid imní in iúl dóibh, ní dhearna siad tada agus ní dhéanfaí tada—

(Cur isteach.)

Bí béasach anois.

Níl an Teachta ag innsint an fírinne amach is amach. Sílim gur dhúirt an Teachta Faulkner san Tuairisc Oifigiúil gur chuir sé coiste speisialta ar bun i dtaobh na ceiste seo féachaint cad a chuiridís i n-ionad na héigeantachta. Caithfimíd a bheith cothrom.

Glacaim gur chuir sé coiste ar bun ach ar deireadh thiar thall níor dearnadh tada agus dar liom fhéin ní dhéanfaí tada go nuige seo marach an Rialtas nua a bheith againn agus an sean-Rialtas a bheith imithe. Anois, tá ceist agamsa le cur ar an Teachta Tunney agus más mian leis freagra a thabhairt dom tabharfaidh mé cead dó. Dá mbeadh sé ar ais ar an taobh seo den Teach, an ngabhfadh sé ar ais ar an bpolasaí nua? An mbeadh an Ghaeilge in a h-ábhar éigeantach nó ina h-ábhar teipithe arís? Má mian leis freagra a thabhairt dom láithreach ar an gceist sin géillfidh mé dó.

Measaim nach bhfuil sin sásúil. Mar adeir na dlódóirí, is ceist hipiteíseach í sin.

Ceist pholasaí oideachais atá a plé againn.

Dá mbeinnse ar ais nó dá mbeadh aon chumhacht agam amárach ní chuirfinn deireadh le Gaeilge éigeantach go dtí go mbeinn cinnte go mbeadh sé mar ábhar ag gach dalta scoile.

Ní freagra ceart é sin. Tá an Ghaeilge éigeantach imithe anois. Dá mbeigheáar ais anseo amáreach an mbeadh an Ghaeilge éigeantach ar ais arís in éindigh leat? Sin í an cheist. Sin í an cheist a bhfuil suim agamsa inti. Sin í an cheist a bhfuil suim ag an phobal inti. Sin í díreach an cheist go baileach nach bhfuil tusa toilteanach a freagairt. Sin í fírinne an scéil, agus ná bítear ag caint faoi dhliódoirí nó dream ar bith eile. Tá fírinne an scéil againne anois. Dá mbeadh an pairtí eile ar ais i réim amáireach ní dhéanfai athrú ar bith ar an bpolasaí atá craolta ag an Aire i leith na Gaeilge éigeantaigh agus ná bítear ag cur i gcéil faoi a thuilleadh.

Ba mhaith liom aontú lena lán dár dhúirt an Teachta Tunney, faoin Teachta Faulkner—fear deas ciúin ar fad é agus tá mé cinnte go bhfuil sé dáiríre agus díograiseach i leith na Gaeilge ach, mar sin féin, bhí ábhar gáire agam sa mhéid adúirt sé an tseachtain seo cait. Dúirt sé go raibh ionadh air nuair a chonaic sé gluaiseachtaí ón dá thaobh ag aontú le chéile faoi pholasaí nua an Aire nua. Bhí ionadh air nuair a chonaic sé an LFM, ar an taobh amháin agus Connradh na Gaeilge, agus Gael-Linn nó cibé eagraíocht Ghaeilge eile ar an taobh eile, agus iad aonthaithe le chéile go mba mhaith an rud é athrú a dhéanamh ar an bpolasaí. Ionadh? Ach cé'n ionadh é sin? Má tá polasaí nó beartas ceart, nach luíonn sé le nádúr go mbeadh aontas faoi ó eagraiochtaí de chuile chineál, is cuma cé chomh fada amach óna chéile iad? Dar liom fhéin gurb é an cruthú is fearr dá bhféadfaí a fháil an ceart an polasí nua, ná go n-aontadh na eagraíochtaí sin go léir ón dá eite leis. Ba maith liom chloisint ó Theachta ar bith ón taobh eile nár labhair go fóill faoin gceist sin. Dá mbeadh sé féin ina Aire an mbeadh ionadh air—nó lúcháir—dá bhfaigheadh sé eagraíochtaí chomh h-éagsúla sin agus chomh fada amach óna chéile sin ag aontú go raibh an rud ceart déanta aige i ndeireadh na dála?

Thagair an t-iar Aire do scoil Dhún Chaoin. Níor mhaith liom magadh faoi. Tá mé cinnte bhfuil sé dáiríre faoin cheist sin agus go bhfuil sé cinnte ina chroí istigh go ndearna an tAire nua an rud mí-cheart i leith na scoile sin. Níor mhaith liom mí-mhacántacht nó rud ar bith eile a chur ina leith mar gheall air sin, ach dar líom féin tá an cheist sin i bhfad níos leithne ná ceist sráidhaile Dún Chaoin ann féin. Nuair a chinn an Rialtas ar an scoil bheag seo a athoscailt, be chuma cé mhéid daltaí atá nó a bhí nó a bheidh istigh innti agus is cuma cén canúint Ghaeilge nó Béarla a bhí acu, tuar mór dóchais a bhí ann do chuile dhuine sa tír seo a bhí leamh agus tuirseach den sean-Rialtas. B'fhéidir nach raibh an sean-Rialtas ciontach céad faoin gcéad as an gclis sin agus as an mbriseadh athbheocan na Gaeilge agus níor mhaith liom milleán iomlán a chur orthu, ach cibé ar bith bhí na heagraíochtaí go léir leamh agus tuirseach—bhí tuirse chroí orthu toise an cur i gcéill a chuala siad chuile lá ag teacht ón Rialtas sin. Nuair a chonaic siad Rialtas nua ann a bhí tollteanach dul ar ais ar réiteach a bhí déanta ag an Roinn Oideachais, thug sé sin misneach dóibh. Tá súil agamsa nach ndéanfaimid amach anseo botún a chuirfidh diómá ortha ach tá mé cinnte gur thug sin misneach dóibh agus go mba tuar dóchais é don saol Gaelach ar fad. Tá sin tábhachtach, agus d'fhág an Teacha Faulkner gné seo na ceiste ar lár, amach is amach, nuair a bhí sé ag caint ar an ábhair sin.

Ba mhaith liom a rá go ginearálta, má thugann an Teach foighde agus cead dom, go raibh mé i gcónaí den bharúil nár chóir cúram na Gaeilge a fhágáil faoin Roinn Oideachais. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé faoi chúram an Rialtais iomláin mar Rialtais agus go mbeadh chuile Roinn Stáit comhordnaithe istigh i pé iarracht a dhéanfaí leis an Ghaeilge a chur ar aghaidh. Níl dóchas is mó agamsa go pearsanta mar gheall ar an Rialtas nua seo ná go mbeidh polasaí réasúnta réasúnta réalaíoch againn agus an go mbeidh polaisí sin in éifeacht sar i bhfad. Sin é an dóchas is mó ar bith dá bhfuil agamsa agus mura dtarlaíonn sé sin, ba mhaith liom a admháil dona Teachtaí ar an taobh eile go mbeidh diomá orm féin. Ba mhaith liom an smaoineamh sin a nochtadh dona Teachtaí go léir.

Dar líom féin ní rabhamar—cé acu Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, dream an Lucht Oibre nó pairtí atá imithe fiche bliain ó shin—ní rabhamar cinnte riamh céard ba chuspóir againn i dtaobh na Gaeilge. Ní raibh an chuspóir leagtha síos go cruinn agus go réasúnta riamh. Tá trí cuspóir ann a d'fhéadfadh bheith mar chuspóirí againn—an Béarla a dhíbirt as an tír ar faoi, mar a rinne Naomh Pádraig leis na nathracha nimhe—tá a cheann á chraitheadh ag an Teachta Tunney ach tá daoine sa tír seo agus ní bheidh siad sásta go dtí go dtiocfaidh an lá nach mbeidh an Béarla le cloisteáil a thuilleadh. B'fhéidir nach gá dúinn am a chailliúint ar an ábhar sin ach tá siad ann—sin cuspóir amháin. Is é an cuspóir eile, cuspóir an Phaipéir Bháin a foilsíodh i 1965, go mbeadh sé ar cumas chuile dhuine sa tír seo Béarla nó Gaeilge a labhairt agus a fhoirfeacht agus a chumas ag ceachtar den dá theanga a bheith cothram le chéile. Is cuimhin liom go ndúirt an Teachta Lynch agus é ina Thaoiseach gurb é an chuspóir a bhí aige féin go pearsanta: go dtiocfadh an lá nach mbeadh duine in ann a rá leath-uair ina dhiaidh dó labhairt arb í an Ghaeilge nó Béarla a bhí á labairt aige le cara leis agus iad ag siúl síos an tsráid.

Tá an tríú cuspóir, i bfhad níos comhgaraí: an Ghaeilge a choinnéail beo sna limistéirí ina bhfuil sí beo fós, í a dhaingniú sna limistéirí sin agus b'fhéidir í a leathnú amach thar imeall na limistéirí sin nó thar teorainn na gceanntar sin agus ceisteanna níos fuide anonn faoi an Bhéarla a dhíbirt nó faoi dhátheangachas a fhágáil don ghlún atá le teacht nó do na glúna atá le teacht. Ní réiteoimid an scéal sin lenár mbeo. Tá sin cinnte. Tá mé féin den bharúil go bhfuil an chéad chuspóir a luaigh mé, agus an dara cuspóir, do-dhéanta. Ní féidir an Béarla a dhíbirt, agus ní féidir ach oiread pobal iomlán na tíre, idir taobh ó dheas agus taobh ó thuaidh, idir Caiticligh agus Protastúnagh, idir óg agus aosta, ní féidir a chur ar a gcumas go mbeadh siad díreach comh foirfe i nGaeilge agus atá siad i mBéarla. Ní féidir é sin a dhéanamh agus duine ar bith a shéanann é—sin nó ar dóigh leis a mhalairt tá ualach éigin air a chruthú gur féidir é sin a dhéanamh agus go bhfuil tír ar bith sa domhan ina rinneadh a leithéid.

Is minic a chuala mé trácht ar an Eilvéis agus mar sin de. Cinnte, tá daoine san Eilvéis a bhfuil Fraincis agus Gearmáinis acu, ach mar, sin fhéin, is beag duine san Eilvéis go bhfuil an Fhraincis, an Gheármainis agus an Iodáilis agus iad ar aon dul le chéile ó thaobh cumais. Is beag duine atá ann gur féidir leis é sin a rá. Níl seo indéanta inniu nó ní bheidh sé indéanta amárach. Ba chóir dúinn cuspóir i bhfad níos comhgaraí a ghlacadh agus a leagadh síos agus ba chóir dúinn seasamh leis an gcuspóir sin agus gan bogadh uaith. Dá ndéanfaí sin leath-chéad bliain ó shin tá mé cinnte nach mbeadh an Ghaeilge sa Gaeltacht imithe chomh fada sin siar agus atá sí. Sin barúil phearsanta agus tá me cinnte go mbeidh Teachta éigin eile in ann barúil eile a thabhairt. Tá mé cinnte nár leagadh síos cuspóir ceart i dtaobh na Gaeilge agus sin é an fáth gur cailleadh an oiread sin ama. Tá daoine sa tír seo go fóill a chaith a saol ag iarraidh an Gaeilge a shlánú agus a shábháil, ach clis orthu. Is é an príomh-fháth, dar liom féin, gur chlis orthu nach raibh cuspóir réalaíoch acu, agus go raibh a n-iarrachtaí scaipithe, toisc nach raibh siad dírithe ar an gcuspóir a bhí comhgarach, ar an cuspóir a bhí inshroiste.

