Dáil Éireann debate -
Monday, 7 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 5

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE 45—DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION—RESUMED.

Motion made:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £116,846 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun costaisí na Roinne Oideachais mar gheall ar chostaisí Riaracháin Cigireachta, etc.

That a sum not exceeding £116,846 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, 1927, for the Expenses of the Department of Education in respect of costs of Administration, Inspection, etc.

Debate on the general question resumed.

Mr. BAXTER

I have only one or two points to make before the Minister replies on the general question. Deputy Magennis, and, I think, Deputy O'Connell urged that the training of teachers should include a course in the University. In my opinion, that is a point that cannot be too strongly stressed. Our educational system has to be looked at largely from the point of view of the benefits it will confer on the children of the country through the primary schools. If the benefits of University education are to be given to our people, these benefits can only come to them through the teachers in the primary schools. That is an aspect of our educational system that should receive more consideration than has been given to it in the past. As regards the teachers, the expenses of a University training for them will undoubtedly produce far-reaching results, and I would like to hear the Minister say that this matter is going to receive the consideration from his Department that it did not receive in the past, and that something definite will be done. On the question of primary education it has occurred to me, and on this I feel strongly, that I am afraid we have not appreciated what it can do for us, nor have we put on a sufficiently high pedestal those engaged in the profession. Some may argue to the contrary, but I feel that on our teachers, whether under the primary, secondary, or University system, everything for good or ill as regards the future of the State depends: on their ability to impart knowledge, and I should say still more on the type of the individuals you get into the profession—their conduct, personality, and the influence that they can exercise. That is a thing that has not been fully appreciated in the past, especially with regard to the teachers in the primary schools. Too much pains, I think, cannot be taken by the State to secure that the best type of individual is selected for the teaching profession.

At the moment I understand there is a shortage of male teachers in the primary schools. It is to be hoped this shortage will be made good, but I want to urge on the Minister with regard to the types of candidates presenting themselves in future for training as members of the teaching profession that something more should be taken into account than the mere ability to pass a certain examination. There may be candidates for teaching who are able on paper to give a very good account of themselves, but who when put into the position of teachers take very little interest in the work of their profession, and are only capable of giving mediocre service, even with the best of goodwill, and generally they do not give the good results which might be expected from them. To be successful as a teacher, other qualities than the ability to pass an examination are necessary. Those who are to be entrusted with the work of moulding the minds of the rising generation should, from my point of view, be subject to a method of selection before they are finally chosen for training as teachers in our primary schools. I am not clear as to what exactly is to be done, or if what I suggested will be done under the arrangements in connection with the new training colleges which it is proposed to establish, but I would urge on the Minister that side by side with the setting up of these colleges and the procuring of teachers with a capacity to teach, you must in addition see that people selected for the teaching profession have a personality, and that they are temperamentally fitted for the work if the best results are to be got. The selection of the men and women who are to be the teachers in the primary schools must be given greater consideration than has been hitherto given by the Department of Education. I would like to mention I have been trying to get some information from some of the University Deputies in the Dáil that might help me on a certain matter.

While agreeing that the work of a University is work that is supposed, while providing specialised training, to fit students for that wider knowledge which they obtain in a predominantly agricultural country like this, Universities should do something more than they have done to help the agricultural industry. They could do more than can be done by the new faculties that it is proposed to set up. What I mean is that in the Universities an effort should be made to turn the minds of the graduates in a more sympathetic manner towards agriculture. It seems strange, and I think unwise, that we have Arts students of both sexes leaving the University and going out to take up work with very little knowledge of the fundamentals of life in this agricultural country. Some of these people have passed their examination with distinction. I suppose it is hardly possible that the examinations for Arts students should include subjects connected with agriculture, but I think that a number of papers dealing with that subject— perhaps half a dozen during the University course—should be read. Either that, or it should be provided that students treat of these things before passing their final examination. My view is that by better education on the part of students as to the country's main industry and its value to the State we would undoubtedly get in the different grades of society which these students will enter a more sympathetic understanding of the problems that confront this country. The agricultural community would, I think, as a result benefit more than any other section by such an understanding. They would benefit educationally.

