Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 May 1923

Vol. 3 No. 20

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - PUBLIC EDUCATION.

In the absence of the Minister for Finance I beg to move: "That a sum, not exceeding £2,504,469, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, to defray the expenses of the Department of National Education, including grants-in-aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund." (A sum of £1,450,000 has been voted on account.)

In connection with this Vote I would like, in the first instance, to draw attention to the necessity for proper co-ordination of the various Departments responsible for public education in the country. I do not know on what basis this particular Vote is styled Public Education. It seems to me to deal with only what we call primary or elementary education. Neither do I know, nor can I discover, the basis on which the expenses of the Ministry are charged to this particular Vote rather than to any of the other Departments for which the Ministry is responsible. We were told early this year that a Ministries Bill was to be introduced, and I know of no Department of the Government in which the necessity for that Bill is so obvious as in the particular case of education.

Last January, speaking on an Amendment to the Address of the Governor-General, the Minister for Education practically promised that in the near future a Bill to reconstitute the Ministry would be introduced which would define the scope of the Ministry and prepare the way for such a co-ordination of the Educational Department as the Government was prepared to put forward. That has not been done. I do not think that is the fault of this particular Ministry, but rather of the Executive Council of the Government as a whole. I draw attention to it now because I believe that the necessity for constituting the Ministry on a proper basis has held up, to some extent, legislative reforms which only a properly-constituted Ministry could undertake. I do urge, therefore, on the general question that this reconstitution of the Ministry should take place as soon as possible. I need not refer, I think to the importance of this Vote and the importance of education as a whole. That is admitted. It has a reaction on all the other services and all the other activities of the country.

The first necessity for educational efficiency and progress is a proper reorganisation of the systems — what you might call the directing organisations. We cannot have that unless there is proper co-ordination of all the Departments responsible for education, and of the particular sectional Departments, because it was an old-standing complaint, and it is there still to some extent, that there was a very great deal of over-lapping, great waste of educational effort, and consequently an uneconomic working of the educational machine. The first necessity, therefore, in connection with this very important matter is, as I say, a proper reorganisation of the headquarters of education. I said on the last occasion when these Estimates were before us, and I would like to repeat it now, that since the establishment of our own Government a new spirit has come into the administration of education. Those who are responsible for administering education in the country are working under severe handicaps. At the same time I would like to say that they are doing a very great and a very useful service. To my mind it is the one Department that is doing most to carry out and to put into practice the ideal we had in seeking freedom for our country. Now, the first necessity is, as I said, to provide a proper organisation. After that it is necessary to have a highly qualified, highly trained and well equipped body of workers to carry on the work and carry out the directions of headquarters. Even when these are secured they will not be sufficient. It is not sufficient to have a well-organised system of education, a highly-qualified body of workers and well-equipped school buildings unless the children are there to be taught. And, then, the question of school attendance is one of the matters, I think, which has been most neglected, and the present Ministry are not blameless altogether in the matter. We have peculiar ideas in this country, at least some people have, with regard to this question of compulsory school attendance, but there is no reason why this country should be an exception from every other country in the world in which there are systems of compulsory attendance, and where it is taken as a matter of course.

Now I need not go into details on this question of school attendance. Everybody knows the position, and none better than the Education Ministry, but I would like to point out that so long ago as November last this Dáil adopted a resolution setting out that, in its opinion, the Compulsory Attendance Act should be amended at the first available opportunity. So far as I know, nothing has been done since, and the scandal of attendance or want of attendance goes on.

Children, after all, have very few years, comparatively speaking, to attend school, and a year lost, or a half year lost in the life of a child is a very serious thing. I hope something will be done in the immediate future to remedy this scandal of school attendance, for it is nothing less than a scandal. There is another matter in connection with this, that I would like to draw attention to. It is essential that education should be one of the services upon which economy —that is, economy in the usually accepted sense of the word — should not be practised, though I would say that economy does not mean spending less money upon a service, but means rather spending money in a proper and useful way, and in such a way that there is a useful return for the money spent. I am of opinion, even taking into account the scattered nature of our population in this country, that there are far too many separate schools in the country. That has occurred because of historical reasons, and reasons we need not go into at the present time, but whatever these reasons were, I believe myself that they have since disappeared, and I think it would make for the more efficient and economical working of education in this country if the number of these schools was very considerably reduced.

Now, I do not refer so much to the closing of small schools built, perhaps, in the out-of-the-way districts, and necessary for the convenience of the children of these out-of-the-way districts, because, however small the numbers may be, they are equally entitled to proper education, even though living in these out-of-the-way districts. I know country towns and villages in which there are four or five schools within a radius of, say, three miles, and surely there is no valid reason for that. One or two central schools could take the place of the three or four or five little schools; the work could be better done, as everybody who has any acquaintance with teaching knows. Then, again, we have scattered through the country, and beside one another, separate schools for boys and girls. It is either right or wrong to have boys and girls up to 14 years of age educated together, and we have a very large number of schools in which boys and girls are educated together; and, on the other hand, we have a very large number of separate schools. The two things cannot be right. From the economic point of view I believe all these, or most of these separate boys' and girls' schools should be amalgamated, and the Ministry should go in for a bold policy of the amalgamation of schools, in which there would be very much more efficient work done. On that matter I call attention to a subject I raised here by question on one occasion, and to which I was not able to get a satisfactory reply; I refer to the question of the understaffing of certain schools in certain areas. There are some schools in which, according to the rules of the Department, an extra teacher could be appointed. The appointment, however, of the teacher does not rest with the Department, but rather with the manager of the school, and the manager of the school, for some reason or another, refuses to appoint an extra teacher in these particular schools. I would like to know exactly what are the powers of the Department in such a case.

I would also like to ask the Ministry if they are yet in a position to say what they propose to do with regard to affording better facilities for the training of teachers in connection especially with Universities. I need hardly dwell upon the necessity that exists for training and equipping teachers in the best possible manner, because if that is done that training will react upon the work which they will do in the schools.

I would like here to make one rein ference to a matter which Deputy Wilson spoke of yesterday or the day before. I refer to it rather by way of correcting an impression which he seemed to have. I took down his words at the time, and his statement was to the effect that out of the £46,000,000 spent on the services of the country all that could be spent on education in the country was half a million. I would just like to point out that the children of the farmers are not excluded from the National Schools; as a matter of fact, they make up the big majority of the children attending the National Schools. I daresay what Deputy Wilson had in mind, although he did not make it quite clear at the time, was the necessity for spending more money on agricultural education. That is a matter in which I am in agreement with him. There is no doubt that there is a gap, and a very great gap, in the education of children in this country between the ages of 14 and, say, of 16, 17 or 18. There is no proper provision made for continued education beyond that age, but it is hardly time to begin to talk about that until we are quite certain that the children are properly educated up to the age of 14. I am not satisfied that they are being educated, because they are not compelled to attend after the age of 14. The average leaving age of Irish children is the lowest that I know of. It is somewhere between the ages of 11 and 12. The majority of children leave school when they are only in the fourth and fifth standards, just at the time when they are beginning to appreciate what education is. There is another matter I would like to speak on, that is the question of pensions, but as it is a subject in itself I will reserve my remarks for a future occasion.

Ba mhaith liom dá d-tabharfhadh Aire an Oideachais freagra dom ar cheist a bhaineas le cigireacht. Deirtear go bhfhuil cigiri ann nach bhfhuair an t-airgead a bhí ag dul doibh roinnt bliadhain ó shoin. Duine amhain achu, bhí sé ag obair faoin Dáil ar scéim oideachais a bhi i bhfeidhm trí bliadhain ó shoin. Deirtear gur cuireadh ag triall air cuid de'n airgead a bhí ag dul do ach ni fhuair sé é. Dubhradh leis go m-bhfeidir gur cailleadh an litir airgid 'san phuist. Tá fhios againn go raibh a lán rudai bun os cionn an uair sin agus b'feidir go raibh oifig an phuist bun ós cionn có maith. B'feidir gur cailleadh an t-airgead mar sin. Má's rud é gur cailleadh, ise mo thuairim go mba chóir an t-airgead a thabhairt dó anois. Nil ann acht triur nó ceathrar de na daoine seo agus is mithid a d-tuarasdal a thabhairt doibh B'feidir go bh-fuair siad an t-airgead i rith na seachtmhaine seo thart. Muna bhfuair, iarrfainn ar an Aire a rádh goidé an fath go bh-fhuil sé mar sin.

A Chinn Chomhairle, it will be admitted generally, I think, that after the National Question itself the Department of Education is perhaps the most important Department in the State. It is very pleasing to hear, and I hope it will come about in a short time, that Irish will be made compulsory in every school. There was just one point that struck me about the schools throughout Ireland, and I think if it were carried out it would be a good idea. It is, and I respectfully suggest it to the Minister for Education, that these schools should be adorned both inside and outside, because I think it will be admitted some of them are anything but picturesque. I think it would have a great influence, though perhaps it may not seem so, on the students attending our primary schools. The matter may seem trivial, but I think it is very important, and I suggest that if it could be done it ought to be done, and I venture to think that if the suggestion is carried out it will have very good results.

Another point that I would respectfully suggest to the Minister for Education is, if it would be possible to have more outdoor teaching in suitable weather. I, for one, do not see why young children especially should be confined within the narrow precincts of the schoolroom during the summer weather. From the medical point of view, I think it would be very important to the physical and mental welfare of the children if there was more outdoor teaching, and if they were taken out of the school altogether. Perhaps it would be an impertinence on my part to suggest—I do not know if Euclid is taught in the primary schools or not, but if it is—that some other subject, such as Elementary Botany or some sort of Nature Study, should be substituted for it. I have the temerity to suggest that if such a change were made it would be very desirable. I think it was Deputy O'Connell who said there were too many separate schools. Well, that may be, but I do not see how you are going to overcome that difficulty. Schools scattered throughout the country in sparsely populated places are essential. They are just like the church and the dispensary doctor. You must have them there. How you are going to overcome that difficulty I do not know. My experience is that you have delicate children sometimes having to go a great distance, perhaps three miles, on wet mornings, and how you are going to overcome that I do not know.

As to the question of compulsory attendance, I would say that the Compulsory Attendance Act, as far as I know it, is a joke. If I understand the working of it, it is this way: parents are summoned for not sending their children to school. Then a certain time elapses, and when that time elapses it is found the prosecution is futile. The child may have returned to school and then, when it fails to attend school later on, another prosecution is instituted. The whole thing is, therefore, null and void. I would respectfully suggest that the law as bearing on compulsory attendance, if it has not been already amended, ought to be amended without delay.