Anois, seo rud nach mbaineann go baileach leis an Roinn Oideachais, ach toisc an Roinn Oideachais a bheith freagarthach—ní aontaím leis na cúiseanna atá leis—nó in ainm a bheith freagarthach agus go bhfuil an cháil sin tríd an bpobal. Ba mhaith liom dhá rudaí a lua a rinne an-dochar don teanga le caoga bliana anuas agus dá mbeimis in ann ar an dá thaobh den Teach na rudaí sin a dhíbirt bheadh dul ar aghaidh mór againn. An céad rud is ea an t-easaontas a tháinig ar an ghluaiseacht náisiúnta in aimsir an Chogaidh Cathar. Is minic a chuala mé ó shean daoine de mo mhuintir féin gurb é an rud sin is mó a mhill an ghluaiseacht náisiúnta. Bhí na daoine sin ullamh an Ghaeilge a labhairt agus a fhoghlaim, cé nach raibh acu na gléasanna agus na h-áiseanna atá ar fáil anois ag daltaíscoile. Ach bhí siad toilteanach stró mór a chur orthu féin chun é a dhéanamh. Nuair a chonaic siad an ghluaiseacht náisiúnta, ó thaobh polaitíochta, ag titim as a céile, d'imigh an mhisneach uatha. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil sé sin fíor, ach sin é an scéal a chuala mé go minic ó dhaoine—go ndearna an t-easaontas polaitiúl an-dochar ar fad don teanga.

Nuair a bhí mé sa Seanad cúpla bliain ó shin bhí cuntas bliantúil Gaeltarra Éireann dá plé againn agus dúirt mé leis an Teachta Colley, a bhí i mbun Gaeltarra Éireann san am sin, go mba chóir dó machnamh ar choiste iol-pháirtíoch a bhunú, dála an choiste i leith an Tuaiscirt, i dtreo go mbainfí an t-achrann agus an peileadóireacht ó cheist na teanga. Dúirt an Teachta Colley go béasach go ndéanfadh sé machnamh air, ach ní dhearna sé tada. Anois, tá athrú Rialtais ann agus b'fhéidir nach mbeadh gá a thuille ann má éiríonn linne teacht ar pholasaí go mbeadh seans go n-éireodh leis. Ach ba mhaith liom é seo a rá: má thagann Fianna Fáil lena chuid "think tank"—nó an "machnachán", nó cíbé focal Gaeilge a chuirtear air—má "thagann siad aníos" le réiteach tá mé cinnte go mbeimid ar an taobh seo sásta éisteacht leo, agus cibé cuid den polasaí sin atá réalaíoch —b'fhéidir an polasaí go léir— beimid sásta glacadh leis. Tá sé cinnte go mbeidh sé le rá ag Fianna Fáil gur chum siad féin an polasaí sin. Má éiríonn leo teacht suas le polasaí i gceist na teanga, is mise is túisce a bheith sásta adhmáil gurb iad siúd a tháinig i ndeireadh an lae leis an réiteach.

An rud dheiridh ba mhaith liom a rá faoi sin—b'fhéidir go bhfuil baint idir an dá rud—séard is mó a bhí le feiceáil ag an bpobal mar gheall ar an Gaeilge le blianta fada ná cur i gcéill, daoine ag iarradh cur i gcéill, daoine ag scríobhadh a gcuid ainmneacha as Gaeilge, daoine ag scríobhadh "mise le meas", nó ag déanamh úsáid as cúpla abairt Gaeilge i dtosach a n-óraide agus naoi deithiú de a thabhairt as Béarla. Sin seafóid agus níl focal eile le tabhairt air. Mura bhfuil tú sasta óraid Gaeilge a thabhairt uait, déan as Béarla é agus fág an Gaeilge ar lár. Níl ann ag masla don teanga. Níl ansin ach masla don duine a bhfuil suim aige sa teanga nuair a fheiceann sé "mise le meas", nuair a fheiceann sé "An Stiúrthóir shall have power to do this", nuair a fheiceann sé, cuir i gcás an Bille a ritheadh cúpla blian ó shin, an Bille Um An Údarás Ard-Oideachais; tríd síos sa mBille sin tá trácht ar An tÚdarás—"It shall be the duty of an tÚdarás to do this or that." Sin seafóid agus sin an focal ceart a thabhairt air—seafóid. Dá gcinnfeadh Rialtas ar bith Gaeilge fíor-éigeantach a bhrú síos an scornach don pobal, ba chóir dóibh é a dhéanamh i gceart, agus b'fhéidir go n-éireodh leis an bpolasaí sin, cé go ndéanfadh sé leatrom agus dochar dona lán rudaí eile; ach ná bí ag pléáil nó ag útamáil le seafóid dá shórt. Sin seafóid agus sin é an rud a bhfuil an pobail tuirseach de agus a chuireann tinneas chroí ar dhuine ar bith ar chas leis an Ghaeilge, pé aithbheochan iomlán a bheadh i gceist nó sabháil nó slánú ar an limistéar beag atá fágtha.

Dá bhféadaimís fanacht amach ón chur i gcéill agus an Ghaeilge a thabhairt amach ó pháirc an áir phoiliticiúil táim chinnte go ndéanfaimís dul ar aghaidh mór leis. Sa mhéid a bhfuil baint ag an Aire Oideachais leis an cheist seo ba mhaith liom na smaointe sin a chur ina luí air. Tá súil agam go bhfuilimid ar aon aigne, b'féidir céad faoin gcéad, ar na ceisteanna sin.

Má bhris mé isteach go drochbhéasach ar duine ar bith le linn na díospóireachta seo, ba mhaith liom mo leathscéal a ghabháil leis. Nuair a chloisim rud atá amaideach nó gur dóigh liom go bhfuil sé amaideach, go minic níl me in ann mé féin a smachtú, ach tá súil agam nar chuir mé ró-olc ar dhuine ar bith le linn na díospóireachta.

On a point of information, before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves the House, as he is responsible to the Government for ordering the business of the House——

This is the Estimate for Education we are debating here.

It does not strictly arise on the Estimate—I accept that —but I was wondering was it the intention of the Government to interrupt the business before the House at the moment to make a statement on the escape of prisoners by helicopter from Mountjoy.

The Deputy must not introduce a matter of this kind without doing the normal courtesy of consulting the Chair in this matter. It is completely out of order.

I raise it now because it would appear——

I have not been consulted in the matter. The Deputy may not raise it now.

It would appear——

The Chair must be consulted in a matter of this kind.

Yes, Sir, but it would appear——

The Deputy may not proceed. He must resume his seat.

It would appear Deputy Donegan left his bunker——

The Deputy may not introduce a matter of this sort. This is completely disorderly.

This is a serious matter.

It is a matter of serious concern.

Deputy Seán Moore on the Estimate for Education.

Surely this is a matter which should be brought before the House.

It must be brought properly before the House, with notice.

Has the notice not been given by the——

Most certainly not.

This is a very serious matter.

Deputy Fitzgerald will restrain himself. He knows full well the matter is out of order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach——

Deputy Seán Moore. I will hear no more of this matter.

Surely a serious matter like this is more important than Standing Orders.

Deputy Seán Moore.

(Interruptions.)

The Chair has called Deputy Moore. Deputy Fitzgerald, I said I would hear no more of the matter. Deputy Seán Moore on the Estimate for Education.

I intend to be very brief on this matter; indeed, I hesitate to speak at all only I feel that education is far too important to be left to the educators or the educationalists. While I welcome the new Minister and wish him well in his office, at the same time I must pay tribute to his predecessor who has laid the basis for the advancement of our educational system. I detect in the Minister's approach a very pedantic attitude. When one hears such phrases as "education must not be bureaucratic", "it must be democratised", being used, one is suspicious of the kind of thinking behind them. The gem of the whole brief comes in page 16 in relation to Scoil Dhún Chaoin, where the Minister says:

The case of the school in Dún Chaoin is one of which much has been heard both inside and outside the House.

It goes on to say that special consideration should have been given to the school:

But no; insensitivity prevailed, and Scoil Dhún Chaoin fell victim to an attitude which was almost Cromwellian in its relentlessness. The pleas of this intensely Gaelic community on the westernmost tip of Europe went unheeded and the protests from all parts of Ireland of people who recognised that the closing of the school would be a serious blow to the preservation and propagation of all that is best in our cultural heritage were set at nought.

I suggest to the Minister that he drop this very pharisaical or pedantic attitude and get down to talking on what education is all about. The preservation of the school at Dún Chaoin was something which caused concern to most people, but we cried salt tears over a school where there were very few pupils and to which a teacher was sent to teach them, while, in some of the primary schools in this city there are 50 pupils per class. These people in the city schools deserve as much consideration as the people in other parts of the country. The Minister knows in his heart and soul that if Dún Chaoin were closed other means of education would be provided for those children. Therefore, the Minister should drop this attitude of accusing people on this side of the House of being Cromwellian in our approach.

As this is the age of questioning, I feel we should question our whole educational system very strictly and sharply indeed. If we look at the society we are building we must surely ascertain what influence our educational system is having on young people. Today when we see so much stress and tension in our society and when we are told that marriages are breaking down because of the stress, I suggest to the Minister that he should look at the whole approach and broaden the whole aspect of education to ensure that our people are educated for the greatest career in life, and I believe that is in marriage. Are we doing enough to provide educational facilities for the young couples who are about to marry? Most of them have had primary education, some have had secondary education, and some have gone to university, but there is no guarantee that from the base of our society, the family, they can meet the challenges of the time.

I would also suggest, therefore, to the Minister that he would look at the broader aspects of education and that it should be our ambition that young people, having been through the schools, whatever schooling they get, and even been through one of our degree factories at university, would be educated in the basic science of living, so that having been educated in the essentials they will, through the family, be able to build a proper society. An expenditure of £126 million on education seems a lot. In the light of our resources, it is a very big sum, but what we have got to examine is whether we are spending it as it should be spent, on the most essential things.

The Minister has stated outside this House that it is his ambition to rewrite Irish history. I do not know what that whole effort would be directed towards. History is written and even the Minister cannot change the history of this country. If he wants to exalt certain figures in history or to demote other figures, while it matters for the sake of truth, I do not think it matters in preparing and perfecting a good society. The Minister, being a teacher, should come forward with some new thinking. He stated in his speech that there is little room for new concepts. I disagree with that. There are plenty of new concepts and new frontiers in I disagree with that. There are plenty of new concepts and new frontiers in education. Education has been tackled in the wrong way. The Minister may have undone some of the good work done by his predecessor by following trendy educational suggestions such as the rewriting of history.

Instead of getting down to the basic problems the Minister is inclined to go into the higher realms of education. The vast majority of our people will not reach that standard. Our ambitions that education at all levels should be available to all our people may not be attained. That is the ambition of every Deputy; but we must face reality and admit that, until that Utopian day is reached, we must ensure that our greatest needs are met. The Minister should get his priorities right. In his speech he said that education is the keynote of economic growth. That may be true in some ways. An educationalist should not always measure success or failure by economic growth. In Ireland there is often this clash of opinion. If one speaks of the GNP one is criticised and if one speaks of our cultural heritage one is also criticised. The life of an educationalist is not an easy one, nor is the life of a politician.

The Minister should try to emulate the hard work of his predecessor. Deputy Faulkner had his feet on the ground. We, on this side of the House, will do everything possible to help any Minister who seeks to perfeel our educational system so that the people of the country may benefit.

Deputy Bermingham spoke about a merger between UCD and TCD. I asked a question about that some time ago and I was told that the HEA were examining the matter. There is a report now that this merger is imminent and that the two universities will shortly be united.

Last Friday night a Government Minister had to flee from one of our universities where he was attacked by a mob. I was always told that the universities were the strongholds of liberalism. We in this city are earning a reputation for having universities which are far from being liberal institutions, but are becoming seats of bigotry. A person should be allowed to speak, particularly when he is invited to do so.

There are minorities.

A minority prevented the Minister from speaking. A Minister from a previous Government got a similar reception. On one occasion when I was speaking a non-national began to protest. I pointed out to him that this was my city and that I had a perfect right to speak and had been invited to do so by some students. It is tragic that students who are getting a university education have not been educated in good manners. Demonstrations were also staged in the presence of visiting dignitaries. What use is advanced education if this happens? Deputy Wilson has said that Friday's incident was caused by a minority. That minority must be educated in a democratic way of life. They must be taught that if a person is invited to speak in the college he should be afforded the courtesy and the democratic right of speaking.