It is regrettable that many of the doctors, lawyers and other persons who leave Universities are—not because of class distinctions, but for other reasons —separated from the great mass of the people. As I say, I do not suggest that is owing to class distinction, but because there is a want of understanding due to a defect in the educational system. I would like to see something done to alter that state of affairs. While I accept it that amongst that class there is an increasing interest in and a better understanding of agriculture than there was in the past, I think we should try and develop that spirit, and inculcate, whenever the opportunity offers, a desire and an inclination to learn more about the industry. By such means will we get from these people help, counsel and leadership that conditions up to the present have not permitted of. If something like that could be done in the Universities I feel that the education of the students in the Arts, Commerce, and other courses would be broadened. Not alone would that knowledge be useful to themselves, but it would give them a sympathetic interest in the conditions under which the people live. That would be a real help to the agricultural community. I feel that the tone all round would be better. I commend these suggestions to the Minister for his consideration. I recognise that there may be some difficulty in carrying them out. They may not be feasible, but I feel very strongly that if something could be done in that way it would be a great benefit to the country as a whole.

Mr. ALTON

I would like to ask a question arising out of a reference that the Minister made in his opening statement. I refer to a figure that he gave, £13 19s. 0d., as being the cost of each secondary pupil to the State. Am I right in assuming that that figure was obtained by dividing the grant for secondary education by the number of recognised pupils in the secondary schools, or did the Minister take into account also the pupils not recognised for whom no capitation grants are paid?

MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor O'Sullivan)

I was wondering from some of the speeches that were delivered after my opening statement, and also from other evidence that rather surprised me, whether I had made it quite clear that I was facing problems rather than offering solutions for them. I admit in connection with many of the problems I suggested that Deputies, one after another, did bring forward certain solutions. I hope to refer to these solutions in the course of what I have to say now. I got into one little entanglement—not exactly an argument or altercation—with Deputy Good on the question of standard.

When I hear certain criticism in this House and outside, I often wonder whether Deputies remember that they have had parents who were older than themselves or if not, that they have had relatives and friends who were older than themselves. If they would cast their minds back for 25 years and try to remember what a man of sixty years of age said to them then about the state of education, they would find that apparently since the beginning of the nineteenth century, not only has there been no advance, but there has been steady retrogression in the matter of education. That may or may not be true. It is one of those high philosophical problems that I cannot solve. Not only am I unable to answer it, but I do not even know how to set about getting an answer for it. If Deputies will just cast their minds back to their early manhood, they will find that exactly the same complaint was made then as is being made to-day. This is an exceedingly difficult question to answer. If I am asked am I satisfied with the standard of education prevailing in this country at present, of course I will answer "No." If I were satisfied, the obvious retort would be, "What is your job for; it is no longer necessary." No matter how high the standard reached, nobody could express satisfaction with it. One always wants to reach something higher. I hope everybody interested in education, from the Minister up, is really striving for that.

Deputy Good brought forward some figures last day. I hope I made it quite clear that it was not to Deputy Good's facts that I was objecting, but to his process of reasoning. He brought forward a number of figures. It is only fair to say that he had supplied those figures to me earlier. He has based his attack here on the standard of education on two main pieces of evidence. One was a report of a Committee which sat about the year 1918. That Committee, as Deputy Baxter pointed out before, could not allege as an excuse for the alleged failure the difficulty of a second language. The Report of that Committee does say something about seventy-five per cent., but I think Deputy Good will acknowledge that there is not the slightest bit of evidence afforded in that particular report as to the facts alleged. Who were present at the actual signing of the report is not even clear. What I would like to get would be the evidence on which that report was founded. Later on, Deputy Good supplied to me the figures he quoted the last day. They do not touch the question as to the value of the standard leaving the primary schools. The fact, for instance, that some of those had only reached the first standard is not in itself any indication of what the value of the education in the fifth and sixth standards was. That is really what we want to know. We have to make it our aim—particularly under the Compulsory School Attendance Act—to see that the highest standard in the schools is reached by the great bulk of the children in the country. If we are successful in that, there will still remain the question—how it can be answered, I confess I do not know—as to what is the value of that particular standard. That is really the question that is in issue here. Deputy Good took a number of those who were candidates for employment as street traders——

Mr. GOOD

Applicants for juvenile certificates.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

In connection with street trading?