An rud a bhi agam le radh tá sé raidhte cheana act tá cúpla puint agam cun cuir roimh Aire an Oideachais ar an gceist seo. I think, in the first place, that the expenditure that is incurred for education is out of all proportion to the value received. For some time past—at least before 1919—I do believe that there may have been grievances on the part of the teachers, owing to too much economy being practised by the old National Education Board. When the 1919 Act was introduced, the Act known as the Macpherson Act, and when it was put across here on this country, the country called out on principle to the teaching fraternity to have nothing to do with it. Still the desire for increased emolument induced the teachers to rush in and take advantage of its financial benefits. One could scarcely blame them for this, because they could make the case before that that they were very economically dealt with. This bequest of extravagance that was handed over to us from the old administration was not given for the purpose of helping education in any sense of the word. It was rather given as a sort of bribe that would possibly be a difficulty to the new Ireland when she came to do her own business in her own way. It may not be that these increased benefits have been uniformly distributed among those who have been engaged in educational work. I do not say that they have, but they apply generally to the question of expenditure in connection with education. I submit that for the education in the elementary sense that Ireland is receiving, the Nation could not afford to pay for what it receives the amount it is called upon to pay. I say this, while I do not think there is any other department in the country that should be more carefully attended to and more lavishly provided with all the necessaries than this particular department of education. I am absolutely strong on that point.

There is no one in this Dáil a more firm or a more consistent advocate of education applied to every individual in the community than I am. At the same time, we ought to ensure that if we are going to apply ourselves to this question, we are going to apply ourselves to it seriously and sensibly, and in such a way that we are to make sure that we are to get the best return for the expenditure that we are going to incur under that head. I hear frequently, and I think there is a good deal of truth in it, that even when education was in every way restricted and in every way dealt with in a sense that there was nobody paid anything like an adequate salary for services rendered, that there was an infinitely better education provided in our national schools than is provided under the somewhat luxurious conditions that prevail to-day. I think there is a great deal of truth in that. I remember myself, twenty or thirty years ago, a boy of thirteen or fourteen coming from an elementary school would have some very superior qualifications in the principles that should govern education. Now, if you take a boy coming from the same school, you will find he has a sort of scattered knowledge of various subjects, and no particularly sound knowledge of anything. I think that has arisen from the system of education designed in this country for the purpose of keeping people in ignorance. I am sure, however, that that will be rectified now, and that education will not be devised for the purpose of keeping people in ignorance, but with the aim of educating them. Instead of paying for making our people ignorant, we should see that what we pay for is to make them intelligent. I think this applies largely to elementary education.

Cathal O'Shannon referred to the few cases of teachers who have not been paid their salaries. He thinks their salaries should be given to them. I would join with him in that request, and I think the Dáil will back me up in that. I am strongly convinced that compulsory attendance is absolutely necessary. I do not think that any Government should hesitate with regard to putting into full force any powers that they have to make attendance in the schools compulsory up to fourteen or fifteen years of age.

As to the reduction of schools mentioned by Deputy O'Connell, I think that would present a problem of considerable difficulty. Undoubtedly the areas that are served by schools are situated sometimes amongst a sparse population, where the schools may not have a large attendance, but where, if you concentrate those schools much more, it would make it extremely difficult for the children attending them. This applies largely to the country districts in Ireland. There are other places where you could concentrate, and perhaps make for the securing of a better service for the money expended.

I would wish also to join in impressing upon the Minister for Education—though I do not think it is necessary to impress it upon him, because I am convinced that he feels on the subject fully as strongly as any one in this Dáil—the necessity for making Irish in the schools essential, and making it imperative in every sense of the word. Depend upon it, it will require to be made imperative. If it is left to voluntary effort on the part of the teachers or parents and children, you will not lay the foundations of the Gaelic State that we want to see here. If we want that foundation laid, it must be laid in the elementary schools. The present generation will not apply themselves to acquiring a knowledge of the tongue at their time of life, but if the young generation are taught to learn Irish, and to learn other subjects through the medium of Irish, you will have established a foundation on which you can rest secure the future of this nation. That is one thing I would wish to join in putting before the Minister for Education, but, as I said before, in his case it is only carrying coals to Newcastle.

A celebrated philosopher said that two things inspired him with a feeling of the sublime—"the starry heavens above him and the moral law within him." If Kant had only the advantage of being here to-day he could add a third to make a trilogy—the sublime aloofness of some of our Deputies from life as lived in Ireland at the present day. Deputy McGoldrick is not aware that the one thing upon which the Ministry of Education and its predecessors, the Provisional Government Ministry, concentrated was the very thing which he so much desires — the putting of the Irish language on a proper basis in the primary schools. If he would only condescend to read the Estimates in the present book he would see that last year £100,000 of public money was expended on summer courses for the teaching of Irish to National School teachers to befit them for the teaching of ordinary primary school subjects through the medium of Irish. He would also see that a very large sum relatively is set down in the present year's Estimates. Another Deputy has the temerity, as he calls it, to suggest that nature study or the study of botany might be introduced in the schools. Nature study is one of the great features of the National Schools. I should not be at all surprised if another Deputy proposed, as an extravagance for which he would apologise, that children ought to be taught how to read and write in the National Schools.

And shoot.

I am glad to know that Deputy O'Connell is quite satisfied with everything that is going on in Tyrone House.

I do not think I said that.

That is a free paraphrase of the words of commendation, with a little friendly pat on the back, with which he began his observations. Comparing last year's Estimates with this year's I find one very notable difference. In last year's Estimate there is an item "Resident Commissioners, £1,500 per annum," with the engaging footnote "This post is at present vacant." There is no reference to such an officer in the present year's issue, nor is there any footnote to explain why there is not. This post obviously has been abolished. The Dáil is told nothing as to that. Deputy Johnson is particularly fond of making references to Trade Unions in other spheres of life besides that in which he is more immediately interested. This appeals to me from the Trade Union point of view. Education is, or ought to be, a profession. As pursued in Ireland it is a profession very unlike Law or Medicine, in this respect at any rate, that there are very few plums. This office was the one educational plum in all Ireland, and now it has disappeared from the educational tree; like the fig tree of the Gospel, it is barren in the present year. I hope the Minister for Education will explain why, in the reorganising zeal that has seized hold of Tyrone House administration, this has been done away with. I know very well, at least I can surmise fairly well, what the answer will be. I can see from the Minister's note-taking that he considers I have delivered myself into his hands.

There is another item, too, in which the present year's Estimates excite one's curiosity when a comparison is instituted with the Estimates of last year. It is as regards the Inspectorate. Here again I have a private, or a semi-private, semi-public interest. A good many of the Inspectors of the National Board are graduates of the University and electors thereof. I have the honour, so has the Minister, to count many of them among my constituents. Their interests, therefore, are my interests. It seems to me some of them have a right to complain of an injustice. In, the days when they went through their University courses the same facilities for the learning of Irish were not forthcoming as to-day. When I was a schoolboy, very much against my own interest let me boast, I took as an intermediate subject the subject of Irish. Afterwards, when I came to the University College, Dublin, it was impossible to carry it on, and it was necessary to substitute German. German undoubtedly was a better paying item in the University programmes, and in some respects, perhaps many, I have no reason to regret it. At a later date I attempted to learn Irish again with a view to having a capacity for speaking it, but you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. I have not, unfortunately, the facility which I envy in Deputy McGoldrick and others. Let it be borne in mind that those Inspectors not only had not those facilities, but they were in an employment which viewed with a certain measure of disfavour the possession of such a qualification as a general gift or equipment on the part of its employees. It is only in very recent days the National Board, of happy memory, or pious memory perhaps would be more accurate, began to develop a more enlightened view with regard to the things that belong to the country in which it was placed. Some of those Inspectors find themselves in the position of being Senior Inspectors, but they have not a knowledge of Irish. Men very much their junior not in years, but in educational experience, and junior, above all, in educational qualifications, supersede them. There is no use in our pretending to be University representatives here and allowing it to go out to the public without question that, having undergone a University course, the possession of a University degree counts for nothing in educational matters, and should be counted for nothing to the possessor thereof in an educational position. Those men, in the interests of the Irish language, and no doubt in pursuance of a very desirable and worthy object, find themselves now depressed in position. They are allowed, I understand, the salary which they heretofore held, but they are lowered in status. Their duties are not quite those they discharged before. I think, therefore, while I am willing to take a fairly dispassionate view of what has been done, they are entitled to some compensation for the treatment they have received. Personally, if I were in their position—I make no secret of it—I would feel aggrieved even though I realised what had happened to me personally was for the general good, for the dissemination of the Irish language, for the bringing back of the Irish people to a sense of their own tradition, and to make the Irish people Irish.

The point upon which Deputy O'Connell touched was what I intended to speak of with more fulness, and that was the subject of the Training Colleges. I had the very great satisfaction of interviewing the chief officers of the Ministry of Education for several hours one day last week. My only regret was that the Minister for Education himself was not present, so that the whole Ministry could be bound. The Minister who is the chief offender is not here. Ministers have developed a habit of not being bound by undertakings. I heard one cynic remark, and I hope it is not unfair to repeat the remark, that he had given one hundred undertakings and he had forgotten what they were. The training colleges are the central thing in the mechanism of primary education. It is all very well to have compulsory education and bring your pupils into the schools. I hope to deal with that presently. It is all very well to have teachers with a certain modicum of knowledge and ability to teach, but the chief source from which you get your supply of efficient well-trained teachers, like the reservoirs of city waters, must need constant attention and constant surveying.

Now, in the Training Colleges I find very much need for reform as regards the relation to the central authority. In the first place, it will become necessary to calculate in the future the number of positions that are likely to be vacant in the schools, so that we shall not, as heretofore, spend the money of the Irish taxpayers on the training of teachers to be exported—the best of them—to Great Britain. Side by side with that we must secure the efficiency of the Training Colleges. I have urged upon the National Board and the new Ministry that the first requirement of the Educational Authority is that, no matter how few or how many students undergo training in the recognised Training College, so far as regards staff and equipment it must be up to certain requirements. It must fulfil certain conditions, no matter what these cost. Of course, when I say no matter what these cost, that is not to be taken literally. I mean that the primary consideration is to be the staffing. Heretofore the amount of income enjoyed by a Training College was dependent to a large degree on the number of students— that is to say, the payment was a system of capitation grants. That is largely done away with. What I would like to see is a grant-in-aid paid under certain heads, and to have allowances earmarked—so much for the maintenance of the students and so much for the upkeep of buildings and provision of equipment, and then, most important of all, so much for the remuneration of the staffs. A professorship in the Training College should provide a career for a scholar, for a man interested in education; but what is necessary to repeat, and keep repeating, that it may be borne in on the public mind, is that the best products of our University are competed for in every one of the great countries of Europe—by merchants and great manufacturing firms as well as by the professions.

If we are to keep the right sort of men, the best products of our University, for the work of education, we must be aided by the zeal and enthusiasm of the man himself for education that would give him a sort of religious fervour by virtue of which he would take a lower salary as a teacher than in another occupation. We must provide money enough to turn his thoughts in the direction of the educational career. There are men in the Training College—I have several of them vividly before my mind—who have been there for thirty or forty years, full-time professors in these institutions. One of them, in particular, is drawing near the time in which he must relinquish his position. He has no prospects, none whatever, of a pension, nor have his colleagues any money out of which to provide a fund to make even an attempt at a pension. That is not right. It is not fair that, while some who are in the service of the State and are called civil servants, have a steady income, increasing to a certain point, and the security of tenure plus the prospect of a pension, those others who are doing constructive work and productive work should be in a worse position. Then, after all, many of the professions of the world are parasitic. If social conditions were perfect there would be no need for these occupations.