To come now from the ridiculous to the sublime, I wish to speak of an experiment being carried out in the city by the Department with the co-operation of a Dutch Foundation. This is in Rutland Street School. The experiment has been conducted for four years and we impatiently await the conclusion of the five-year trial period to see what exactly will come from it. Primary teachers are very willing to give more than they are called on to give in the cause of education. I wish to pay tribute to the teachers involved in this experiment and to the Dutch Foundation who have helped.

Teachers work voluntarily outside school hours and do great work. There is another Dublin school where a group of teachers have started pre-school classes for very young children. Great progress is being made. I appeal to the Minister to examine this scheme and to give the help needed. I wish to pay tribute to the individuals and commercial firms who, when appealed to, have given fairly good contributions towards the maintainance of the pre-school classes. I hope this experiment spreads to other parts of the city. This experiment also performs a social function because these young children are being educated in a manner suited to their age.

I will send the details to the Parliamentary Secretary.

There is a similar experiment in St. Stephen's Green.

And East Wall. This is an excellent scheme. The teachers who operate it are giving their services free outside their normal working hours.

The Minister mentioned the closing of Dún Chaoin school. There are two vocational schools in my constituency which are in need of replacement. They are at Mount Street and Rings-end. I hope that the Minister will be able to do something this year to improve the conditions in these two schools. I have been pressing the Department about these schools for some time. Some small repairs have been carried out. However, this is merely papering over the cracks and some day the whole edifice will fall. The Minister should not be so arrogant—that is the word I must use —in his attitude in regard to Dún Chaoin school, not so much to the school, but in his criticism of people on this side of the House whose approach he likened to the Cromwellian. We are not Cromwellian; we are quite nice fellows.

Cromwell landed at Ringsend.

He may have landed there but he did not stay long. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the few points I have made. Before the Minister came into the Chamber I had said that I welcomed his appointment but I thought he was pedantic in his approach and even a little pharisaical at times. People like myself who are not educationalists do not like being talked down to. In his speech the Minister admonished us. When I was a boy in school there was a teacher who did the same thing. As one grows older one resents this. I hope when the Minister begins rewriting Irish history he will show that history, warts and all. To do anything else would be wrong, but before he begins rewriting history I suggest there are much more pressing problems for the Minister's attention. This time next year, unless our own Minister is on that side of the House, I hope the present Minister will by then have attended to the points I have mentioned, which I respectfully suggest are worthy of mention.

I propose to deal exclusively with the areas that have been allocated to me for special responsibility by the Minister for Education subject to his general direction. I do not propose to deal with the points in relation to these areas which were made by Deputies in this debate. These points will be dealt with by the Minister himself when he replies.

I have found some of the contributions so far particularly useful and I shall take special note of them. First, I should like to say something about the National Museum. Specific proposals have been made for the reform of the museum services. The major problems to be faced are lack of accommodation, lack of staff and the need to bring the Museum's riches to the notice of a larger number of people. While one can do a certain amount about each of these problems independently of the others, in fact the lack of accommodation impedes progress with the other two to a substantial extent. The Board of Works are in negotiation with the builders of a block across the road, the Setanta group, to provide possibly two floors for the Museum. It is hoped the outcome of the negotiations will be successful but this depends on reasonable terms being arranged. It is very important to recognise that the public purse is limited and that we could only pay a reasonable figure for accommodation no matter how suitably placed.

In the long term there are possibilities which to some extent await decision on broader policy issues in regard to the Museum with which I shall deal later. I think it is pretty well accepted that no matter what happens a substantial museum presence will always remain in the national capital. I have, therefore, accepted a suggestion by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, that a meeting be held between the Department of Education, the Board of Works and Dublin Corporation to consider a number of possibilities, including internal reconstruction of the existing Museum, development of the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, and development of another site.

It is true that the present staff complement are using existing accommodation to the full, and it would be difficult to fit in more staff. However, we are looking seriously at this problem. On the wider issue of long term museum policy I have initiated meetings with a number of interested authoritative bodies who have given me very valuable ideas which are currently being assessed. These bodies include the Institute of Professional Civil Servants, Museums Branch; An Taisce, Friends of the National Collection, the Royal Irish Academy and interested individuals. I have also had discussions with the Director of Museums in the Ministry of Cultural Affairs in the Netherlands and have visited museums in France. I had a discussion with the director of the Louvre. The material gathered in this way is being assessed and will be further discussed with the Director and the Board of Visitors of the National Museum.

The case for regional museums has been cogently argued, but, before discussing it, it is important to draw a distinction between the two conditions in which material in the Museum may find itself. I distinguish between material on exhibition and visible to the public and the material in the reserve collection. Vastly more material is in the reserve collection than is on exhibition; one sees only the tip of the iceberg and I think this is in the nature of things in almost any museum. For example, one could acquire thousands of stone axes. I think the number of stone axe heads in the Museum would run into 1,000 or more. It would be pointless to put them all on exhibition but it is necessary to store them somewhere so that comparative research can be carried out.

Why not issue them to Deputies?

The Minister says we would not know how to use them. I wish to make that distinction because it will be relevant to what I have to say later on. One could isolate four strategies that have been proposed. First, there is the suggestion that we should develop the Museum along existing lines with both exhibited material and the large reserve collection, upon which research is carried out, all together in one complex in Dublin city.

This proposal has three major merits which occur to me immediately. First, all the most important national material could under this arrangement, be seen together at one time by visitors. A visitor would not have to go from one part of Ireland to another to see it. The second advantage of this approach is that it would greatly assist comparative research in so far as the reserve collections would also be available together in the one building and a scholar would be able to make comparisons relatively easy.

The existence of a large museum in Dublin greatly enhances the stature of the capital city. I suppose it is fair to say that to some extent—and I say this reluctantly as a County Meath man—the stature of a country is judged by visitors by the stature of its capital city. This case was argued very cogently in a recent editorial in The Irish Times. Of course there are disadvantages to that approach which will be evident when I deal with the others.

The second approach is one which— I may be misrepresenting them slightly; I hope not—would largely by reflected in the submission made by the Museum Branch of the Institute of Professional Civil Servants. They suggested that the various collections should be sent to different parts of the country—for example, that one could have the geology collection, with its reserve material and its exhibited material, or most of it, in one provincial city, the geology collection, with its reserve material and its exhibited material, or most of it, in one provincial city, the natural history collection in another provincial city, and so on. This would have the advantage that the cost of space per foot would be much lower, one would hope, in some provincial locations than it is right in the centre of Dublin city.

It is also true to say that the existence of reserve collections as well as exhibited collections in a provincial city would attract scholars to that city and would, to some extent, lessen the cultural dominance of the capital city. However, there are disadvantages in separating the various collections one from the other in regard to the provision of common facilities, such as laboratory facilities to take one example. There are disadvantages also in terms of inter-disciplinary co-operation and sharing of information between people engaged in geology on the one hand and archaeology on the other.

To return to the stone axe, it would be helpful in tracing the source of a stone age to know the geological make-up of the area in which it was found and one would know whether it was a local stone. Perhaps that is over-simplifying it. Possibly that example would not arise but the House will understand the general type of inter-disciplinary co-operation which exists in a composite national museum, such as we have at the moment in Dublin, which might not exist if the collections were spread throughout the country.

Furthermore, while these provincial collections might be more accessible to the public in the particular part of the country in which they were located, conversely perhaps they would be less accessible to the rest of the country in so far as our transport network is, to some degree, centralised in the capital city. It is relatively easier to get to the capital city per mile, of the journey, so to speak, from any part of the country than it is to go from one point to another, both of which points are out of the capital city.

The third possible strategy would be to set up provincial museums with a little bit of everything in each of them, with both reserve and exhibited material, with examples of each of the types of collections, with a little bit of geological material, a little bit of natural history material, a little bit of material from the antiquities division, and so on. Such a local museum could have a particular emphasis on the type of material which had for its source the province or locality in which it was situated.

An additional advantage of this proposal would be that it could act as an attraction for more local material on the basis that people in the locality who would donate material would know that it would say within their own province in their own local museum rather than go up to Dublin. There are distinct disadvantages in this approach also. Local museums could never hope to have the same high level of specialist expertise in identification and conservation as is available in the National Museum. At least, each of them could not possibly hope to have that high level which can be made available in one place, in the National Museum.

Despite that fact the existence of those local museums would involve a relatively uneconomic dispersal of scarce expertise in so far as if reserve collections exist there would have to be a certain number of qualified curatorial staff there. This would be dispersing a commodity, namely curatorial expertise, which is scarce inevitably.

It is also true to say that the localisation of the reserve collections and the fact that one could have some stone axes in one museum, more in another, and more in yet another, would make comparative research by scholars more difficult and would therefore, to some extent, perhaps, impede the onward progress of Irish archaeological studies.

If they were what the experts called published, in other words, if there were good photographs and descriptions, comparative studies would be easier. A good catalogue.

I agree with the Deputy. He is correct in what he says. I think he will agree with me that, no matter how good the photograph is, it is not quite the same thing as having the actual object on your table in front of you. While I should have mentioned what he said I think he will agree with me that there are genuine drawbacks.

The fourth strategy would be that we should maintain the existing national collections in Dublin centrally and mount exhibitions—but not with reserve collections—of local material in provincial exhibition centres. We could have a core of local material in provincial exhibition centres. We could have a core of local material which would be there most of the time, and would be available for examination, or for sending to another provincial museum on occasion, and also, perhaps a system of travelling exhibitions on particular themes. They could spend six to ten months in one provincial museum and then go on to another. I suppose that, strictly speaking, one should not describe it as a museum as it would be merely an exhibition centre. Describing it as an exhibition centre, one could never be in the situation where, if one went into the museum this year and came back next year, the same material would be there always because there would be this idea of a travelling exhibition of material which could be there for six months and could move on. There could be a certain amount of publicity locally that a certain subject should be examined in the museum for a particular period.

This approach would have the advantage of not dispensing the curatorial and research facilities which would be a necessary concomitant of some of the previous approaches mentioned, in so far as the material there would be on exhibition and more easily looked after. The curatorial work could be done more easily from a central base if substantial reserve collections existed in provincial centres. It would also have the advantage of making exhibitions available in the provincial centre. Exhibitions of the museum's activity have great impact on the public. Reserve material, while it does not have the same impact on the public, is nonetheless of immense importance not only for this generation but for future generations. It is essential that we do not allow anxiety to get the best out of this material for educational purposes for this generation to be achieved at the cost of the long-term conservation of our national heritage, which we must be able to pass on to generations yet unborn.

I have mentioned four possibilities —but there may be other strategies which could be outlined—which are being examined.

No decision yet?

No. I hope I am right in setting out the possible alternatives before a decision is taken so that the public and Members of this House will have an opportunity to make informed comment on them. The Minister will not rush into a decision and I would not recommend him to do so.

The full catalogue is a matter of emergency.

As the Deputy has mentioned the full catalogue I will deal with that now. There are four million items in the museum. A catalogue consisting of details on four million items would be so great as to be of no great interest to the public and would cost so much to buy that nobody would buy it. I am not sure if that is what the Deputy had in mind when he suggested a catalogue but——

Employ extra staff.

There is no point in trying to produce a catalogue for four million items. The items are all there and the museum staff know where they can find them but to publish a list just to hand to the public is not necessarily an advance at all.

Museums of any worth have a full catalogue available for visitors.

I am not sure that that is the case. I have never been so advised. I would be surprised if it were feasible for valuable information to be published in a catalogue which has of necessity to contain such information in relation to each of approximately four million items.

Card indexing.

A catalogue, presumably, is something which will be available to the public and a card-index is not something which you can hawk around and sell.

There is nothing of this nature in the museum. The Parliamentary Secretary should go over and look.

I have been over there and looked. I can assure the Deputy that there is a very reasonable filing system which seemed to me to be adequate. I am confident that if a member of the museum staff wanted to locate a particular item no great difficulty would be encountered. I have not heard any evidence to dissuade me from that view.

There should be publication for the public.

I thought we were talking about a catalogue for students.

What did the Parliamentary Secretary see that satisfied him?