There are two great productive occupations, that of the farmer and that of the teacher, and they are just the two worst paid occupations in the country at the present time. It was suggested by Deputy McGoldrick that too much money was being spent on primary education. That I contest, but I am inclined to agree with him that the country is not getting the full return and the beat results for its expenditure. Some members of the Farmers' Party, when this subject was last under discussion, gave me the impression of their idea of economies to be effected, and I half suspect there was something in the mind of Deputy McGoldrick to the same effect, if I misrepresent him I ask him to correct me, that the money could be saved by reducing the salaries that in recent days have become payable to primary school teachers. That is not the way to effect reforms. Farmers and various other people complain of the bad type of education. It was not education in many cases, it was not even instruction which their children received, and it was such as to condemn the whole so-called system of primary education. I agree, but why was it so bad? Why were those results so bad? Because of the type of teacher. The type of teacher was so bad, because of the miserable salaries that were paid. Anyone who had a character good enough to go into the R.I.C. put on the uniform; anyone who had brains went into the Customs, and the residue were available for National School teachers. That is a libel, no doubt, on a great many school teachers, but to a large extent it is a fairly accurate, broad description of the situation up to 20 or 30 years ago. The way to get the best return for this money is to make up your minds that you are going to tempt into the service of primary education men who are fit to do the work, and will do the work, and in order to make that sure you must pay them those salaries. The remedy is, as Deputy O'Connell and I suggested more than once in the Dáil, to get rid of these wretchedly small schools that cannot be properly staffed. Deputy Doctor White and Deputy McGoldrick did not see how that could be done. I pointed out how it could be done. I pointed it out many years ago, and it was taken up and adopted in Saskatchawan, and it has been working successfully for many years in Canada. This is one of the things in which the Deputies display their aloofness from the facts of life. Are there not such things as motor cars? Are there not such things as motor lorries? Has no one even seen a Crossley tender speeding through the streets at 45 miles an hour? Could not Crossley tenders, covered in, be employed in country districts, and, as I pointed out, bring children from the outlying parts dryshod, warm, and comfortable, to properly equipped schools?

Mental wrecks.

How does the collecting of them in motor cars make them mental wrecks? What are they but physical wrecks under the system that Deputy McGoldrick sees no way to escape from? Why is there so much tuberculosis in the country? Why is this country so notoriously consumptive? Why, largely because of the insanitary character of the schools in which the children pass the greater part of the day. We all know that perfectly well. We are not living in a fool's paradise, imagining some visitation of the gods on our people which could not be understood, and the causes of which could not be traced. We know perfectly well what a National School is like, aye, even in the city. Only a few weeks ago I went to see a Professor of Mathematics from whom. I learned Mathematics in the old days of University College demonstrating how children of six or seven years of age could easily be taught Arithmetic far beyond the stage that they are allowed to proceed to by the National Board when they are 10 years of age. I must confess that, although this is one of our good schools as schools go, it was most unwholesome. It was not ventilated, for example. Now, there are ever so many things crying for remedy, but they will cost money, and I do not believe—I have no hesitation in saying this—that the people of Ireland care a scintilla in their hearts about education properly understood, for if they did this sort of cry would not need to go up from Deputy O'Connell and others like him year after year. Why should they speak and never be heard? Let us get down to detail in our own particular environment here. The President, whom I congratulate on his being able to do it, conferred the favour on his constituents of a visit last Sunday. He gave them some elementary exercises in Couéism; he told them how, every day and in every way, we were getting stronger and stronger. The Minister for Education was there, and a little earlier in the Dáil, when electioneering had begun, and we were all keeping our eye upon the vote and the power of the country, and President Cosgrave's Fourteen Points, as I call them, he promised Bills, and no Bill in reward to education was on the list, and no voice in the crowd in Kilkenny asked him about education—not one——

They have too much of it down there.

It looks like it.

Of course, I know, as I said before, the answer that the Minister for Education will give. You may remember on one occasion when there was a vast crowd going into Barnum's Show, so that queues and queues illimitable were being kept outside, the manager determined on clearing the show without reducing the objects of interest, and he put up cards on which were the words "This way to the egress." On one of the exit doors was a label, "Egress," and perspiring crowds fought their way out through the egress, and the congestion was relieved. This Ministerial programme is a half-way to the egress. "You cannot do this and you cannot do that, because personally we will arrange the machinery for carrying out these reforms. Meanwhile vote."

I wish to say a word in favour of the reduction of schools. I think Deputy O'Connell's suggestion was misunderstood by at least one Deputy. He did not suggest that schools in sparsely populated areas should be abolished. What he said was that where there are two small schools together, one for boys and one for girls, they should be thrown into one. I think a good deal could be said for that, and it would not lead to expense, but to economy. I am in favour also of compulsory school attendance and of the abolition of present School Attendance Acts, which are a farce and a humbug. I am in favour of real compulsion in order to increase the attendance from the present disgraceful figure of 60 or 65 to 70 to the average in most European countries. But before that is done I think care should be taken to see that these schools are made sanitary. Some of the schools are a credit to the teachers. They are pretty inside and very well looked after on the outside, and they are very pleasant to visit, but some of the other schools are a disgrace. They are cheerless and cold in the winter time; they are like barns. I do not know how the children could look forward to spending any pleasant time in them. I shall be delighted to hear the Minister for Education had some scheme to promote comfort in these schools that are in a very bad condition, particularly when so much money is spent on them and on the whole system. It is unfortunate that some of those out-of-the-way schools should be in such a bad condition.

At this stage An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

I want to explain why we have too much education in Kilkenny, and why they were not very enthusiastic about it down there last Sunday. It is because the people of Kilkenny and the people of Ireland think that education is costing them too much —because they know that it is costing them more than any other people in the world. Are we the best educated people in the world? I do not think we are. We ought to be, because it is costing us more. It is costing us over £4,000,000 annually, and that is proportionately more than any other country pays for its education. I do not know what salary a First Grade teacher in our primary schools receives. I understand it is anything from £400 to £500. I want to know exactly what such a teacher receives, and I want to know what the First Grade female teacher receives. It is said that education here is bad because it is badly paid for, but I think, when I have done, I will have proved that teachers are better paid here than in any other country on the face of the globe Deputy Magennis talked about consumptive children. There may be consumptive children in the cities, but I think Deputy Magennis is making a great mistake if he talks about consumptive children in rural districts, even children who have to travel long distances. He probably was thinking of the city of Dublin, where they have only short distances to go. He is evidently not acquainted with the rural districts. England, I see, is crying out against the claims of the teachers.

The "Daily Mail."

Well, if the "Daily Mail" is a liar, you had better tell them so. You have plenty of time to do it.

Order. Do not address the Deputies on the other side.

England is crying out against these enormous salaries, which are higher on the average than in the learned professions. What is America paying its teachers? The American average is £137. The highest is in California, £218. New York comes next with £211. North Carolina is paying £61 to £63, and the average is about £137. What is our average?

What is it?

Well, I have to leave that for the Minister to answer. In France a first-class teacher gets £100. In Belgium he gets £122, with a pension of £70 after thirty years' service.

What is the date you are quoting at?

If all the Deputies will put their interruptions into a hat, I think I may be able to answer them at the end. Evidently the policy here is not to bring up the man in the street to a very high level of education. All our efforts are directed towards getting salaries for the teachers. I have not heard a word about better education for the children. Our education is costing us over £4,000,000 a year, or over £1 per head per annum.

Too much, for what we are getting. Is this country in a position to pay more for its education than any other country? What is the outlook for this nation? What is the burden it has to bear? Is it able to bear it? Is it richer than America? Is it able to face its problems better than America, and is it able to pay £400 a year to teachers when America pays £137? Are we a richer country than England or France, and are we a more progressive country than Belgium? Still, we pay three hundred per cent. more than these countries to our educational teachers. We have practically got rid of the landlord class, but now we are establishing what may be called the mental lords, the educational lords—another new system of aristocracy.

Aristocracy of intellect.

I know this is not very agreeable for some Deputies to hear.

It is delightful.

It is not, perhaps, of great interest to educational men in the Dáil, but it is certainly to the people outside—the plain people who have to pay rates and pay over £4,000,000 for education. These people will judge us later on, and I know where they will put the schoolmasters at the next election. We are not able to pay four million pounds for our education. We should come down to solid ground. We are paying too much. We are creating a new aristocracy, and I think that the days of aristocracy are gone.

Deputy Gorey has said that he is not speaking to the Dáil so much as to the people outside. I think it is well that it should not go out that even Deputy Gorey is speaking the voice of the agriculturists, though he does speak as spokesman of the Farmers' Party in the Dáil. I think it is not fair to the farmers that he should be the exponent of views such as he has expressed in the name of the farmers, because that speech will not only be circulated in Ireland, but it will go to America, Belgium, Denmark, France, and Australia, and will be circulated as the authentic view of the farmers upon education.

I am not giving views, but facts and figures.

The facts, according to Deputy Gorey, are that the Irish people are not willing to pay over one pound per head for education, and that too much is being paid for the education of the children of Ireland. These are the alleged facts, according to Deputy Gorey, and his argument runs, that the cost of education must be cut down so that the quality of education should be raised. I submit that the views expressed by Deputy Professor Magennis are far more the views of the people that Deputy Gorey represents than are the views expressed by Deputy Gorey. I refuse to believe that the agriculturists are not in favour of spending one pound per head of the population for the education of the children of the agricultural community. As Deputy O'Connell has said, the great majority of the children coming under this Vote are the sons and daughters of agriculturists. It is quite good to hear the advocacy that better results ought to be obtained for the money expended. I support that heartily, but you are not going to get better results by reducing payment of the teacher, and I say, without having the details before me, it is not true that Ireland is paying more for education than any other country. It is probably far from being true. Deputy Gorey is advocating by inference—I take it this is his meaning—that instead of the cost for educating the children of the agriculturist falling upon the State, that a similar proportion, as is paid in other countries, should fall on the local rates. Is that what Deputy Gorey is advocating, and is he prepared to say that the same amount of money per head should be spent on education as in America, and as in Scotland? If Deputy Gorey will say that he advocates that as much money per head should be spent in Ireland as is spent in America or Scotland, then I will think that his views are valuable, and that he is a worthy advocate of the views of the farmers of the country. Deputy Gorey asks you to believe that the teachers in North Carolina are paid from £61 to £63 per year. A few weeks ago some Deputy was talking about the cost of bricklaying, and we heard since that date that bricklayers in America are paid £12, £14, and £16 a week. I wonder whether he is serious in suggesting that in America, a country of high wages and high salaries, teachers are only receiving £61 per year. It is preposterous, and it is not worth one moment's consideration, because it cannot be true. The cost of teaching in Ireland is not as great for teachers as the cost of teaching in America, in Scotland, or in England. It is also not true to say that Deputy O'Connell, in raising this matter to-day, has dealt with the question from the point of view of the payment for teachers. He has said, and the Teachers' Organisation said a few weeks' ago, "we are glad to be able to free ourselves from the burden of always having to try for reasonable conditions. We can now devote ourselves to problems of education and the administration of the educational system." That is what Deputy O'Connell has raised to-day. That is what Deputy Magennis spoke about to-day, and Deputy Gorey is wrong in misleading the Dáil and the country when he says that we have come here to advocate higher salaries for teachers. The interest of the teachers, so far as I am able to understand them, and I have been in close touch with them, is distinctly for an improvement in the educational system, an improvement in opportunities of imparting education, and insisting upon children of the country attending courses so that they can be better educated. It is the sons and daughters of the farmers and the townsmen, the men and women that Deputy Gorey and I speak for, who are at fault, and the parents who are at fault in not insisting that their children shall attend school regularly. It is not the fault of the teacher in this instance, and all educationists are asking that some steps shall be taken to ensure that the children shall be obliged to attend school a reasonable number of days per year, so that they shall get some advantage out of the education the Dáil is prepared to pay for. I wonder whether we are very clear in our minds of what is the test of a successful educational system. There are complaints, and they have been almost universal, that the children coming away from school at 12, 13, 14, 15 years of age are not fit to receive the education that they ought then be ready to receive, and that too much attention is paid to pumping in facts, pumping into the minds of children information. I am afraid that the doctrines of educationists would lead to the economists of the Dáil saying that education would cost too much. We cannot afford it because, they would say, that the first years of education, the first years of schooling, ought really to be to prepare children to receive education rather than to impart knowledge and information. It is only after the primary school course has been completed that the charges for education proper should begin. I can see in the future a necessity for keeping boys and girls at school for a very much longer time than the average child to-day is kept at school. Until they have left the primary school the real education courses will not begin. Then we shall be pleased to hear Deputy Gorey on the question of cost.