From a layman's point-of-view I am satisfied that if a scholar or a member of the public accredited as having a valid interest, and who can, therefore, be afforded the facilities of the museum wants to see a particular item, it can be located quite easily by use of the card-index system which is in use in the museum. The situation does not exist where items cannot be located. However, if the Deputy can demonstrate that this is the case I will be very surprised and have the matter looked into.

I apologise for being unduly lengthy in my treatment of this subject. On the basis of my contribution Deputies and members of the public may wish to make cogent suggestions. It is important in doing so to realise that any suggestion made may involve the expenditure of a very substantial amount of money and this can only be done over a very long period. One must always keep the matter of cost very carefully in mind when dealing with this subject.

I have decided on some immediate steps. First, I am endeavouring to improve the educational service for the museum. I have requested the history, biology, science and geography inspectors of the Department of Education to prepare their views on how best museum material could be utilised in education, whether it be in the school sense or for adult education. I have also asked the History Teachers' Association, who wrote to me on the general museum question, to let me have their views. I invite any other competent educational body who may wish to express their views to do so.

I expect to have the report from the inspectors very soon. I will then consider and propose to the Minister, if it appears feasible, that an inter-departmental working party be set up to go into the practical details of establishing such an educational service. This inter-departmental move is, I believe necessary. Institutions not under the auspices of the Department of Education contribute valuable material which could be used in an education service, for instance, the National Archives, the State Paper Office and the Public Record Office. The National Library, which is under the auspices of the Department of Education, also contributes valuable material. These ideas are at a very early stage of development. I invite those interested, whether they be inside or outside this House, to submit their views for consideration.

There is not much point in bringing a large class of schoolchildren into the museum and expecting them to benefit from it if they have not been fully prepared for the experience. Teachers should study in advance the material the children will see, explain its context fully so that when they arrive their curiosity and receptivity will have been aroused, otherwise, they will be bored stiff by a seemingly unending display of meaningless objects and their only sensation on leaving will probably be that of having sore feet, after walking around on the hard tiles which one finds in a museum. Museum material can play an important role in adult education. I have given top priority to the establishment of an education service but I believe that such service can create an awareness in the mind of the man-in-the-street of the value of the museum so that he will be less reluctant to provide the tax resources which are necessary for long-term museum development.

Another problem which relates both to the museum and the library is that of the export for profit of valuable Irish material. This is covered by the Documents and Pictures (Regulation of Export) Act, 1945, and by the National Monuments Acts of 1930 and 1954. The Royal Irish Academy submitted proposals to the Minister's predecessor in relation to the Documents and Pictures Act and I am examining these carefully.

Most owners of valuable material are extremely generous in making available such material to national institutions and to the public. However, a penal approach to the small minority, who for financial reasons may find it necessary to place their treasures on the open market, could create a situation in which a less generous climate of opinion would exist to the detriment of all concerned. Proposals for amending the existing law will be considered seriously.

To deal more specifically with the National Library—I have met the director and trustees and have been very impressed by the seriousness of the accommodation problem in the library. Certain measures are in hand to cope with the situation; first, there is being planned for Santry a bookstore which would operate in common between TCD, Dublin Corporation and the National Library. The idea is that this store would house books which are not in regular use but which must be maintained safely. Secondly, space may be rented in the Setanta building for the manuscripts division of the National Library if the terms for renting are reasonable. Thirdly, in the long run it is hoped that the College of Art site will be available to the library. This may not come about as quickly as one would wish but it is my hope that it will happen within a reasonable time.

In this connection I should add that I have asked the trustees of the library to consider how the result of this acquisition, which would bring the National Library into immediate physical contact with the Dáil Library, could be utilised to put the resources of the National Library, at least in some way, at the disposal of the documentation service within the Dáil Library for Deputies and Senators.

The National Gallery is a credit to the country. This has been adverted to by many Deputies. I have not yet had discussions with those in charge at that building but I shall do so as soon as possible.

Regarding the problems in relation to special schools for offenders I, like other Deputies who have spoken during this debate, have visited some of these schools and have been impressed greatly by the dedication of the staff, both lay and religious, who are involved in this work. I would commend those Deputies who have visited these establishments. It is an educational experience to see these schools for oneself. Much good work has been done in the development of the schools and a good share of the credit for this must go to the previous Minister, Deputy Faulkner, for the interest he took in this regard. A considerable amount of the credit is due, too, to the staff of the section of the Department concerned with this work. Great progress has been made in this field.

There is a new school at Finglas which caters for boys in the ten to 15 age group. There is a school at Clonmel and one at Letterfrack which cater for boys in the same age group, while the school that is opening at Oberstown will cater for boys in the 12 to 16 age group who, perhaps, would be more difficult than the others. These schools provide an opportunity for remedial education and for the acquisition of skills which will be useful to the boys in finding gainful employment later. Aftercare for the boys is being carried out by the Department of Justice welfare service, a service that is expanding rapidly. Last year 26 welfare officers were engaged in this work: the number this year is 46 and it is hoped to increase it to about 70 next year. It is intended that a welfare officer be attached to each school and that he will work in close co-operation with the local welfare officer who would be in a position to deal with the boy and his family when the boy goes home.

A very valuable addition to these services has been the assessment centre at Finglas where boys are assessed subsequent to their being apprehended, where their background is investigated carefully so that a report can be made which ensures, first, that the judge can reach an informed decision as to the future of the boy and, secondly, if the boy is sent to a special school—of course, this is not always the case—the school receiving him are made aware in advance of his problem and can adapt to meet the problems.

It is our intention, also, to develop special schools for girls on similar lines to those which cater for boys. Consultations are taking place on this issue with the religious orders concerned.

At present both the care and educational aspects of the schools are under the Department of Education and the welfare services are provided on an agency basis, so to speak, by the Department of Justice and this arrangement is working well.

The care staff of the schools are availing of an intensive one-year course in Kilkenny, a course that is based on the most modern principles of child care. Most, if not the entire staff at Finglas, have attended this course. This aspect of the project is very important. However, I would stress that the success of these schools depends not only on expensive buildings, not merely on a high level of staff training, but on the personal qualities of the care staff. In this regard I was very impressed during my visits to these schools by the informal relaxed atmosphere among the boys.

Many boys come from an unstable background and the security, continuity and sympathy which can be provided in a special school can have a beneficial effect on a boy and give him a chance to see where he is going in his life. Some might argue that this is more easily achieved if the boys are left in their own home environment rather than sending them to what is dubbed an institution. There may well be many cases in which this is so, but, hopefully, the increase in the welfare services both in the Department of Health, which have been announced by the Minister for Health, and in the Department of Justice, to which I have referred will enable more boys and girls to be assisted in the context of their own home environment rather than in a special school.

It is fair to say that there will always be a significant core of young people whose home circumstances are so bad, or whose misbehaviour is so dangerous, or whose personalities are so damaged, that care in a residential setting is necessary for some time at least. It is these considerations, not those of punishment, which weigh heavily with all those associated with these schools. Looking ahead we are examining the possibility of establishing a day centre for young offenders. We are actively looking at the question of pre-release hostels, but it will be appreciated that boys can only be situated in such hostels if a certain period can be subtracted from the period for which they are confined in residential care.

These possibilities are being actively examined in my Department. However, as everybody will agree, the oft-repeated but very true adage that prevention is better than cure is something which should operate in this area. In this regard I should like to pay a special tribute to the juvenile liaison service of the Garda Síochána.

Established by myself.

I had better give the Deputy the credit for that. There are other approaches also.

What size is it now?

I am afraid I cannot give the Deputy these figures because it is the responsibility of another Department. The first person who becomes aware of a boy or girl getting into trouble is the school attendance officer who, I believe, does very valuable welfare work. Recently I met the chief school attendance officer for Dublin city and I hope to have further discussions with him as to the development of the role of the school attendance service in locating boys and girls in advance who are likely to have difficulties so that they can be helped before these difficulties become acute.

A very important announcement by the Minister in introducing his Estimate, and one which deserves great attention, was that relating to the establishment of educational priority areas. It is fair to say that there are certain areas in the city where one finds together the phenomena of bad educational facilities, cultural deprivation and juvenile delinquency. The Minister's announcement in this regard shows his intention to deal with this problem at its roots. I am also investigating ways in which a certain aspect of the youth service could deal more specifically with the problem of juvenile delinquency.

I should now like to turn to sports policy. Here I should like to say that I have found COSAC, the council for sport and physical recreation, which was set up by one of my predecessors, to be a very valuable aid. A national survey on sports facilities carried out by COSAC will indicate whether the existing facilities are utilised to the full or not. A survey along these lines has been completed by the regional recreational committees which are effectively sub-committees of COSAC, and this information is currently being processed. It will provide the data which will enable us to work out what facilities are needed and where. This can then be discussed with the Minister for Local Government, the local authorities and any other bodies concerned with the provision of sports facilities. It will provide, for the first time, the basis for a rational sports equipment policy.

I am also examining, in consultation with COSAC, the possibility of implementing a policy for what I might describe as "lifetime sport". This idea is current in the United States and continental Europe. It can be validly pointed out that many people cease to participate in sport around the age of 30 more for social reasons than of necessity. They may quit because business pressures have become greater than before or because it is unconventional to continue in certain active sport after a certain age, or because they feel that they are no longer competitive in the narrow sense of the term, or for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with their actual ability to take part with benefit to themselves in active sport. It is more a psychological thing than one of reality.

The idea of lifetime sport, the idea that people should continue beyond this age of sport, is one which I support strongly. I propose to ask the various sports organisations which are grant-aided by my Department to consider especially schemes which would encourage continued participation in sport by people over the age of 30. This particularly applies to those sports where this has not been traditional. There are certain sports where it is traditional but there are many where it could be the case.

Likewise, I realise that many people who are not so well-off find participation in some sports rather expensive. For this reason I am asking the sports organisations who are grant-aided by my Department to look at this aspect and see what can be done to deal with that problem. I have also asked the National Youth Council and the Sports Council to come together to see if they can co-operate effectively to increase the participation of young people, particularly those young people associated with youth organisation in sport. I understand that certain proposals are emerging from these discussions which I initiated.

However, I should stress that our sports policy, under all administrations, rests on what I believe to be the sound policy of aid for voluntary effort and not one of imposed State sports policy. I should add also that the object is not so much peak performance by the few as maximum participation by the many.

I should now like to refer to the residential homes which also come within my area of responsibility. These homes look after young boys and girls who have effectively no homes of their own. Boys and girls can be admitted to these homes from ages as low as one or two years. They are admitted because their own homes have either permanently or temporarily broken down. I have had the privilege of visiting many of these homes and there are a few points I should like to stress.

The role of the religious in the management of the homes is of particular value, quite apart from the religious point of view. One is able to have in the homes run by religious a guaranteed continuity which, of necessity, is not as easily obtainable in the case of lay staff. The religious of the community are there for life and if a boy or girl returns to the home afterwards they are likely to find the same members of the religious community if they are still alive. This is important because it gives a sense of home to these places.

Another important aspect of these homes is that a policy has been deliberately adopted of encouraging maximum integration by the boys and girls in the home with the local community. They are not in any sense institutionalised. The children go to local schools and they enter into all the local activities.

Very great stress should be laid on the need for improved training for the care staff in the homes. The course in Kilkenny, to which I referred earlier when dealing with special schools, is one where members of the staff participate and I should like to see more of this participation. In recent months we have initiated a special in-service course for the care staff in the residential home at Goldenbridge, Inchicore. We are also considering the question of having some courses available in child care in the regional technical colleges which would be especially suited to the staff of the residential homes. There are 26 of these homes throughout the country and a course in one place might not be suitable for all of them. I understand that this year a course has been started in one of the regional technical colleges.

Since we assumed office we have increased the capitation grants to the homes by 10 per cent. They are now paid a grant of £11 per week per child. That is a fairly good sum so far as one can compare it with the cost of maintenance of a child in normal circumstances. However, it is fair to say there are other costs involved here and one cannot make a strict comparison.

With regard to the more long-term development of the homes, the Department have accepted the idea of family group homes rather than having a large home with a long dormitory where children could become anonymous. The idea is being developed of having bedrooms near living and dining areas, where there could be a family group with a member of the staff present at all times.