I think it is nearly thirty years ago since I heard men talking in the strain that Deputy McGoldrick talked in to-day —that education then being imparted to the children was not anything like as good as it had been twenty years before. The good old days were always good. When we were boys things were always better than they are now. I do not think there is very much substance in the complaint of Deputy McGoldrick that with the increased cost of education the quality has deteriorated. I think that is not correct, while at the same time I believe that there is a very great deal of room for improvement in real education.

I would like to hear the Minister, in his reply, outline to us the plans and policies of the Education Department respecting a curriculum under which the educational future will be carried on. I should like him to state whether the children are to be educated directly and ostensibly for commercial life or agricultural life; whether the idea is to impart information and to make boys and girls efficient at the end of eight years' tuition for the battle or life, or whether the educational ideals are to be that the primary school is to prepare the children for the educational tasks of the years of puberty. I am hoping that before many years we shall see through this country the idea spreading that all boys and girls are expected to attend school regularly until they are about eighteen years of age, that that will be the normal course, and that there will be no leaving school at twelve, thirteen, or fourteen years of age, but that we shall normally expect that boys and girls will attend school, say, up to eighteen years of age. There will be opportunities during the last four years for devoting time to training, to actual operative work which will be useful and perhaps self-supporting. It ought to be, I think, the normal view that a boy going to school at five or six years of age is entering a course which will not finish until he is eighteen, and in most cases one would hope that, in another capacity, would not finish for fifty years. Deputy O'Connell spoke of the desirability of enlarging schools, and he was misunderstood, I hope and believe, by one Deputy, who thought that he was advocating the abolition of the small schools without qualification. I want to say here that I have been converted from the idea of large central schools—which are, no doubt, more efficient, taking one view, and more economical than small schools —to the idea of comparatively small schools of not more than 150 to 200 children at the outside—perhaps 100 would be enough—under capable teachers and masters and mistresses, who would be able to have a personal knowledge of all the children. The most successful educational reformer in Great Britain is a Scotch lady, who revolutionised the educational system in Bradford years ago, and is now doing the same thing for London, Miss Margaret McMillan, not very well known, perhaps, in many spheres, but undoubtedly the most effective reformer in education that at present lives in Great Britain. Her work has not been in the work of education directly, but in the work of reforming school methods, administration, health, hygiene, etc. She said some years ago that we in Ireland were exceptionally fortunate in not having to undo all the work that had been done for the last generation in England. They had gone on the wrong lines in centralising. We were able to begin our reforms without having to undo the errors at tremendous cost of the British educational system. I think that we are well off in that respect. The schools here are not over-centralised. They are not too big, and if we can make even the present buildings hygienic and improve them to some degree, pending the time when we shall have really well-thought-out plans for future development, it will be a great benefit, especially if we can couple the idea of the small schools with the idea of the master or mistress who is in close personal touch, having a proper authority and control over all the children under his or her charge. The question of the hygienic surroundings of schools is very important. I have heard of schools in the City of Dublin and round about the City of Dublin that are disgraceful from that point of view. Inside the schools may be all that is required, while outside the schools the surroundings are everything that should not be—dirt, filth, bad sewerage—matters that ought to come under the inspection of the Public Health authorities, but have not. I think, perhaps, almost before we institute a system of medical inspection of school children, we ought to institute the medical inspection of schools. Again I want to say that the Deputy who raised this question in the first instance is emphatically not asking the Dáil to increase the payment of school teachers. The aim of the teachers to-day is to give the best value in education for the payment they receive, and they ask that the Ministry, supported by the Dáil, will organise the system in such a way that they can give of their best to the children for the benefit of the education of the country.

I think it would be unfortunate if any publicity were given to the figures quoted here to-day by Deputy Gorey, or if they were to be assumed at all to have any kind of accuracy or authenticity. I have had some experience in working through statistics, and I say from a first glance at them, as well as from the manner of their presentation, that I would venture to take a wager that if they were examined not one of these figures quoted by him here is correct. The circumstances vary in all countries. In the first place, we have not stated what should be stated in regard to them, and that is the date with which they deal. On this I venture to say that if inquiry were made it would prove that the figures are from dates that have long gone by, conditions that are no longer applicable to the world to-day. In certain countries the amount of money contributed by the State is merely supplementary to the monies contributed by local bodies. If, therefore, the money contributed by the State were to be taken as the figure quoted here it would prove but to be a moiety of the entire figure, perhaps only a small fraction of the entire figure. All these things have to be taken into consideration, and it would be very unfortunate if the people of this country were to have put before them the thought that £1 per head is being paid in Ireland while other countries are getting away with something very much less, which is probably not the case at all. One figure he quoted was that of California. In California at the present moment the educational results are extremely high. They are extremely high, Deputy Gorey will be interested to hear, in the farming community.

I expected that.

Not one farmer in California, according to information I gathered not very long since sent me from that State, who is dairy farming is permitted to conduct his dairy farming without keeping his costings completely throughout the whole of his farming economy. That was a system that was not merely enforced upon the farmers, but required and demanded by them. That was the result of education, and education not merely in the production of costing figures, but something much deeper, something much more fundamental primarily than that. It was the desire for the efficiency that a true national system of education can alone inculcate. We have heard it often stated on platforms and in many anxious statements that we were some time ago an island of saints and scholars. That was a very long time ago, I think. We have learned more about ourselves since.

We are still saints.

We are still saints, says Deputy Magennis, although I doubt that, but we are certainly not scholars. We have learned much, and one of the benefits that we have received from the past eighteen months of trouble in this country has been this, among many evils, that it has disillusioned us as to our virtues, and that is a very excellent lesson for any nation to have learned. Having come to that recognition, the second recognition required is that whatever moneys are necessary in order to rectify that state of affairs are not merely moneys that ought to be spent, but are moneys that economically will pay this nation time and time again I do not put it merely upon that ground. There are higher virtues to be achieved as results of education than merely the benefits that they will yield us in the more efficient methods of business. But they will incidentally have that advantage of giving these benefits, and they are benefits that are required in this country and very badly needed in this country. There is no question, or there should be no question, by any person as to the moneys required for this benefit. It is far more to the point that one should ask the Minister, when answering, to deal somewhat with the necessity for the statement of a plan. This was raised on the previous Estimates. It arises very acutely on the present Estimates. We need the matter put into one simple national plan. It is not good, for example, that we should have put before us public education as one item, Intermediate education as another item, Universities and Colleges as a third item. They are all education, and they should be dealt with completely as one part of a co-ordinated system. It was for this Deputy O'Connell was appealing, and in making that appeal he made reference to the debates that took place earlier in the Dáil, in which the Minister stated that these matters would receive attention by him and his Department, so that some plan should be put before it. It is not right that we should continue without such a system, without such an Educational Bill being brought before the Legislature at the very earliest possible moment. Already in the Six Counties Parliament this matter has received attention. I am not going into any details of the scheme there, which has been subjected to a great deal of criticism on many grounds; but in any case, whatever the criticism may be, and whatever justification there may be either in the criticism or in the rebutting of the criticism, the fact, nevertheless, remains that there, amid all the tasks of undertaking a new State, such as we have undertaken, they have gone into the question of recasting the educational system in the Six Counties. If they found it necessary there purely and simply for commercial ends and for the utmost advantage to be gained, reckoning even in terms of pounds, shillings, and pence in the ultimate resort, although not wholly that, then it is a matter we ought to give attention to. I have risen primarily with a view to stating two things. One is that the money that we are paying as a nation is not more than is being paid by other countries, and if adequate figures were to be placed here—tested figures—that would be revealed. Secondly, to urge that this be the last occasion in which Estimates will be brought before this Dáil or before any subsequent Dáil under which education will be arranged in three different departments, but that it should be placed under one head as part of a single co-ordinated scheme.

I think we are very much indebted to Deputy Gorey. He is a great wag. He has succeeded in getting himself pulverised by one after another of our great men, who took him perfectly seriously. Of course, the truth is Deputy Gorey is a wild enthusiast for education.

But he does not know it.

Only the fear of being carried away by his enthusiasm made him do it. Of course, no one would give the figures Deputy Gorey gave and mean them seriously. He mentioned this country and that country, and gave figures in pounds sterling. The pound sterling in America is worth less than the pound sterling here. The pound sterling in France is worth double what it is worth here. On £4 a week in Germany you would be a millionaire every week. It is obviously quite impossible to draw any conclusions. To put it in another way, you can prove anything you like if you are going to make comparisons of that kind in pounds sterling with countries where the pound sterling means a totally different thing. It does occur to me, in view of the statements that were made, that it would be useful if we could have a statistical comparison, not in pounds sterling, but of the proportion paid in several foreign countries for such items as police, army, and other public services, in comparison with education. The proportion per head would be the real test.

Including local expenditure.