There are three approaches to making what previously were large institutions into group homes. First, the existing home might be broken down into groups and this has been done successfully in a number of cases by carrying out internal reconstruction work. Secondly, an existing dwelling house might be bought which would be near the area where the community or the general directorate of the home would reside. This approach has great merit in that the children are accommodated in a house that is much the same as other family homes. Thirdly, one could build a new home, and I had the privilege of visiting one such place recently in Moate. Four more homes are in the course of construction and we are preparing plans for many more. The Department of Education recognise the need to take a close look at the legal framework upon which our present child care system is based. These relate to a number of matters such as the rights of the family and the sharing of responsibility between different Departments. We have evolved our ideas on this matter and proposals are being considered in relation to what should be done to carry the matter further.

Heretofore youth policy has related mainly to the giving of grants-in-aid to various voluntary youth organisations. In Dublin city there is Comhairle le Leas Óige which is involved directly with public funds in providing a service for the young people. It is important to stress the value of youth work because young people have much leisure time that can be filled either for good or for ill. Youth work contributes to ensuring that it is filled for good. Young people are more educable than older people and their leisure time can be used for valuable educational experience. Young people also have emotional and other problems and they may not be able to cope with these as effectively as adults. Another good reason for developing the youth services is the simple fact that they are there already and there is something on which one can build.

There is a need for those involved in youth work to spell out their objectives very clearly, to ensure that what they are doing is meeting real needs. It is not enough to have a youth service for people just because they are young. Providing a service for people because they happen to be in a particular age group is not enough. A clear objective must be defined for the work which is undertaken so that after a certain period one can judge whether the desired result is being attained. Otherwise one would be running the substantial risk of pouring more and more money into a service that was not achieving its objective. If public funds are used there must be some way of knowing whether the funds are being used in a way that is giving results that can be measured according to certain criteria.

I know one can carry this too far. One cannot hope to have quantified results or anything like it, but one should at least try to be clear as to what is being achieved. There is very great danger in the setting up of any scheme, whether it be in the field of youth work or any other field, that it can become a self-perpetuating scheme; just because it is there and because certain people are employed in it, it has this quality of self-perpetuation which keeps it in existence long after that particular form of scheme has ceased yielding the results it should be yielding.

We must also strike a cautionary note in so far as it can be borne out that more prefessionalism in voluntary organisations, more professional people employed, does not always lead to an increase in membership of those organisations. It does in many cases, but not always. I was very struck by the example, which I have cited on many occasion. In the Netherlands they spend £2 million on the voluntary youth organisations, which is far in excess of anything we spend here, yet only 20 per cent of the people in that country are members of youth organisations. That is no more, and perhaps less, than the number of people involved in youth organisations here, where the level of State support given to our youth organisations is admittedly low.

The National Youth Council have made very detailed and carefully worked out proposals to me which were published recently. Since receiving them I have had many discussions with the National Youth Council. I have also been fortunate in obtaining the services of a panel of advisers who are not directly involved in the youth field but who are helping me in assessing on an informal basis, the various proposals being made. I hope in this way to be able to give the most active and careful consideration to the proposals which have been made. Broadly speaking, the proposals of the National Youth Council are that there should be more professional workers within the voluntary organisations, a network of local youth workers in each part of the country and also more training for the voluntary workers within the organisation. However, it is very important to ensure that more professionalism does not take from the valid functions of the voluntary worker, because ultimately any organisation rests not on its professionals but on its voluntary workers; and the relative functions of the professional and of the voluntary worker must be very clearly defined so that this does not occur.

I should now like to turn to the question of special education for those who are handicapped in various ways. The following five new special schools have been established since 1st July, 1973: a school for the mildly mentally handicapped at Naas, a school for the moderately mentally handicapped at Cootehill, a school for the emotionally disturbed at the Dominican Convent, Cabra, Dublin, a school for the emotionally disturbed at Castleknock and a residential school for the mildly handicapped at Rochestown, County Cork. There are also 11 special schools at present in course of construction.

Since April, 1973, a total of 15 new special classes for slow-learning pupils have been established. These have been established as follows: eight in Dublin, one in Birr, one in Limerick, one in Roscrea, one in Castlerea, one in Cork, one in Longford and one in Templemore. Since April, 1973, also 29 additional remedial teachers have been appointed in the following centres: Dublin 15, Cork two and one each in Carlow, Kilrush, Ennis, Clonakilty, Cobh, Ballyshannon, Buncrana, Castleblayney, Clonmel, Waterford, Wexford, Castleisland and Tullamore. It has also been decided to make special provision for physically handicapped pupils living on the south side of Dublin at the new comprehensive school at Ballinteer. The comprehensive school at Ballymun will continue to cater for physically handicapped pupils on the north side of the city.

Since we took over office also a third in-service training course similar to those already established at the child guidance clinics in Rathgar and Cork commenced on October 6th in St. Patrick's Training College, Drumcondra. This will increase the output of remedial teachers, which hitherto was 50 per annum, to 75 per annum. From the 1st July, 1973, full-time teachers of the deaf are being employed by the Department as visiting teachers to assist pupils with impaired hearing who attend ordinary schools. These appointments have been made in accordance with recommendations of the Committee on the Education of Children with Impaired Hearing. Additional appointments will be made as soon as suitably qualified teachers can be obtained for these posts. This is something to which I give considerable priority in so far as it involves helping children who have hearing difficulties in their own homes.

It is proposed to reorganise existing facilities for the deaf, which are mainly concentrated, both for boys and girls, in Cabra. This to some extent, and I speak very much as a layman, involves separating the children who are being taught by different methods, children who are being taught by oral methods or by non-oral methods, in other words sign language or lip reading—that is not a very accurate description—so that those who are engaged in perhaps initially more difficult but ultimately more rewarding oral methods will not slip into bad habits by contact with those who are learning less difficult methods, the non-oral methods.

We are very concerned that jobs should be made available for the mentally handicapped. For this reason I have arranged that a special conference should be held between the teachers in special education and the National Rehabilitation Board so that the best methods can be outlined for finding jobs for the mentally handicapped when they leave school. We also decided recently to set up a scheme of grants for training centres for the handicapped and this will be given a high priority over the next five years. It has long been felt that there is a need in the case of mentally handicapped for something between the period when they are at school and the period when they go directly into gainful employment. These training workshops will not only train them but also attune them to a working environment in a way which hitherto was not possible on the same scale. We are also working on the provision of a new curriculum guide for the moderately mentally handicapped to help teachers dealing with these. At the moment five inspectors of the Department and eight teachers are working on the preparation of this curriculum.

Turning now to the problem of dyslexia, I have met the association and they are very concerned with this problem. Dyslexia can be described as specific reading difficulty in that children are somehow or other unable to co-ordinate the letters on the page into a word comprehensible to them. This can retard the children educationally, although they are basically very intelligent. We are endeavouring to ensure, by means of the publication by the Department of an article in Oideachas, that more information can be made available to teachers on this disability. The big problem is that people do not know enough about dyslexia and its causes and how it can be dealt with in the context of the classroom. I am hoping to get information on the ways in which the problem is treated in the United States; I understand they have advanced methods of coping with the problem there.

On the contentious issue of school transport, at the commencement of the school year this year transport was provided for 58,800 primary school pupils as against 53,700 last year. This is an increase of 9.5 per cent in the number of children provided with primary school transport. To enable this increase to take place 63 new services had to be introduced. On the post-primary side transport has been arranged for approximately 80,000 pupils. The number of pupils in receipt of post-primary transport in 1972-73 was 76,800, so this means that there is an increase of 4.2 per cent in those getting post-primary transport. This increase was achieved in part by the introduction of nine new post-primary services. These increases have all taken place since I became Parliamentary Secretary. Further applications are being received. These were the figures I obtained some time ago and they may now be out of date; many more may have got transport since. It is very important that parents should apply in time for transport if they think their children will be eligible next year. They should apply before May of the previous year if they want their children to be able to avail of school transport. Early application will ensure that transport is available to them at the beginning of the school year. This early application is of great value to the Department and to CIE in dealing with the problem.

The Minister referred to the need to keep the cost of the services in check. This is a very valid objective. We are now spending approximately £5 million on school transport and that is a very substantial sum of money. Measures have been taken which are, I believe, useful in getting maximum return for the money spent. Most vehicles now operate at least two services a day instead of one. This is very important. It may mean that children arrive a little earlier at school, possibly too early, or leave somewhat later but, if we are not to spend a great deal more of the taxpayers' money, these inconveniences are unfortunately inevitable. There is a total of 3,216 buses involved. Of these, 838 are CIE vehicles and 1,478 are vehicles belonging to contractors. The bulk of the contractors' vehicles are minibuses. The bulk of the CIE buses, at the other end of the scale, are the ordinary large buses.

I am happy to be able to announce that a scheme is in preparation under which it will be possible for school authorities to hire buses at favourable rates to bring pupils to school games and other related physical education events. Two types of operation will be involved, short trips to playing fields, gymnasia, swimming pools and so on, and long journeys to similar venues involving inter-school competition. There are a number of technical difficulties to be ironed out before the scheme can be implemented. These are being examined at the moment.

My final point is in relation to free school books, particularly the primary free school book scheme. The rates of grant under this scheme had remained static since 1968. I am pleased to have been able to announce an increase in the rates of 30 per cent. I am cognisant of the difficulties the purchase of books poses for many parents and I will keep the scheme under review to see if any further improvement can be made. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a particular tribute to the principals of the schools operating this scheme. Were it not for their involvement in the scheme the cost to the State would be much greater than it is and as generous a scheme could not be made available. Great credit is due to the principals of the schools for the work that they do in operating this scheme.

It was a pleasure to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary, to the long and lucid review he presented to the House of the work he is doing and endeavouring to get under way in that very important Department, the Department of Education. I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House will agree that his review was very frank and that he gave us to the best of his ability a fair picture of the situation as he sees it, the problems he has to face and the efforts being made to deal with these problems. To that extent his contribution was a very refreshing one. I want to emphasise, however, that it will be our aim on this side of the House to remove the Parliamentary Secretary from the exalted position he occupies at the earliest possible moment.

The Deputy would not do that. He is not serious now.

In the meantime, and pending that removal, it is also our wish and our aim to help him in every way to do his job as effectively and as efficiently as possible, because it is a very important job and whoever occupies that particular post of responsibility is entitled to whatever help and support we, the Members of the House on all sides, can give him.

I know the former Minister, Deputy Pádraig Faulkner, was very conscious of the problems and difficulties which were involved in being Minister for Education, and knowing some of the difficulties and problems which presented themselves to him during his tenure of office, I have every sympathy with any Minister for Education to whatever Administration he may belong.

I, for my part, approach the subject of education and the Estimate for the Department of Education with diffidence, because I am very conscious of the fact that my knowledge of educational matters is very limited. I am also very much aware that this is, at any time, an area which requires very great understanding; but at the present time, when there is so much happening, when there are so many changes taking place, when there are so many new concepts being put forward, it is with trepidation one must speak on education at all. However, in the light of my experience as a Deputy representing a constituency which is, from the point of view of education, a developing one, I may perhaps be of some assistance to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in their work.

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a number of matters with which I come into almost daily contact in the course of my duty as a Dáil Deputy and a public representative. It is one of the things he mentioned at the very end of his review. I would agree fully with what he has to say about the administration of the scheme for free books in schools. I think this scheme is working very well. Perhaps more money could be allocated to it and perhaps it could be expanded like any other worthwhile scheme; but nevertheless it is being operated in a very sympathetic and understanding way. It is a tribute to the late Donogh O'Malley that he had sufficient foresight to entrust the administration of this scheme to the principals of the schools. They fully merit the praise the Parliamentary Secretary has bestowed in this regard. If all other schemes of this nature were administered with the same mixture of sympathy and understanding, and at the same time restraint, then we could be very satisfied indeed.

From time to time one comes across the occasional complaint from a parent, but, in my experience, any such complaints have been almost immediately attended to and rectified. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will continue to keep an eye on this scheme and, as resources permit, expand it. It is something that is well worth while, something that has been established along the right lines, and something that should be developed as the opportunity to do so offers itself.

I was very interested also to hear the Parliamentary Secretary mention the juvenile liaison officers. While I recognise that these officers are employed by and are the responsibility of a different Department, nevertheless I would hope that the Minister would, in view of his responsibility for youth in general, take an interest in this service and do what he can to persuade the Department of Justice to develop and expand that service. I believe it has a very important part to play, particularly in the urban areas. If properly organised, it can be very effective in preventing alienation between young people and the Garda Síochána, which is something very important indeed.

The Parliamentary Secretary has also been given responsibility by the Minister for youth work and for sport. Again I would like to urge him to devote as much energy and attention as he can to these activities and responsibilities which he has. Again I want to take credit for the fact that I introduced the original provision in this area, and, if anything, I would register disappointment that a considerably greater allocation has not by now been made available to the Parliamentary Secretary in this regard. The amount made available has increased marginally from year to year since its inauguration, but my recollection is that in the first year the amount allocated was regarded merely as a token, just something provided to get the idea under way and that when it was properly formulated considerably increased resources would be made available. I hope that this will happen because, of all the activities of the Department, this is one which offers the greatest prospect for useful and worthwhile activity in the social field.

If I may give the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary the benefit of my experience as a Deputy in an area which is typical, I would hope that more effort should be made to get down to local areas in regard to this matter. It is true that at national level considerable strides are being made in regard to national organisations and the formulation of schemes. I am afraid that I must say that I do not as yet find any great evidence of assistance percolating down to the youth activities in my constituency. I am sure that most Deputies will agree that what is needed in regard to youth activities are the basic things. One of the main needs in my area is the provision of facilities of all sorts and in particular the provision of premises for the different types of club or organisation, whether it is a troop of scouts, an athletic club, a youth club, a football club or a swimming club. Whatever the club the first requirement is for somewhere in which to meet. They need premises of some sort. The area of which I speak is typical of many urban areas. There is an urgent need to fill basic and fundamental requirements.

Playing fields are also urgently needed throughout my constituency. There seems to be a constant process of erosion whereby areas which are available to sporting and athletic clubs are taken over for other purposes. I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any specific power at his command in this regard. It is something to which I would like him to devote his attention and to be of any assistance he can in the provision of these very specific fundamental requirements.

I was very interested in what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say about the College of Art, the National Library, the Museum and the National Gallery. I am sorry if I detected in the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks about the museums some prejudice in favour of the scholars and the professions as against the general public. I have very definite views on our museums. National museums are too much the preserves of the scholars and the professions. They are not at all oriented towards the general public and the educational side of their activities. I was very disappointed to hear my colleague, Deputy Wilson, mention the idea of photographs. In certain academic professional circles the contents of museums are regarded as so valuable that they must be kept under lock and key and preserved for inspection by scholars. It seems to be felt that it is sufficient to show photographs of them to the general public. I felt, when the Parliamentary Secretary was giving us his review of the situation, that there was an underlying hint in what he said—and perhaps it was nothing stronger than that—that museums were primarily for academics and the province of scholars and academicians.

I would like to see every village and town in Ireland having some type of local or folk museum—despite the difficulties enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary—even if they cannot have something more ambitious. We can learn a great deal from other European countries in this regard. In some European countries there are folk museums in every village. They may not contain anything more than items of interest to the town or locality concerned, but they are on display. A revolution in our thinking in this regard is called for.

I had an opportunity of being in Harvard at a summer school devoted to the Arts. I found that American thinking had a great orientation towards the role of the public and the function of the institutions in regard to the public as distinct from the schools. It would be useful if the Department would send one or two of their personnel to that school on some occasion. It is held at Harvard University every year. They would meet people like themselves from all over America and from different parts of the world. This might help to inculcate this idea that these institutions exist primarily for the general public and that their primary purpose should be the education of the public.

I was interested to hear that the College of Art will probably be moving to new surroundings. I hope this will happen in the near future. Somehow or other it seems as if there will never be a happy College of Art in the present surroundings. Many members of the present Government were very vociferous when in Opposition and said then what should be done about the College of Art. They now have the opportunity of doing something about it. I hope that with their combined wisdom a new era will be ushered in for the College of Art, hopefully in new premises and in new surroundings.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that he has not yet had time to have a discussion with those controlling the National Gallery about its future role. I hope he will soon have an opportunity of doing that. The National Gallery is probably one of the institutions under his general jurisdiction about which he need least worry because there is very general satisfaction with the way that Gallery has been improved and developed in recent years. It is now a Gallery of which any city of this size may well be proud. However, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to take a personal interest in it because, like any other official institution, it needs ministerial help from time to time in solving some of the many problems which confront it.

The Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned dyslexia and I was glad of that because, again, it is something which is becoming of increasing importance, something to which more attention must be directed by the Department. I put down some questions to the Minister about the matter and these were directed towards the training of teachers in the subject of dyslexia. I understand that future teachers, those at present in the training colleges, will be trained to discern where the problem exists and will know what action to take about it. It is something about which more knowledge is becoming available and more should be done about the existing body of teachers. Some courses exist by means of which existing teachers are trained in regard to the dyslexia problem. I am told there is need for the general body of teachers to get some training in regard to it and I hope the Department will attend to that need in the case of teachers who have left the training colleges without any knowledge of the problem or how to cope with it.

I would also ask the Minister to look at the administration of the free transport scheme in Dublin city as regards its availability to the all-Irish schools. The three-mile limit applies to these schools, but is the retention of that limit really necessary? Pupils attending these all-Irish schools are in a special category. In the circumstances they cannot go to the nearest school and often have to travel distances which are not sufficient to qualify them for free transport, but because of their particular situation travelling to and from these schools can be very expensive. I wonder would it cost very much to abolish the three-mile limit in the case of pupils attending all-Irish schools.

I should also like the Minister and his Department to consider the situation in regard to special classes in the ordinary schools. The Parliamentary Secretary dealt at some length with special schools which are the responsibility of the Department but I would like him to direct his attention to the situation where special classes are established in ordinary schools. There is a grant available for the provision of special equipment for these special classes but I am told it is quite inadequate. I ask that the level of the grant in these cases be very considerably increased.

I am sure the many Deputies from time to time come across the type of case for which there is no provision under any Department at present, the case of a particularly gifted or talented child who requires to go abroad for further training or education in a particular subject. Perhaps music is the most common such subject, but there are cases in different fields where particular pupils show a very special talent and ability and where clearly they could become of international calibre if only they got training of a type which very often is available only abroad. There is no way at present, as far as I know, whereby children of that type can be assisted to go abroad and get that special advice training in a particular subject which they need if their full potential is to be realised.

It is an area to which the Department of Education might direct their attention. I know it is a problem which does not lend itself to any easy solution. Nevertheless it is important that, in these exceptional cases, some provision should be made whereby they can receive the additional education and training which they need if they are to achieve the level of perfection of which they are capable.

I have in my constituency a school which, in its own way, is typical of the problems which I come across in regard to schools in general in my area. I refer to St. Benedict's national school in Raheny. I would be grateful if the Minister would ask the Department to look into the situation of that school. It is a very interesting school because it is co-educational. It caters for about 900 pupils and it lacks many amenities and many facilities which it should have. I mention it not as a piece of special pleading but because, in its own way, it is fairly representative of the type of problem which I, as a public representative, meet in the educational field.

One of the things that disappointed me when I put down questions to the Minister was the fact that in his reply he stated that it was not the practice to provide grants towards the cost of play shelters at schools in which general purpose rooms are provided. He went on to say that he did not accept the implication that the absence of play shelters must necessarily cause serious dislocation in the running of a school. I hope there will be a change in departmental thinking in that regard because I can certainly prove to any representative of the Department that, in this case, the absence of suitable play shelters seriously impairs the efficiency of the school and dislocates satisfactory management. In the series of questions I put down to the Minister I sought to highlight the deficiencies of this school. I would ask that it be investigated because it represents in a very specific way the sort of problems which are common to an area like mine in regard to national and, indeed, post-primary schools.

Like Deputy Moore I must say I was very disconcerned by some statements made by the Minister in his opening remarks. I refer in particular to one paragraph of his opening statement in which he said:

Before concluding this introductory part I would remind the House that education is the key to economic growth. We need an educated, adaptable and skilled labour force for our expanding economy. Our major resource is the intelligence and skill of our people. In the context of EEC we need to cultivate and promote these talents. Because we are poorer in material goods than most European countries, we should conversely be spending more of our GNP on education for the purpose of promoting economic growth.

If one were to sit down and try to write a concise paragraph about what education is not and should not be, I do not think one could do better than that paragraph. I am astonished that such a piece could emerge from the Department of Education at this time. First of all, education is not the key to economic growth, and education should not be the key to economic growth. Education is something completely different. If, as Deputy Moore rightly pointed out, we are to adopt anything like that sort of philosophy we are heading for very serious trouble.

I abhor the thinking behind the following statement:

We need an educated, adaptable and skilled labour force for our expanding economy.

It seems to me—and I am certain most Deputies in the House would agree with me—that that is getting things all wrong. Education is something completely different. The thinking there that we must have a nice well-organised well-trained group of people so that they can make the economy tick, apart altogether from what we might think of them as people, or individuals, or human beings, is all wrong. There is a particularly unfortunate statement at the end of the paragraph:

... we should conversely be spending more of our GNP on education for the purpose of promoting economic growth.

I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will, at best, disown that paragraph in its entirety or perhaps, put forward some more generally acceptable thinking on what education will be all about in the future.

May I ask, through the Chair, to what page is the Deputy referring?

It is a very early page. It is not numbered.

Thank you. There is no number on the top of the page. I do not want to labour what I am saying in regard to that paragraph because I think it is self-condemnatory. I am sure it does not reflect the real thinking and philosophy of the Department in regard to education. I must confess also, to being somewhat disappointed about the Minister's opening statement. He may, and I hope will, restore the situation when he comes to reply.

At present we could all do with a general statement on where we are going in education. As I said at the beginning, I approach this debate with very considerable diffidence and I make no apology for asking for such a statement. In the Minister's opening statement there was no coherent setting out of the overall philosophy, objectives and targets of the Department of Education.

There are many new concepts, ideas and new developments in recent years. We must commend the personnel in the Department for this forward movement in educational thinking. But sufficient attention has not been devoted to showing us where these new things fit into a composite overall picture. We have regional policies of technology, the comprehensive school concept and the community schools. We have a new idea called regionalisation. There is a new approach to the Irish language. This debate should have been an occasion when the Minister pulled all these things together and for our benefit gave us a general picture of where we are going and where these different ideas fit into the overall pattern.

We should not be concerning ourselves with rewriting Irish history; we should be making history, whether it is in education, economic affairs or social matters. We should be concerned with creating a society of which we can be reasonably proud rather than wasting time in the futile exercise of interpreting the past. We should be creating the future.

The Minister's approach to this Estimate has been lacking in an overall concept of education. Ideally I should like to see it put in diagram form, where it would show, for a child of four years of age, say, the different streams along which he could go— national school, post primary school and university. That would be one stream. What the other corollaries would be or where the other institutions would fit in I do not know. Somebody should sketch for us the different avenues open to the ordinary child from start to finish. Perhaps the Minister in his reply would attempt to do this.

Finally, I agree with Deputy Moore when he spoke about our universities. At one time I was satisfied that the best possible thing that could happen to the individual was that he should have access to a university education. Now I am not so sure. Universities, traditionally and historically, have been the bastions of intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. They are not that any more. If a Minister of this Government, or the last Government, cannot go to an Irish university and speak freely, we should ask ourselves what is our university system all about? Where is it heading? Maybe someone can demonstrate that it is all a part of our modern ethos and that it is going through a revolutionary process. I seriously question whether it is the best thing for a young person today to send him to a university. As I said at one time I would have had no doubt about it but today I am not so sure. Perhaps the Minister would give us some outline of what is happening, or will happen with regard to higher education.