Certainly. That would be taken into account. We would then have a proper comparison of what a certain foreign country pays for education and what we pay. However, I think I can leave the remnant of Deputy Gorey to the tender mercies of the Minister for Education. I have very considerable sympathy with the Minister for Education. The defect of the present arrangement is that the Minister is a member of the Executive. The Minister is tied hand and foot by being a member of the Executive. The present Minister for Education is a great Gael and a great scholar, and people have been saying, and with justice, that if Eoin MacNeill does not give us the foundations of a true Irish education, no one will. I am looking forward to the Minister's speech, so that he will tell us what he has been doing to give us that foundation, because the country really does not know, and it ought to know, and would be enthused if it knew, the plans the Minister has been preparing. The fact of having the Minister for Education in the Executive is apt to take very seriously from the powers that the Minister could exercise. How far that may have been so up to the present stage I do not know. I mention the matter, and I think it necessary to be insistent on the point, that it should not happen again that the Minister for Education should be a member of the Executive. There were special reasons on this occasion, and perhaps it was unavoidable. The Dáil will see that if you have a distinguished Minister for Education with views of his own which he wants to carry out, that he is liable to be hampered at every turn by the Treasury officials. Nobody is going to suggest that our Finance Department has any wild enthusiasm for the Irish language. At all events it successfully conceals that wild enthusiasm if it is there. It is perfectly clear a Minister for Education who is a member of the Executive will not be able to fight the Finance Department on occasions that they ought to be fought as an independent Minister could. The Minister for Education, above all others, should be in the position of coming to the Dáil and saying, "My scheme is so and so," and defy the Finance Ministry to stand in his way. He ought to be able to come before the Dáil and lay his plans before it and get the Dáil to pronounce upon them. It is obvious that as long as the Minister is a member of the Executive he is not in a position to do that. Whether or not that has hampered the present Minister in any way it is obviously wrong that a Ministry which, above all others, ought to be independent of the Executive, should be, as at present, dependent upon it, and therefore, necessarily, to a large extent, under the lash of the Finance Department.

I hope that in his reply the Minister will tell us two particular things. First of all, many people in the country do not realise that the noblest profession, and the first profession, in the country is the teacher's profession, and it will be a wholesome thing when it is put forward from the Irish Government that the Irish Ministry consider and recognise that it is the first profession in the country, that butchers and bakers, doctors and lawyers, Ministers and Deputies, politicians, and all the rest come a long way after the profession that is going to educate the growing generation. It that be true, and if that view is taken, then obviously very considerable reforms will have to be made in the present arrangements in order to secure that you get the right men, and that you secure for them a comfortable livelihood. I am sure that is the Minister's view, and I would like him to let us know what he expects to do in that direction.

Secondly, as soon as the Minister has laid a good foundation, he will be the first to recognise that it is necessary to go a good deal further. Supposing a boy has been going to a primary school, where he has been taught through the medium of Irish in his early years, what provision is going to be made to enable that boy, on leaving that school, to continue his studies; what provision is going to be made for a clever boy to have the same opportunity as a rich boy of the same age, not merely to have the same opportunity of learning, but to have the same opportunity of learning through Irish as the medium of instruction. The same difficulty presents itself in the case of the secondary schools. There is not at the present moment, I speak under correction, a single secondary school in the country at which a boy could be brought up and receive his education through the Irish language, and not through the English language. Now, the people who have the language at heart consider that a very serious matter, because we are only playing with the language as long as we do not enable those who come from the primary schools to continue their education through Irish when they have been taught through Irish in the primary schools, and when we do not secure that parents who wish their children to grow up getting their tuition through the Irish language in secondary schools shall be able to do so. I should like the Minister to tell us that the State is willing and anxious to co-operate in the starting of a secondary school where this will be done. On the foundations which the Minister has laid, having carried his point so far against considerable opposition as I know, he will be doing extremely well if he can take this further step in respect of those in secondary schools who have come from the primary schools. Let him tell us that even though he is a member of the Executive, he is not going to allow any Treasury official to stand in his way.

Might I just once more take part in this discussion? It is a curious coincidence that in his speech Deputy Gorey should mention North Carolina at the same time as he announced that he was speaking, not to us, but to a public beyond those walls. Is Deputy Gorey aware that he is just a reincarnation of a famous character in history who added a word to the English language? The member for North Carolina held Congress for many hours on a speech of particular interest to the central town of his particular constituency, Bunkum, and when the House was melting away one by one, he said frankly and candidly to the remainder, "You may go if you like, I am merely speaking for Bunkum." I am glad to see that Deputy Gavan Duffy takes the same estimate of the speech as the historical parallel would suggest. There are two things that must not be lost sight of, and even those who are deeply interested in primary education do occasionally forget it. There is the damnosa haereditas. These are two dreadful inflictions upon the primary school system that belong to our past. One is that while we complained of over-taxation at the hands of the Imperial Government, we refused resolutely to come to the aid of primary education by granting money from the rates. We said, “We are overtaxed. The country is bled year after year for the Empire, and we will not take it back out of the British Treasury in promises of grants for education, and we will not put another penny on the rates in aid of education.” The result is that we have here to-day a system by which the public, more particularly in the non-urban areas, are wholly unaware that the provision of educational facilities for the children is a part of their duty. They have come to regard the school as they regard the dispensary and the workhouse—as a kind of thing that was there and will be there, and that somehow is no great concern of theirs except when the hour strikes for them to make use of it.

Now, we will have to interest our people in education, and one way in which you can make them interested in it is to let them know that they are paying for it. Once a citizen realises that he is paying for a public service he will take a livelier, a better, and a saner interest in it, and I think this is one form in which our activities might direct themselves. The other evil thing which we have inherited is the multiplication of small schools, not in the interests of sparsely populated districts, but in another interest altogether. I am going to speak very candidly about this matter. A friend of mine was driving to the station in Portadown, and asked the driver. "What is that building over there?" The answer was "That is the Auld Licht Meeting House," and, pointing to another building, he said "That is the New Licht Meeting House." On turning the corner the driver, pointing to another building, said "That is the Methody," and as they went on he said "There is the Papish Church," and finally he pointed to what he described as the Church of Ireland. My friend said "What a religious people you are," and the answer of the driver was, "It is not religion, it is just spite." Now, mutatis mutandis, that applies to the multiplication of certain schools. You have a miserable little hovel, and, under the pretence of undenominational primary education, the pupils attending it are exclusively of one sect and the teachers are of the one sect. Within a hundred yards of it there is another equally miserable hovel, a triumph of the same narrow prejudice, and the country has to pay for that. I have a sneaking sympathy with Deputy Gorey and with the Farmers' Party when they complain that they are not getting value for all that is expended on education. I know that they are not, but one of the reasons is because they and others like them will not take an interest in education. They regard the schools for the most part as a place to which children have to go, a sort of Purgatory for children, a place where some souls suffer for a time before they can get released.

I was told by a member of the Farmers' Party that the Union was seriously considering circularising the graduates of the University, who are the sons of farmers, to vote against me at the next election because I had spoken irreverently of them. I am glad to know that I have had so much effect, and that I made an impression on their consciences. There is no doubt about this, and the country has to remember it, that if the Farmers' Party comes into power we shall have the guillotine descending upon all those public services that go towards Nation building.

That is a lie.

Order, Order. The Deputy must withdraw that remark.

I am delighted that he should call it a lie.

The Deputy must withdraw the remark he made.

I have said what I have said, but I withdraw it. It was a foul statement.

I am delighted to have that very emphatic disclaimer from the Leader of the Farmers' Party. Now we have a serious contribution to the debate from that quarter, that they have no intention to cut down the allowances for these valuable public services. Therefore it was bunkum, electioneering bunkum. My case is proved.

I just want to say a few words, although I did not think I would be coming on so soon again. I hope the Minister for Education will not forget to give these figures that I asked for of the first class and second class teachers, male and female. As these figures are questioned so much, I may say that they are not my figures at all, they are figures which come from outside; they are the figures of the "Daily Mail."

So you had to go to the "Daily Mail"?

They are figures from the "Daily Mail." I dare say the "Morning Post" or the "Sunday Times" would be more in your line. Perhaps Deputy Figgis could give us a line on that. Perhaps these people would be able to answer their own figures, but according to them, these figures are taken from a publication called "The Schoolmaster," which is the organ of the National Union of Teachers, and they have reckoned the dollar at the current rate of exchange, and dealt with the whole matter.

I think it would be very instructive for the Dáil, and those interested in this subject generally, if the Minister for Education would also be good enough to construct tables which will enable us to gather from them what amount of money can be set free for spending upon education, in these departments, and in others, if the points to which Deputy O'Connell has drawn attention were secured. If I understood him correctly, he referred originally to this point, which Deputy Magennis has just now alluded to, that is, the establishment of a number of schools in a limited area, all serving very much the same purpose, and where the work that they have to do could be done in many cases better and certainly equally as well by one good school. I do not think that Deputy O'Connell was properly understood. He was referring to the difficulty we shall always have with us in particular areas, that is, of having a number of small schools in sparsely populated districts. It is a difficulty that is with us and lies with us very largely, and will have to be overcome, and we shall, I hope, be able to overcome it. I know there is the difficulty in securing that proper attention shall be paid to each religious denominational interest. I for one do not wish, in any way, that this State should secularise Primary Education, but I do not think the difficulty's insuperable without our falling into that error, as I believe it would be, of secularisation. I think that all interests can be secured without our being as extravagant as I think we are in this matter of the number of small schools. I do not think that there is the slightest danger of our falling into the over centralisation to which Deputy Johnson wisely alluded, but without that we could save, I believe, a very large sum of money indeed if we set about putting together and amalgamating in populous districts the many very small or comparatively small schools.

I hope, as I began by saying, that the Minister for Education will get tables made showing where such amalgamation would be possible, and showing the amount of money that would be set free if that amalgamation was carried out. And if we set ourselves to secure that amalgamation without interfering with the religious education of the children in the slightest, and without interfering with the different denominational interests, I believe we could secure a solution and save a very large sum of money indeed, and also do what Deputy Gorey really wants, and that is, give the farmers very much better value for their money and help to keep the children in the schools a very much longer time than at present. Of course, he does not get value for his money if he leaves school at 11 or 12 years of age. That is one of the things I want to prevent; it was one of the things alluded to by Deputy O'Connell, with which I entirely agree. I think if the Dáil had these figures that I suggest, not alone would the Dáil be surprised, but every one of us; the Minister for Education himself would be surprised.

There are one or two matters arising out of what has been said that I would like to refer to. Deputy McGoldrick, early in the debate, referred to the Macpherson Bill, and his references to that Bill lead me to think that he was under as great a misapprehension in regard to that Bill as he apparently proved himself to be in regard to what is being done in the schools. The facts briefly about the Macpherson Bill are that there was not one word from beginning to end of it about the salaries of teachers or about making provision for the salaries of teachers. It makes no provision for better salaries for teachers, and further, it was based upon two reports by two special committees set up by the Government of the time and composed entirely of Irishmen. One of these committees was presided over by Lord Killanin, and it dealt largely with the primary education side, and the other was a Committee that dealt with intermediate education and was presided over by Lord Chief Justice Moloney. In the Bill there was not a single provision which was not to be found in one or other of the reports of these two Committees. The Bill was introduced, and because some people saw, or pretended to see, something in it which was inimical to their particular interests advantage was taken of the time and the special circumstances of the time to get up a series of machined resolutions by Boards of Guardians and District Councils which themselves at that time were not representative of the country, and this was the cry to which Deputy McGoldrick referred when he says that the country cried out to the representatives of the teaching bodies not to have anything to do with that particular measure. Now, if that particular measure were adopted, there would be no need to stand up here and ask that a special Act should be brought in for education and to co-ordinate the several educational departments, because that would have been done.

All that would have been necessary would be to change the people at the top. Machinery would have been there, and it would be the duty of the Dáil to make the machinery which that particular Bill proposes to make. It is quite clear that Deputy McGoldrick, the same as a great many other people in the country, does not know what was in the Bill. I doubt very much if he ever read it. Deputy Gorey said many things to which I do not propose to refer now. They have already been dealt with. He was at great pains to show that we spent more on education than is spent in any other country. I was not surprised at that coming from Deputy Gorey. I was rather surprised to see an inclination on the part of other Deputies to disprove that fact. It is not so, unfortunately but if it were so, it would be something not to complain of, but to boast of. I would certainly be proud to say as an Irishman that this country was spending more on education than any other country. I would be prouder to say that than to say the same thing about the Army or any other service. If it were so it would be one of the surest signs of——

Civilisation. It would be a sure sign of civilisation if the country was paying so much attention to what made for progress. There is another matter he referred to, which led me to think he has not that wide knowledge of rural conditions that one would expect from him. I refer to what he said with regard to the prevalence of consumption in rural districts. He may be fortunate in the rural district from which he comes, if the facts are as he states. I do know that in many rural districts, in the West of Ireland especially, the disease of consumption is prevalent, and it is due in many cases to bad housing and to the poor conditions under which the people live, and it is helped to a very considerable extent by the school buildings in which the children spend a very great portion of their early life, a fact to which Deputy Magennis has referred. It is a fallacy and quite wrong to think that this dread disease is confined entirely to the towns and cities. That is not the case. I happen to know that the party of which Deputy Gorey is such a distinguished leader, has been very active in my constituency lately, and the first plank in their platform, as they repeatedly declare, is education. It is only to-day we have a definite declaration, in a rather indirect way, through Deputy Magennis, that this programme with reference to education does not include in any way the cutting down of the amount now spent in very necessary services.

We would spend it in a very different way.

at this stage resumed the chair.

Deputy Gorey has stated, and I desire to differ from him, that there is too much education and too much money spent on education in this country. He shows his lack of education as a public representative by admitting he has no knowledge of the actual conditions under which teachers work and the salaries paid to them. If he is anxious to discharge his public duties in a responsible manner, he should have all the information at his disposal, which he asks the Minister to supply. The Dáil is asked to vote, and has already made provision for, an expenditure of fortyseven millions for the current year. Reducing that expenditure to so much per head per family for each week it works out at six shillings for the Army, six shillings for compensation, one shilling for Police and Prisons, two shillings and sixpence for education, two shillings for Old Age Pensions, and for other items, including provision for Deputy Gorey's salary of £360 a year, seven and sixpence. That is how the expenditure of forty-seven millions is charged per head per family per week. Deputy Gorey is asked to make provision in that Estimate for the education of his family and the families of other people to the extent of two shillings and sixpence per week, and he makes out that is too much. He himself is prepared, and silently prepared, to pass an Estimate for six shillings per head a week to cover the Army expenses. He knows quite well, if he has only the courage to admit it that the six shillings a week, covering the expenditure per family for the Army, could be cut down in many ways. From his own personal knowledge I am sure he will admit it will cost him more to keep an Irish terrier than it would to make a two shillings and sixpence a week provision for the education of his family.

It would all depend on whether he is well-bred or not. Mongrels eat too much.

When speaking in the country, Deputy Gorey makes a good deal of electioneering propaganda out of the £360 a year which members of the Dáil are being paid. I think I am stating a fact when I say that Deputy Gorey's party was represented on the Committee that made provision for that salary, and that Deputy Gorey voted for the salaries. When he is in the country doing a stunt for the Farmers' Union, it is a different story. He would make it appear he has no responsibility for that item. If he will only realise that the average salary of the Secondary Teachers in Ireland is £180 a year, I think the bottom falls out of his empty tin can.

Tar éis an t-am atá caitte ag na Teachtaí a tabhairt freagra dá chéile is dóigh liom nac gádh domh-sa freagra a thabhairt d'aoinne anois. Maidir leis an cheist a chuir Cathal O Seanáin orm, is fior é go deachaidh roinnt airgid chigire éigin amú. Níl neart agam-sa ar sin agus níl eolas ceart agam ar an sgéal. Má chuireann sé cúntas chugam deunfaidh mé mo dhicheall ar a shon. Acht ní mise atá freagrach ar an cheist seo.

Mar gheall ar an ceisteanna eile, tig liom a rádh mar adubhairt Padraic mag Uailraig cupla noimeat ó shoin. —"An rud a bhi le rádh agam tá sé ráidhte." Do labhair na Teachtai eile as Beurla agus, mar gheall ar sin, is dóca go gcaithfidh mé iad a fhreagairt 'san teanga ceudhna. Ag éisteacht leo samhluigheadh dom nar amhare móran achu i leabhar na meastachán. Do chuir siad síos ar gach cheist a bhaineas le oideachas acht amháin ar na nidhte ar a bhfhuil cúntas 'san leabhar san. Do réir na ceisteanna a chuir siad orm, budh mhaith leo cainnt a chluinsint uaim-sa ar an nós ceudhna.

Tá tuarasdal an Aire ins an leabhar meastachán so agus bhi cead ag na Teachtai labhairt ar na cheisteanna sin.

Nílim a` faghail locht orra ar chor ar bith. Dubhairt Tomás Ó Conaill nac raibh na figiúri 'san áit ceart. Bhál, ni raibh acht tri áiteacha agam agus b'éigin dom mo thuarasdal féin agus tuarasdal na n-daoini atá a' cuidiú liom a chur sios in áit éigin. Is beag is fiú an meid atá `ga chaitheamh ar oideachas san tír seo-tuarim £3,000,000 ar fád.

It would be really quite impossible, and I do not think proper for me, to undertake to follow the different Deputies to the heights to which they have flown and to the depths to which they have dived during this debate. A large part of the time during which the discussion has lasted has been passed by the Deputies apparently to their mutual enjoyment in answering each other.

Taking up the various points that have been raised in detail, I am sure I quite regret as much as anyone, that the Ministries Bill is not in a forward state. I think everyone here understands the reason, and that it is not because of culpable delay on their part. One crucial question that much has been said about, and I think said properly, is the general question of school attendance. I gave certain views of my own at the time that question was last debated here. I do not want to repeat them now. I think the Deputies might have spoken even more strongly on that point. Deputy Figgis said we have been disillusioned lately as to our virtues. I hope that applies to himself as well as to the rest of us. Well, we certainly have fallen very far from any reputation that we ever had as a people who were lovers of learning.

With regard to that particular matter of school attendance, it is not only that there are so many parents in Ireland who think it no shame to inflict the most cruel and permanent injury and injustice on their children, but what, perhaps, is stranger still that those parents who act in that shameful way, are surrounded by a tolerent public who do not make the lives of people who treat their children like that, intolerable, who do not burn the shame of this treatment of the children into them. They take them away, interrupt their attendance at school while they are allowed to attend there, and then take them away from school at an age at which they could not possibly have got anything like a reasonable benefit out of education. I said, when speaking on this question before, that there is a great deal to be done by those who feel strongly, and we all ought to feel strongly on that point, in expressing their opinions face to face with the public on every possible opportunity of representing the right view of those things, and waking up public opinion. It is not vicious, we know it is not vicious in itself; it is torpid, dormant. For my own part I do hold, and, I think, I will continue to hold, that it is far more desirable that reforms of that kind should be carried out by the people locally, and by force of public opinion, than by allowing the arm of the State to stretch out from an office here in Dublin and come down upon the delinquent parents. It may be a fad of mine, but it is a fad that is fixed firmly in my mind, by such knowledge as I have been able to acquire of public affairs in this country and in other countries. One of the diseases of the present time is too much Stateism, and I for one am reluctant, I admit, to see the central power of the State expressly exercised in penal provisions for the purpose of bringing about reforms which it ought to be possible to bring about otherwise. On the other hand, if the conduct of parents amounts to real criminality, I do not see why the State should hesitate to punish them any more than others who are really criminal. On the question of the amalgamation of the schools I must say it would be information to me, as Deputy Thrift suggested, if we could have some statistics—and I admit that I have not— as to how far amalgamation would be possible, and what saving would be effected thereby. If there were amalgamation it would be necessary to arrange transport to bring children from a distance to the school. In that case, I doubt, as matters stand, if a saving would in all cases be effected.

Another class of amalgamation mentioned by Deputy O'Connell is the amalgamation of boys' and girls' schools. He said in some places this was accepted and in other places rejected.

He said that the two things cannot be right. I do not take that view; I think that the two things can be right, and there is no reason why they should not be right. There is no principle that teaches me that two things that are different from each other cannot be right. It is a difficult and a delicate question and it is not one, I think, in which a person in my position, or any person holding a public or official position, should venture to lay down the law. If people hold either directly themselves, or hold by those whom they regard as qualified to advise them, on questions of this kind, that amalgamation in that way is undesirable, well, then, that becomes a question of conscience, or something bordering on a matter of conscience, and I must say that Governments ought to hesitate before they would attempt to override the opinions that are entertained on matters of that kind. The same, of course, applies with regard to the question of amalgamating schools belonging to different religious denominations. Regarding the understaffing of schools, I think that such schools must be exceptionally small in number. In general, my experience is that the tendency is that as soon as the school is qualified for an addition to its staff the addition is looked for. I think that is the general tendency, and the number of under-staffed schools must be, I should say, a very small percentage. I must again profess to have no particular knowledge on that point, and there I may say, parenthetically, that I am at a tremendous disadvantage compared with quite a number of the Deputies who spoke, and who spoke with a great deal of educational authority and experience, I, unfortunately, not being an educational authority nor an educational expert, except in a purely political sense. There are many of these things that I have to learn, and perhaps it might be an excuse for me that I have waited and that I have been several months trying to learn some of these things before I tried to change the course of events.

I cannot venture to outline here any large proposals with regard to educational reform. I do not think that educational reform would require very much in the way of legislation, but that a great deal of it will be possible by means of ad ministration, and my object has been— and I hope it will be found that when I lay down the responsibility placed upon me—I have endeavoured to leave such provision behind, that the people, to whom we are all responsible, can rely on sound administrational progress and reform. Deputy Dr. White spoke about the adornment of schools, and would like to see schools better adorned in many cases. I think that is a very sound proposal. Of course, he did not mean to suggest for a moment that the Ministry of Education should commence adorning schools, I am sure, but had some other plan of adornment in his mind, and it occurs to me, as the matter has been mentioned, that the adornment of schools itself might prove to be a very useful work of education. Another suggestion which he made was with regard to outdoor teaching. I cannot say how far the bringing of classes out of doors in the summer time in the fine weather is practised in National schools. I know that it has been a very general practice in the summer colleges that were instituted in connection with the training of teachers to teach in Irish. Nearly always, when the weather allowed it, teaching in most of these colleges was, I think, done out of doors, and beyond all doubt was done far better out of doors than it could have been done indoors. I am not in a position to say how far that is done in ordinary primary schools. I am inclined to think that it is only to a very small extent.