I approach the subject of education with trepidation equal to that expressed by Deputy Haughey. Therefore, I will be cautious in my choice of words. While complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary on the work he has done in the area under his control, Deputy Haughey stated that he looked forward to his removal. I would concur with that, but look forward to his promotion at some stage and perhaps his removal on that basis would be acceptable.

I agree with Deputy Haughey's remarks on the National Library and Museum in comparison with the National Gallery and the sentiments he expressed in regard to their method of promotion and presentation to the general public. A change of policy took place in the National Gallery when it was revamped and, if you like "jazzed up". Attempts were made to have much greater participation by the general public. The purists tended to frown on these attempts, including the development of restaurant facilities. That effort was successful. We have in the National Gallery a major facet of national life and a showpiece for this nation. While the merit of the portraits and pictures may be no greater than many years ago, in the minds of the general public it would seem to be a place worth visiting.

Of course, we have magnificent exhibits in our museum but it seems to me that they are dressed in very staid gowns and that very much more could be done to involve the general public in the work of the museum. In some other countries more work has been done than we have done here to ensure a broader appreciation of heritage in that area. Perhaps this question might be looked at.

Deputy Haughey took the Minister too much to task in relation to the Minister's statement that education is the key to economic growth. In fairness to the Minister it might be pointed out that the paragraph in question is merely part of an introductory section and that even in that introductory section the statement comprises practically the entire last paragraph so that the statement of the Minister cannot be regarded in any sense as beginning to illustrate what he would term to be his philosophy in regard to education and the Deputy was taking the quotation out of context in attempting to suggest that this is so. Even the sentence was not quoted entirely. It reads and I quote from the Minister's brief:

Before concluding this introductory part, I would remind the House that education is the key to economic growth.

Education is a major key in economic growth. There are all the other areas of input—capital, resources, raw materials and markets—but the key link is education because without that nothing else can tick.

Technical training, yes.

Education and technical training merge. We need an educated, adaptable and skilled labour force for the expansion of our economy but in fairness to the Minister he has not stated at any stage that that is the raison d'etre of the education policy of this State. Much to his credit the Minister refers at a later stage to the problem we have in this country today because of the considerable pressures on pupils to obtain marks, to pass exams and to qualify for acceptance by an institute of higher learning. He expresses personal views in regard to this rat race and I would concur with all of these views.

In the paragraph to which I am referring the Minister adverts to the fact that the intense education activity at all levels and the emergence of a much higher level of free education while, being very good, has certain side effects and that we are paying the price in what he terms the production of technical or academic morons coming through the system. Today with this high level of education, with education in a groove through post-primary and through aspects of university education, with graduates having a specialised knowledge in one segment of life, this system is wrong when one goes back to the basic values and attempts to define education.

This is understandable because of the emergence of free education to a great extent, a development that has only come about within the past six or eight years. The natural incentive is to view this academic life as being the ultimate, to consider university education as being the sole means to a full life. This is tending to leave many people with a bad philosophy with regard to education. It is my belief that we will turn full circle and that before long we will get back to an appreciation of certain fundamentals in regard to the true definition of education, that we will begin to appreciate the tremendous value of technical and technological education and that we will begin to appreciate also, as some other countries have done, that where universities are concerned graduates are only at an under-graduate stage and that only degrees at Masters' level are of any value in the academic world.

Three years ago I was in California during a time when there was a recession in the local economy due largely to the depressed nature of the aerospace industry which employed many thousands of people. That was a critical stage in the western States of the US and I had the experience of seeing many people who had been educated to the level of Ph.D. in aspects of technology concerned with the most advanced types of technology known being left on the scrap heap because employment opportunities did not exist for them since they were not able to avail of the general type of opportunity. For that reason I compliment the Minister particularly on his remarks relating to this aspect of education. In relation to the pressures concerned with examinations, et cetera, he states that it is not the Department of Education who are producing the pressures. The Department is merely the instrument of the people. The Minister remarked that the attempt to produce finer distinctions is tending to be a negation of education values and suggests that many parents may be the culprits in this regard. He appeals strongly to all interested parties to be aware of where these pressures are leading and in conclusion he said that the road away from over-emphasis on examinations is not an easy one but that we must realise the road we are on is the wrong one. These are strong words from the Minister and are a rebuttal of the allegation that the raison d'etre of the Minister is merely the force-feeding of people so that they are instruments of our economy. I disagree entirely with that allegation.

I regret that more was not said by the Minister in relation to the role of adult education in this country. He said that his Department are concerned with this aspect of education. Continuing the theme which I have been developing, adult education is very important. We must not think that education finishes when a person leaves school. Education is a continuing process. Our nation is one of a people of learning and, therefore, adult education can be of immense value in our community. Much can be learned from what has been happening in Dublin and in the provinces in this regard and also from what has been happening in other countries.

If we are concerned with the undue emphasis being placed on education it is logical that we place much emphasis on the purer value of education through the involvement of a wide proportion of our people in adult education. For that reason, I urge the Minister to arrange that the final report of the special committee in regard to adult education is presented to him as soon as possible.

I welcome the development of the Institute of Higher Education at Limerick and of the specialised type of facilities which will be available there. As the years pass, we may find that the value of this institute, in isolation, can be much greater than certain arms of the National University because of the specialised aspect of education that will be available there. I understand that the initial reaction to the title of the establishment was because of our traditions in that regard but in many other countries such institutes are very important. In Norway, in particular, there is a national technological institute which bears ranking with any similar educational institute in Europe. Perhaps the reaction here was merely a matter of tradition dying hard.

I come back to the statement of the Minister, which Deputy Haughey deemed to be controversial, that education was the key to economic growth. This aspect of education, which is very important, is one of the greatest problems our country is facing today in the sense that the level of education to which a person would aspire to and attain is obviously linked to his place in society and in the work force in this country or any other country.

One of the problems we face, and one that will continue to be very serious, is that while we desire that our people should attain the very highest level of education possible we are tending to find that we cannot, as a nation, in terms of economics, keep pace with our educational policy. To date it has not been possible to give the emerging graduates, and the people emerging from technological institutions, the level of opportunity for work which is adequate to their training. The shortfall here is causing great concern. It is the beginning of disillusionment in certain quarters with the belief that the leaving certificate is the entrée to a certain way of life which will lead to a higher level of income.

In many parts of the west recently we had many graduates who had gone through the leaving certificate finding that this was not giving them what they believed it would. This is creating many problems. At the same time we ought to face the fact that certain of our people will not be in a position to work in this country. I applaud recent policy—by "recent" I do not mean in the last six months but in the last six years—under which there is the possibility for all our people to learn to a higher level. If our people are to go to Birmingham, Coventry, London or Glasgow or to the United States it is desirable that they should fit into a niche in the societies of other countries that will allow them to play a role above that which has been the tradition here.

The Minister, in regard to primary education, refers to the question of primary school management. I am aware that at times this has been a controversial question. However, it is a system which has worked admirably in this country for many years because we had a section of our public, largely the clergy, who were, because of their training and vocation, intensely interested in this aspect of life. In a situation where there was not a great deal of activity by the community in the previous generation the work which these managers did over the years has been invaluable and the service which they have given to the country has been immense.

It is very easy to be critical of such managers but I would be appalled to think of what would have been the position had these people not taken up the responsibility of management of our schools in the previous generation. It could have led to chaos in one sense or greatly increased State expenditure in another sense. Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Minister sees in the future suitable and acceptable adjustment. In the management of our schools, as in many other areas of national life today, we find there is a growing concern among the general public to play a role in many areas of activity including aspects of public expenditure, community councils, schools and local authorities.

This growing feeling to be involved and committed locally is leading in the Department of Education to certain conclusions that are being reached in other areas of life. In the Department of Education it is leading to much greater involvement by the parents in the teaching of their children or the achieving of effective liaison with the teachers of their children for the greater benefit of all. In this question of school management I welcome the proposed participation of parents elected by people involved in their areas. I am pleased also by the fact that this suggestion has been welcomed—and I did not expect otherwise—by the Association of Managers of Catholic Primary Schools. I note also that the Protestant authorities have also been receptive to the idea.

This receptiveness does not surprise me. At all times I believed that the managers of these schools would have welcomed this policy of the Department of Education. I feel that they were put into the unfair position of working in isolation and subject to criticism. The fact that the public at large had not chosen to play a role or had not articulated the fact that they wished to do this tended to leave certain people in this country unduly critical of the management system as it existed up to the present time.

Looking through the Minister's speech there is one relatively minor aspect of education which has not been referred to but which I believe is sufficiently important to merit a few words. In educating our people at all levels today when there is such interdependence in the world, particularly in Europe, bearing in mind our involvement in the European Community, which at this stage is aspiring towards political and monetary reform, it seems to me that we should be concerned about our communications with other countries and particularly our communications within the European Community. It seems to me that we have had a mass of public relations and an attempt to communicate with the general public in regard to what the EEC means to us, in regard to the various aspects of life in other countries and of the necessity for our legislation to have rapport with the legislation of the wider grouping. However, there seems to be a shortfall in terms of personal experience at all levels in this country.

The Members of this House who have had the privilege to travel as representatives of our people and those who have travelled abroad socially value the learning experience this travel has been to them. One can read textbooks for many years about aspects of work in other countries but visits, and attempts to communicate with people in other countries, bring to life that which we have been reading about. This is important to us. It is important in a pure educational sense and as a learning experience. It is important to us when we talk about our economy and the tremendous dependence economically on the export and import of materials. It is important when we think about the technology we must import to create the level of employment that will project us into a future decade and create conditions of full employment here. In a tiny country it is important in very many ways, and is proportionately much more important here than in larger countries such as France and Germany.

It would seem to me that we are spending disproportionately a smaller sum of money in this area of activity than many other countries. I suggest that because of this great dependance that rather than have some privileged people having access to this type of educational experience it is an aspect of life in which we could increase substantially our present level of involvement. This can be done at secondary school and university levels, and at adult education level where there are people involved in communities in Donegal, Mayo and Clare, where people are concerned to provide a leadership role and to be a catalyst for local thinking and ideas. Unless we can build up this leadership in the community by funding to an extent learning experiences in other countries we will not be enriched to the extent we should be, nor will we achieve the fuller involvement in the life, thinking and leadership of this country.

One of the problems which exists also in the political arena is that to some extent we have an élitist society. We have tremendous confidence in the Civil Service and in the semi-State bodies. There is in these institutions the access and the capacity to learn and to explore, but, correspondingly among the general public, while the basic talent exists, there is not the development or the sharpening of this talent to compete, for example, in the debating arena when discussing aspects of national life. The question of travel is implicit in this. Again, it is natural this would involve expenditure where teachers are concerned. I am aware this is happening but I believe it should be occurring at a higher level.

I am not certain of the present situation with regard to the appointment of teachers in vocational schools. I believe there is reason for the Minister to consider the development of a new approach, which he may have in mind at the moment. It seems invidious to members of vocational education committees throughout the country to be put in the position of being the selectors of teachers for positions in schools in their own areas. This leads to problems so far as the boards are concerned and to problems so far as the teachers who are applying for posts are concerned. There should be an attempt made to develop a selection system somewhat like the Civil Service Commission. There is a necessity for reform in this area.

I should like to refer briefly to problems that exist in constituencies similar to the one I represent. I am a Member from west Mayo. Like many other counties on the western seaboard, Mayo has suffered a most tremendous loss of people. In 25 years emigration has lost us about 25,000 people out of a little more than 100,000. This is a catastrophe and very often people living in the capital do not appreciate the extraordinary crisis that this is in the communities concerned.

In terms of education the problem is the reverse of that which exists in Dublin, Waterford and Cork. In these areas the problem is to cater for growing numbers of children who have the enthusiasm and the will to learn but in Mayo the problems are human ones, relating to the decline in the numbers of children in some schools and where teachers may have to teach in schools many miles distant from their homes. Because of the grievousness of the situation, I suggest that the human problems in such areas are greater than in areas with expanding populations. To date the Minister has been understanding in any dealings I have had with him and I would ask him and his Department to show a considerable human understanding and a high degree of tolerance in relation to the special problems that exist in counties such as Mayo, Leitrim, Donegal, Roscommon and Galway. I do not think this problem can be equated entirely with the national policy; one cannot automatically say that X numbers are equal to Y and, for that reason, I would appreciate an understanding of the historical perspective in those counties.