Deputy McGoldrick suggested that the reason for causing Irish to be taught in all the schools was to lead up to the Gaelic State. I am sorry Deputy Figgis is not in his place. He is the only person that I know in this assembly who knows what the "Gaelic State" means For my part, I have not the slightest idea of what is meant by the "Gaelic State." If it means a political state of affairs that existed in Ireland a thousand or two thousand years ago, well, I will not follow either Deputy Figgis or Deputy McGoldrick in proposing to set it up again, not because such a state of things had not many admirable points and many virtues in its own time, but simply because a thousand or two thousand years have passed.

Better go back.

I did not take a note in order to get back on Deputy Magennis at the time that he suspected me of doing that. I do not intend to go into a nature-study lesson on this question that he raised about plums and figs. He lamented the unfruitful condition of the fig tree, and I suppose the only consolation I can give him on that point would be "from the fig tree learn" the parable, of which he knows the rest.

Now, the same Deputy made a rather strong complaint with regard to Inspectors, and the sum of this complaint was that certain Inspectors had been depressed because they had not certain qualifications with regard to the Irish language, and because, I think, as he suggested, that they had no opportunity to acquire such qualifications. Now, that has not happened. There has been no depression. If what is complained of is, that relatively other inspectors have been advanced, I could not admit either for my own department or for any other department of the public service the principle that there was a depression and grievance when men of particular merit for a particular purpose were advanced, and others were not advanced co-ordinately. That is really the sum and substance of the complaint.

Well, if there is anything more substantial in it, I would be very glad to look into it. There has been much bandying of discussion with regard to Deputy Gorey's statement about our Education Bill, amounting to close on £4,000,000. Deputy Duffy made some suggestions to which I have to take here the strongest objection. He gave no foundation for them at all, and they are without foundation. The Deputy suggested that I had been limited in the matter of educational expenditure by two factors, by my being a member of the Executive Council and by my having to fight the Finance Department. There is no foundation for that. The difficulty with regard to this Vote, and the difficulty with regard to every other Vote in which, like the Education Vote, the expenditure is or ought to be productive, is not that too much is being paid but that enough is not being paid; that is to say, that it is not with the Treasury the difficulty is, but with the revenue. The revenue is not there which would enable a larger expenditure to be made on education or any similar department. I have the present figure for salaries that were asked for by Deputy Gorey; they are— Men, £170 to £370; women, £155 to £300; in addition to that, in the case of principal teachers, there is a capitation allowance which depends on the school attendance. When Deputies speak of the large amount of this Vote, and the small value that the country, as they say, is getting for it, there is one thing that seems to be forgotten. Deputy Davin gave us some interesting figures, after looking at our present Estimates. I noted down two of those he quoted. One shilling, the assessment that is paid for police and prisons, and two and sixpence for education. What was the case three years ago, or five or ten years ago? If you look at the Estimates for these years, which were at that time under the control of the British Government you will find, instead of one shilling for police and prisons, and two and sixpence for education, you had one shilling for police and prisons and one shilling for education. I may say that the higher salaries for teachers have only been in existence since the year 1920.

They have been fully in operation only since 1922.

Yes. I cannot under the circumstances imagine how it is possible for anyone to say that the country is not getting value. The value that is going to come from the expenditure made last year or the year before no one is yet in a position to estimate. The children who came under education since that time have not yet had any opportunity of showing what value they are getting, or what value they are going to give. Still less, and it is far more important, the reaction of the salaries on the teaching profession could not be estimated this year or next or the year after, or until the improved rate of salaries has had an opportunity of operating on the supply and demand of teachers, and on the competition which naturally exists between the teaching and other professions. The same with regard to school attendance. The same with regard to what Deputy Professor Magennis has put before us on the subject of local rates. I suppose very few Deputies who do not represent something like a University constituency are prepared to carry the fiery cross out on to the hustings and the public meetings at present, and to advocate what has been done to a large extent by the Belfast Government, the placing of educational charges on the rates. At all events, I represent a University constituency, and I will have no difficulty at all in discussing that subject with my constituents, and I invite the other Deputies here all to discuss it as frankly with their own constituents as they would like to discuss it with me. It has been suggested to me that I should put before you schemes of education reform. Well, I do not think this is the right time to do it, and I did not come here to-day prepared to outline any large or general programme of educational reform. There are many lines and many points on which I would be glad to state generally my opinions on educational reform. I could echo, for example, Deputy Johnson's desire that everyone should be free to continue their education up to the age of eighteen years. There are many other ways in which it would be possible for me to outline my own ideas of educational reform. I am quite certain if I were now to launch out on half an hour's discourse on the ways in which, according to my notion, Irish education ought to be improved, it would not be very long until I should hear from some quarter a reminder that we were looking forward to a general election.

We will risk that.

I am not going to risk it on this occasion.

I would like to ask the Minister to deal with two small matters respecting the reply he gave to Deputy O'Connell touching on the question of compulsory attendance when he urged that it was a matter for local authority to be exercised. The contention is, and I wish him to take note of it with a view to action, that only a proportion of local authorities are prepared to exercise the powers which the permissive Act gives them, but everybody who has examined the question of the use of these powers admits that they are ineffective in bringing about the end for which they were designed. It is because of that unanimity that teachers, and all others who are interested in getting better value for the money spent on education, desire that there should be new legislative authority given to all local authorities to impose this obligation on parents to send children to school regularly. The smaller matter—perhaps I will not be thanked for saying that this is a small matter, but it is a detailed matter—to which I refer will be found on page 158, where a sum is shown of £3,416 for eight higher executive officers. I want to raise the question of how many of those are women, and whether women officers of this grade are treated equally with men officers. The question arises here perhaps more particularly because many of the teachers are women, and one may expect that a fair proportion of these higher executive officers will also be women provided that in their administrative work they prove themselves of equal capacity. One would wish to know whether in the case of the Education department women officers of that department have proved themselves of equal capacity to men, and have had the same opportunities of being appointed to these higher positions, and if so are they in receipt of a similar salary. On this question I would like to ask Ministers in general whether the position of women in these higher executive offices is the same to-day as in the past. Have the rights and privileges in the service of women relative to men been continued since the taking over of the administration by the Saorstát? I think it would be well if the Minister would state what are the facts in regard to his department, and whether the general principle which has been adopted by his department is applicable right through the service.

There is a special sub-head, H, on page 163, to which no reference has been made, and on which I would like to say a few words. Before doing so, I may be permitted to refer to one point raised by the Minister in his last speech on the question of amalgation of schools. In my opening remarks on this matter it appears that I did not make myself quite clear in pointing out that I did not refer to the closing of schools in sparsely populated districts. Schools will always be necessary in these districts. What I did refer to was the amalgamation of schools within easy reach of one another. On this question of joining boys' and girls' schools I would like to point out that there can be no question of principle or conscience involved. The Minister candidly confessed his lack of acquaintance with all the rules and regulations—they are very numerous—in his department. There is a regulation whereby boys' and girls' schools are amalgamated when the attendance drops to a certain figure—I think 35. All I claim is an extension of that figure. There is no principle involved. It is no longer a matter for discussion. I only ask that we should not be satisfied with merely amalgamating very small schools. It is a question of degree. As regards outdoor teaching, I can inform the Minister that it is practised in rural districts to a very great extent where opportunities offer. There are difficulties in the way as regards staffing. Where one teacher is responsible for one group it can be done easily, but in smaller schools one teacher is responsible for two or three groups, and it is impossible to have them profitably engaged out of doors. I am glad to see that the Minister for Finance has just come in, because the matter to which I am going to refer is, I believe, more under his control than under the control of the Minister for Education. I refer to the question of pensions for teachers. There is one particular aspect of this question which requires special consideration. I refer to the provision of extra allowances for teachers who retired some years ago. The history of this is rather interesting. When the Provisional Government took over control of education immediately after the signing of the Treaty one of the very first things which the then Minister for Education took up was this question of making provision for teachers who retired some years ago, and who were trying to exist on a miserable pension. After some consultation with the late Minister for Finance, General Collins, it was agreed that a certain sum would be set aside to make provision for these pensioned teachers. That was in May, 1922. We are now almost in June, 1923, and still there is no provision made to allocate that sum for these teachers. In the meantime a considerable number of them have died, and it looks, if we continue long enough with this delay, that the matter will automatically settle itself because all those entitled will have disappeared.

I got some figures a few weeks ago from the Minister with regard to those teachers, and I think it will be sufficient for me to quote them to show how urgent the problem is. There are 225 of these teachers who retired before 1920 having pensions of £20 per annum. There are 1,171 having pensions between £20 and £52 per annum. Between £52 and £100 there are 387. Of the total of 1,798 teachers who retired on pension before April, 1920, only 15 of them had a pension of over £100 per annum. One thousand three hundred and ninety six of them had less than a pound a week pension. I think it is only necessary to quote those figures to show how very urgent this problem is. I do press for some explanation of the extraordinary delay which has taken place. I do not know who is responsible for the delay in dealing with this matter, whether it is the Minister for Finance or the Law Department. It is down in one of the fourteen points of the President and a Bill is down to deal with it, but that is of very little use to those poor people who are looking forward for the past twelve months to have something done for them.

On the general question of the Teachers' Pension Fund I think it is well worth while that the Minister for Education in conjunction with the Minister for Finance should look into this fund, and see whether or not it would not be possible to put the matter on a new basis altogether. The teachers do not get their pensions, as other State paid services, out of the Consolidated or Central Fund. They got their pensions out of a special fund set up in 1879, and to which the teachers contribute four per cent. of their salaries. That should not be forgotten when comparing teachers' salaries here with those in other countries. This was a fund which was purely Irish money, and while we were under the control of the British, perhaps, it was advisable and right that this fund should be kept entirely separate, and not merged in a general Consolidated Fund, but it is questionable if the time has not come when the fund, as such, should be done away with altogether, and whether it should not be taken over as the Congested Districts Board fund and resources were taken over by the Government. At the same time, the Government would undertake the responsibility of finding the pensions out of the ordinary Vote each year. That would save a very great deal of complication between the adminstration, and I think it would be a benefit to the Exchequer itself. In connection with this claim I am making for the old pensioned teachers, this fund can easily bear the necessary payment, and I hope there will be no further delay in dealing with this matter. It is a question on which all parties in this Dáil will be agreed. It will in fact be carrying out the promise made by the late Minister for Finance. All that is apparently at issue is the question of the machinery by which the matter would be dealt with. On the question of pensions, it is well that the Dáil should know that there are some 3,000 teachers, whole time fully qualified teachers who get no pension at all because they are not on the pension list. There can be no reason why that should continue. It was part of the understanding when the salary agreement was arrived at some years ago that a new pension scheme would also be introduced. The change in the Government took place in the meantime, and nothing has been done to improve the general pensions and bring them into line with the pensions of other public services. While those who have a pension might be prepared to wait until better times should arrive it should surely be a matter for consideration whether those who have no pension whatsoever should not be taken into consideration, and put on the pension list just as other teachers are.

These Estimates for public education cannot be dealt with, it is obvious, exhaustively even in several sittings, and to attempt to deal with them in one, two, or even three speeches is like an undertaking to review the whole of the Encyclopaedia Brittannica in half a column article. There is one point I did not deal with yet which Deputy Johnson has raised from one point of view. Again I say candidly I have in view the interests of my constituents. Many of our graduates are women graduates who have obtained the highest honours in the University. Many of them have taken out diplomas in education, and are highly qualified in every professional way for teaching posts. Now, there are fifty Inspectorships in the National Education service. How many of those positions go to qualified women? I remember, at a meeting of the National Board, being horrified to discover the fraud, for it was nothing but a fraud, that was being perpetrated on a certain fraction of the public. There was an official advertisement calling for applications for Junior Inspectors and women Inspectors. When candidates had gone to the expense of printing their testimonials, and had gone to the trouble further of sending in their qualifications they were courteously invited to be interviewed by the Board. The whole thing was a mockery, because as I learned, it was predetermined that none of these women should be appointed because the high officials at that period said that women could not stand the racket of going round the country. Let us try to be equitable in those matters. There are hundreds of schools that are manned by women teachers. These women would not like women Inspectors. That has to be admitted. That is a very excellent reason why in the interest of public efficiency there should be women Inspectors to take control of those schools. Now just before the change of Government, as Deputy O'Connell euphemistically refers to it, but as I would prefer to say, just before the Provisional Government hamstrung the National Board with about five minutes notice, the Board was engaged in many admirable reforms. It had undergone a change of heart.

Death-bed repenttance.

It was drawing near the funeral. Some of the appointments it was about to make were in connection with vacancies in junior inspectorships, and the woman whose office, but not her name, I see in this list was on the very verge of appointment. Undoubtedly, her appointment would have been carried out at the next meeting of the Board, that meeting that never took place. The official of whom I am speaking was 13 years a professor in the Woman's Training College for national school teachers, and has rendered the most efficient service to the Board as organiser of kindergarten instruction, and that, I need hardly tell Deputies interested in education, is one of the most important and one of the most productive sides in the whole work of primary education. I ought to say, not that the official to whom I am referring was altogether, so far as I know, oblivious of my interest in the case, that I understand that in this reorganisation which is in process of performance, as referred to in a footnote, candidates for these offices are to undergo examination. I would put it to the Minister, is it right to demand that one who has been in the service of the Board so long, who has been in this position towards teachers of a professor in a training college, should have to go in for an examination on a heavy programme and compete with fresh graduates, those who have their whole time and all their energies free for the preparation, as contrasted with this official who has to go through the heavy work imposed by the office under the Ministry? Is it fair that she alone, of all the inspectors, should get promotion by undergoing this ordeal?

If you compare this year's list of the inspectorate with last year's, you will see some very striking promotions of men who were junior inspectors passing up until they are among the heads, and they were not asked to undergo examinations or to compete. Any of us who are in the educational life are well aware that we could not successfully compete with our own students. I should certainly not be foolish enough to enter for a prize in an M.A. examination with any of my own graduates, because I should, undoubtedly, be beaten in the examination. Knowing that that is so, I think it is not fair to impose these examination conditions for promotion. That is a case in which women are hit. That is one individual case, but I think the total exclusion of women from the inspectorate, which was part of the unfair policy of the National Board, is not a thing to be commended.

That is part of the whole question which Deputy Johnson has brought under notice. The women Civil Servants who were transferred to the Irish Free State are desirous to have it publicly proclaimed that they are not to suffer, either as regards their status, their rights, or their privileges, by the transfer. We have declared in our Constitution that women are citizens and that they have equal rights of citizenship with men.

The Minister for Education laid down a very sound doctrine in his reply. He spoke of doing things by administration instead of by legislation. Undoubtedly there are many reforms which do not need legislation, but let me remind the Minister and the Dáil that there are many wrongs and many injustices that can be perpetrated through administration, that legislation could hardly be invoked to correct. Therefore, when we lay stress upon administration as our great agency of reform, let us be all the more jealous and all the more careful that the administration does equity. I am keeping in view here the interests of a large part of my constitutents in pressing this matter. It is a fraud upon the public, it is a fraud upon the graduates, to give equal rights, or apparently equal rights, to degrees to women, which are supposed to open the avenues to public service and to promotion in the public service, and then having it understood covertly, without proclamation, that although a woman has the qualification, because she is a woman the disqualification counteracts the form of qualification.

With regard to the local authorities and the enforcement of school attendance, I certainly think that an improvement can be made, and I look forward to an improvement being made. I should say that some sort of a combination might be possible by the reduction to one of a variety of local Committees that exist, local School Attendance Committees and Committees of that sort, and that we might have some specialised local Educational Committees who, perhaps, would look more efficiently after this question of school attendance, as well as after other educational matters of local bearing. As to the two questions on pensions which have been raised by Deputy O'Connell, I think he will admit that the question of changing the existing pension fund system and bringing it into line with the ordinary Civil Service pension system is one that will require a little consideration if it is to be brought about. I do not think I would be undertaking too much if I were to say that it will have that consideration. As to the other point, the old scale of pensions, the figures undoubtedly justify him thoroughly in bringing this question to the front again. Everyone knows that the national teacher who spent his life, perhaps, in the public service, and who is now on a pension of something like £1 per week, or, perhaps, less, really must exist either by public charity or as a dependant on friends and relatives. Questions have been put to me with regard to the higher executive offices. Of course, it is known that in that office we took over the existing staff, and at the time we took it over the staff mainly consisted of men. All the women employed in it are recently appointed. None of them as yet holds a higher executive post, but women are eligible for appointment to that rank, and I am sure will be appointed in accordance with the usual considerations that fairly govern appointments. Deputy Magennis, avowedly with his eye on the lady graduates, but, I suppose I had better say nothing about the coming election, raised this question. As to women being appointed inspectors; I may say the same with regard to that. Women are eligible for inspectorships, and women will be chosen for inspectorships, the only considerations limiting their choice being considerations of capacity. At the same time I am rather inclined to deprecate, at all events I hope it will not grow into a general practice, the advocacy of particular individual cases. He may be quite certain, at all events, as far as I can give any guarantee in the matter I am prepared to give it, that if there are cases of individual hardship, and if they are brought under my notice, I will try to deal justly and fairly with them.

May I ask what is the immediate intention with regard to these old pensioners to whom he referred. The matter is urgent.

A scheme to increase the pensions for these people would require legislation, and the Deputy I understand approached either the Finance Ministry or the Legal Advisor to the Government, with a view to having the necessary legislation introduced. I understand the Deputy's first approach in that connection was to give certain terms and that when we offered terms which appeared to be fair, and to meet the case, and to meet the merits of any promise that had been made, the Deputy tabled a much more elaborate scheme. Now, the Estimate here is for nearly £4,000,000. Whatever sum would be made available for pensions would have to be saved out of some other service, and in that connection I am fairly satisfied that the State cannot afford to spend that much out of the revenues that are coming in. Revenue will have to be increased if services like this require any extension.

Am I right in saying that this Vote does not contain the Estimate for the payments out of the Pensions Fund which have been made for pensions, and that the payments that are now in contemplation to these pensioners would not be met out of this Vote?

Some subsidy, I should say would have to be paid out of this Vote. If increased pensions do not mean any increased cost to the State, I am not interested in restricting the amount, but if it means a drain on the State it comes before me in the same way as other demands from other Ministers or other Deputies for bigger sums in the Estimates. The Estimate, generally-speaking, must be reduced. The Estimates presented to the Dáil are Estimates in excess of our ability to pay. If it be thought because there are cases of hardship that we must regularise all these things from the limited resources at our disposal I say it is impossible. I think the Deputy will admit that a good deal of the expenditure which is voted in this Estimate is expenditure based on a cost of living far in excess of the present cost of living. If, in other words, some of the salaries down in the Estimates were salaries that were fair at the time when the cost of living was £160 per cent. or £130 per cent. above the ordinary cost of living, it is obvious if they were fixed having regard to that particular index, that it is unreasonable to expect the same amount with all the advantages that the Deputy claims now in connection with pensions.

With the permission of the Dáil I would like to say that the President is under a misapprehension if he thinks that the salaries of teachers were based on the cost of living figure. That is not so. It is not the case. The present salary scheme was the outcome of a settlement arrived at between representatives of the British Treasury at the time, the Educational authorities and the National Teachers' Organisation, and was fixed by the Civil Service Arbitration Board. Now, this Civil Service Arbitration Board had a great deal to do with fixing the remuneration of Civil Servants—fixing the cost of living bonus for Civil Servants—but when they came to settle the salaries that were to be paid National teachers, the question of cost of living bonus, or the fixing of salaries of teachers on a bonus scale was ruled out after special consideration. The salaries were fixed in respect of the cost of living at that time, and in the belief that it was only when the cost of living became more reasonable that the salaries would be more appropriate to the work being carried on. That was the position with regard to the bonus part of the scheme.

I have not said they were fixed on a basis of the cost of living figure. I said the figures were fixed at a time when the cost of living was in excess of what it is now, and I state here that the State cannot afford that Estimate.

This question of the superannuation of teachers is a big one, and in view of the statement made by the Minister for Education, followed by that made by the Minister for Finance it would seem to me that it would require a considerable amount of further discussion. The last time this question was raised, I think I am right in saying, there was a very definite promise given that the matter was to be considered favourably, and some three months ago it was on the point of being settled satisfactorily. As the matter is very important I would suggest that further discussion of the Vote should be postponed so that it can be raised anew, and dealt with more fully for the elucidation of the question at issue. It is clear the Minister is speaking of an increase in the Grant in Aid of a Fund which is quite capable out of its own resources to pay the superannuation that is requested. I therefore beg to move that the discussion of this Estimate be adjourned until to-morrow so that we can follow it up.

The motion is to report progress now, and resume the discussion of this Vote to-morrow.

I do not understand the position, sir. I cannot see the need for further discussion.

A motion has been made to report progress, which means that this Estimate is unfinished, and I am bound to put this motion if pressed, unless the President and Deputy Johnson agree.

I think it is obviously a proposition that the President should accept, because it is clear that this Estimate has not been discussed and cannot be discussed fully and effectively now. If the Minister is not prepared to have it discussed to-morrow, then we shall have to find some other occasion of discussing it, and perhaps at fuller length than would be necessary to-morrow.

I do not quite understand. Is it that the point is not sufficiently discussed that was raised by Deputy O'Connell with regard to pensions.

Yes; that is so.

If that is the point, it is the only point that has not been sufficiently discussed.

This is a very big sum of money, and a very important department, and I hope Deputies are quite convinced that the Chair has been very lenient upon the discussion. If the question of improving the lot of the pensioners requires legislation it really ought not to be raised upon the Estimates at all. If it requires legislation it is not in order to advocate an amendment of legislation upon the Estimates. The nature of the discussion on Estimates is how a particular department under discussion administers the money for which the Vote is sought within the existing law, and reforms requiring legislation must be advocated at some other time. Now, I understand it is necessary to have legislation in order to meet the wishes of Deputy O'Connell.

It has been ruled by the Legal department that it is necessary.

Then we cannot get over that. This matter is a matter that ought properly be raised otherwise, and from the point of view of the Chair there is no further opening for discussion on the matter of pensions now.

After that ruling I withdraw the motion to report progress, and I suppose the discussion will continue.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share