I welcome the fact that the Minister believes in regionalisation and the greater involvement of people in communities in the decision-making process. Might I very deferentially suggest that he be aware of certain pitfalls. One of the problems has been that while regionalisation has been fashionable, many Departments and semi-State agencies have been each going in their own direction so far as regional policy is concerned. Going in their own direction means that a particular Department or State body may set up regional structures which they term to be in their own interests. However, as has been illustrated, probably most eminently by the director of the Institute of Public Administration, the result has been an appalling mess in that about ten different national bodies have been developing regional structures each in isolation. One of the results is that the individual in a region cannot form any sense of identity with the region because in many cases it has been found he may be living in six different regions referring to different counties. I suggest that in approaching regionalisation the Minister and his Department would be wise to consult with other Departments, particularly the Department of the Public Service, in relation to their plans. Many people believe that if we are to have a strong regional policy the regions should be regions for all purposes so that there will be a sense of identification for the people concerned. I should not like to see the Department of Education running at a tangent, as some other national agencies have done.

I should like to refer briefly to the question of economic involvement and to the Minister's statement that education is the key to economic growth and his concern for the fact that we should have a standard of education and a level of learning to develop our economy. In this regard we have many economic agencies of State activity concerned with the provision of job opportunity in various areas of activity —in agriculture, industry, tourism, fishing and in the services. I do not see any reference in the Minister's speech as to whether there is liaison between the Department and the various agencies. I must presume that there is. It would seem to me to be extremely useful in the interests of the Minister and of his Department to communicate fairly regularly with institutions such as the IDA, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Agricultural Institute, parts of the Department of Education, the Institute of Public Administration, Bord Fáilte and semi-State bodies such as the ESB, so that some attempt may be made to glean the nation's necessities in terms of priorities and specific degrees of training in particular areas. I am not suggesting that this should necessarily mean the Department of Education should merely look after the education of people towards this particular outlet because obviously there will be many more graduating who will not find employment in this country but it could be an extremely useful barometer for the Department in assessing where their priorities should lie as the years pass.

I should like to take the opportunity of complimenting the Minister on the work which he has done since his appointment. There has been a fresh wind blowing through the country to which most people, irrespective of political conviction, have been very receptive. It has, indeed, been welcomed. I hope he will continue to refresh his faculties and to allow development to happen as is sensible.

I shall again briefly revert to my criticism of Deputy Haughey's criticism of the Minister and compliment the Minister on a personal level for expressing particular views in regard to his own philosophy of education. He said that possibly we have been placing too much emphasis on the pure aspects of education and that the forced feeding and undue emphasis may lead to certain undesirable aspects of nation-building. The Minister spoke of the fact that it is not the Department of Education who are producing this pressure. The pressure is there because opportunity exists which did not exist before and obviously parents are taking this up. I am glad the Minister pointed to the problems this is creating in our society. I welcome the fact that he suggests that this is surely a negation of educational values, that he appeals strongly to all concerned to be more aware of where those pressures are leading us and to resolve to resist them in the interests of producing whole persons in our schools. I welcome the fact that he is open and sufficiently receptive in relation to policy to state that the road away from over-emphasis on examinations is not an easy one, but let us at least realise that the road we are on is the wrong one. I welcome the fact that the Minister, with all of his authority, is concerned about those aspects of education. I concur entirely with his philosophy and I suggest that if he continues to be as soul-searching as this in relation to the policies of this country we will be very well served in education as long as he is Minister.

Education, like health, is a matter of very wide-ranging effects and there is always a great temptation to deal with its various facets. If one were to do that even briefly it would take a long time and mean a great deal of repetition. I shall confine myself to a few points. I speak not as an educationalist but as a public representative who has the good fortune, or otherwise, to be involved in some circles of the administration of education. Perhaps I can interpret some of the feelings of my constituents and of the administrators of schools. If I speak with something of a bias towards vocational education it is not because I was ever a pupil in a vocational school but because my position in public life has placed me on a vocational education committee in the city where vocational education was cradled, the city of Cork. When we realise all the vicissitudes through which vocational education has passed over the past 50 years we can all be justifiably proud of the stage it has reached.

Many of the parents of the present generation of school children, who never had an opportunity of receiving post-primary education, believed that getting one's leaving certificate meant a white collar job and a position of security in one's own country. The wheel is now turning and literally hundreds of students with leaving certificates are finding it very difficult to obtain any kind of employment, never mind suitable employment. I welcome the idea of comprehensive schools and particularly community schools. In the age in which we live, with more leisure time, we should provide facilities for adult education. We should help people to lead a fuller life, open windows for them that have not been opened heretofore. I would welcome in the community school not only the provision of facilities for young students but community libraries, community recreation, community classes.

There is a great shortage of teachers for slow learners. We need a course of training to equip people to teach slow learners. Nobody can be blamed for that shortage. I take it that various Governments and various Ministers met the situation with the resources available to them, which were not unlimited. What I say is not meant as a criticism of anybody. The number of such teachers is completely inadequate. There is also a great shortage of teachers of metalwork and woodwork. In the Cork school we have block release courses in various subjects. They are very successful. I hope the Minister and the Department will increase the facilities for such classes. I find there is a great shortage of shorthand typists. We had an extraordinary situation in Cork recently in which there were more than 800 applicants for 38 jobs as students nurses in a certain hospital. More than 700 of them had the leaving certificate. We cannot get qualified shorthand-typists. There is something wrong. There is talk about career guidance but is there any evidence of career guidance? Young people should be advised as to how best and where to find an outlet for their particular aptitudes and inclinations. It is a tremendous asset to have girls prepared to train as nurses but it is my belief that many of these girls could equally well be trained as physiotherapists and so on or trained to deal with the mentally and physically handicapped. There is need for these people with generosity of spirit in many different spheres of activity.

There is need for at least one person qualified in career guidance in every vocational committee area. More than one such teacher would be needed in the city of Cork. These people, of course, should link up with the local social services and community services. That would be the ideal evolution. In the rural areas in all vocational schools there should be one person trained in career guidance.

Would it be possible to extend the school medical services into post-primary schools? There may be certain difficulties, but will the Minister at least keep it in mind? Will he make it his ambition to extend the service?

In Cork a community school is just getting off the ground and I have every confidence in its future. A regional technical college is being erected. Of course, we had a regional technical college in Cork for many years, but it was spread over nearly a dozen buildings throughout the city. Next September all its activities will be contained in the one building. This is the ideal situation.

A matter which is causing a good deal of concern down south is waiting for a decision on the future of the Cork dental school. A decision will have to be made as early as possible. A tremendous number of students want to take up dentistry as a profession and they are unable to do so because we simply have not got the space and the facilities and so we cannot enrol them. All we can enrol is 18 students for a three-year course and all we can graduate is 18 dentists. That is not enough. It is very hard on parents whose sons or daughters want to do dentistry but find at the end of their first year that neither the space nor the facilities are available to enable them to follow this profession.

The Cork dental hospital and school have been in existence for over 50 years. It started with one or two dentists holding a little clinic on the north side of the city. They took students from University College. When I was interested in dentistry the average number of students was three or four, but very often it was only two. This was in the twenties and thirties. It was the Cinderella of the medical school. Now it is anything but that. Dentistry is a very lucrative profession and a great many are anxious to take up dentistry. Dentists are badly needed. Advertisements are placed but there are no applicants.

As I said, over the years these professional gentlemen gave their services teaching as best they could. Then a time came when they decided across the water that they could not recognise Irish dentists unless they had a certain training. Certain courses were drawn up and modern equipment and techniques were introduced. In Cork we bought buildings to house our dental school and University College appointed four Chairs of dental disciplines. The standard is very good but we need another building.

Cork Regional hospital is in course of construction. A site is reserved for the Cork dental school. Plans have been drawn up and everything is ready. Now, wisely or unwisely, wittingly or unwittingly, the last Government asked us to wait for a decision on the dental school. The site is there and everything is ready. With every day that passes the eventual cost is increasing. I need hardly tell the Minister what this school would mean not alone to Cork but to the South of Ireland as a whole. The staff is available. The standard of dentistry is comparable with that prevailing anywhere in these islands. That is something that should be maintained. The highly qualified consultant and practitioner staff are frustrated. They are uneasy about their future and what the future may hold for them. The position is uncertain. There is talk of just one dental school in Dublin. There is more talk about decentralisation. Would any Government in their sane senses uproot this more than 50-years old school in Cork and put it in Dublin? There is a school in Dublin and I am not saying this as a Corkman as against a Dublin man but I do not believe it is any better than the one in Cork. I do not think we could possibly stand over a position like that.

I am acting as a friend of the Minister and the Department in asking them to have this decision made as a matter of urgency. There is not alone the dental profession involved—which might not be considered very important, but account has to be taken of the public—but also the dental craftsmen. When I was a young man engaged in that work we had very little opportunity of learning anything more than the elementary business of prostetic dentistry, but nowadays due to the fact that they have this service from University College we have a tremendous standard in the south of Ireland which should be maintained. Of course dentists produce the best work in conjunction with good craftsmen. I know the Minister has his own difficulties and that unlimited resources are not available but he should make that decision as soon as possible. It must be borne in mind that delay means frustration for the people engaged in this work in Cork and more expense to the taxpayers. It is the taxpayers who eventually have to pay, and it will be a sore point with the taxpayers in the south if they have to pay for the very painful extraction of their school from Cork to Dublin.

I should like to compliment the Minister on the many innovations and new ideas that he has introduced to this Department. Not being an educationalist my experience in education is mainly confined to my own school days and serving for a few years on vocational committees, regional college boards, and a few things like that. However, let me say that the Department of Education is one Department that must keep abreast of the times. There must be long-term planning ahead. They must almost foresee the future to make sure that the products of our schools, colleges and universities will be able to compete against the ever-increasing pressures of the world. Our new position as a member of the European Community is something that should pre-occupy the Minister's mind; it is very important that educational assistance should take account of this and equip our students for life in this new environment. There are many grants-in-aid and funds available to help out the Minister's coffers in this respect. I hope the Minister and his Department are watching closely the progress of the scheme of mutual recognition of degrees and diplomas and also the harmonisation of degree and diploma courses. I do not think the progress to date in this field has been spectacular. We should have little difficulty in arranging exchanges for, say, fifth year students, complete classes, from here to some of the European countries. This is an aspiration that has been mentioned quite a lot in Europe. Again I presume it is several years away, but in the interim period every effort should be made to get as many students as possible across to Europe to see the different way of life there, to see the kind of world we have to compete in, so that not only will they set their standards higher but that they will more readily appreciate the facilities we have here and the environment that is superior to that presently left in the Continent of Europe.

The Minister and his Department ought to circulate to schools and colleges and to youth clubs the grants and the aids that are available to assist schools and youth organisations to avail of travel and of the subsidies which are provided. The European Parliament pay a subsidy of something like a franc per kilometre towards the subsidisation of such educational tours. This sum would, perhaps, subsidise any trip to the extent of between 10 and 20 per cent. In addition, the Commission have a reasonably generous scheme of grants for this kind of educational enterprise. This has not been mentioned here, and each month when we attend the plenary sessions in Strasbourg and Luxembourg I see hundreds of pupils and young people from all over the other eight countries packing the public galleries. To date I have not seen a group from our country, and I think it is mainly because the people in charge here have not had the opportunity of learning about the aids that are available.

We should place more emphasis on art in this country. One thing that impresses a traveller across Europe is that every village and township has an art gallery and many valuable pieces of art, whether they are pictures or pieces of sculpture. The Government and the Department should encourage local authorities by offering them generous grants to provide suitable small accommodation so that the National Gallery would be able to loan to the provincial centres or provincial towns exhibitions from their very full collection. This is one way to encourage the living arts in our country and it would also introduce a new dimension to the pupils in our schools. It would also be very inexpensive for the Department to organise a library of slides of the finer pieces of art so that we could introduce our children to the very best. This is something the Minister might consider during the next year.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 1st November, 1973.
Top
Share