Mr. GOOD

Yes.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Are these typical of the children who leave the ordinary school in the country? Is the avenue of employment open to the average child who has attended school up to fourteen years of age, street trading, or is it not just possible—I am not certain but it throws doubt on the value of the conclusion that Deputy Good draws from his figures—that these children are an abnormal type, that the children who drift into that occupation are those who have not attended school regularly? I think that is clear from the figures. Four had reached the sixth standard, fourteen the fifth, twenty-nine the fourth, nineteen the third and nine the second. I think it is quite clear that those children had not attended school with any regularity and, therefore, these figures are no help to us in trying to evaluate the work of the education given in the schools. As to the value of that education, I cannot answer, and I do not know what particular test could be applied. All we can hope for is that everybody engaged in education is trying to do his best to make the standard successful. That is what we have aimed at and that is what, I believe, in the vast majority of cases, we are succeeding in attaining. It is, I believe, the bona fide and genuine desire of the vast bulk of the teachers of the country to give a satisfactory type of education. That there has been dissatisfaction, that there has been a low standard in the case of many individuals, may be quite readily explained. One type of explanation is that there had been grossly irregular attendance at school if not complete absence from school. Deputy Heffernan said that in his young days—forty or fifty years ago—arithmetic and geography and hand-writing were in a much higher state of perfection than they are now. When I was a young person—in a more modern period—I learned geography and arithmetic and hand-writing. My hand-writing was always bad, but I was very good at arithmetic and mathematics when I was young. I was able to solve all the problems, but I confess that I did not understand what they were about. I wonder does any Deputy remember learning practice? I observe they do. I wonder if Deputies recollect learning how shillings was half a pound, how six and eightpence was a third and that if you divided the lines of £'s by three you got the price at six and eightpence. One knew that if the addition and division were done correctly, the answer would be correct but it was twenty years afterwards that I saw that that method might have some use. It was the same, to a large extent, with everything else. In that way, one learned a lot of useful habits of mechanical calculation. I do not deny the value of learning matters of that kind, but what is the educational value of it as distinguished from the mere habit of accurate calculation? I submit that it was not quite as high a type of arithmetic as that which an effort is being made to teach now. I think every Deputy remembers learning geography when he was young. Most of them came under the more ancient system. We learned a great deal of geography and we forgot most of it. I do not think it did us any great harm to forget it.

On the question of school-buildings, I stated that the problem of dealing with cases where there are wretched schools was undoubtedly a serious one. Deputy O'Connell said that there is no justification for putting one-third on the locality, that it is capital expenditure. Of course it is capital expenditure, but there is no reason why capital expenditure should not be local. Deputy Alton was a little more careful when he said that it was capital expenditure, but that perhaps it ought to be a State charge. Why should not the local one-third be still insisted upon? Even if these things are in arrears and if the State has got out of paying its normal proportion of the money in years past, so have the local people. It is quite clear that Deputies realise the necessity for dealing with this question. Deputy Heffernan, the great apostle of economy, as he more or less claimed to be the other day, or at least, the man who took the most prominent part in these debates, I think he said, says that here you cannot have retrenchment. Deputy Doctor Hennessy would go a great deal further than we think possible with our limited resources. He would have hot and cold baths. That would be desirable, undoubtedly, but I wonder whether the State ought to take the whole up-bringing of the children altogether out of the hands of the parents.

Occasionally we are asked, not merely to teach them—we are accused of not doing that very well—but also to clothe, feed and, apparently, wash them. I doubt whether we would be more successful in those efforts than we are alleged to have been in the teaching, but whether Deputy Hennessy would also apply the policy of cleaning the individuals to the hygienic treatment of domestic animals as well, I do not know. There is no reason why they should not come in, but then the cost would be altogether too great. I feel that more is involved than the mere question of the insistence on the local one-third. Our primary school system has been essentially, to some extent—to a less extent than the secondary system, I admit—not a State system, completely, but a State-aided system, and if you scrap the present system by which, for instance, the manager builds the school, or contributes one-third of the cost, and have it vested in trustees and not in the Board, ultimately passing to their ownership, you will undoubtedly bring about an important change in the prevailing system. That is a serious factor in the consideration of this whole problem.

Deputy O'Connell pointed out that there was one problem more urgent even than this one, namely, the problem of maintenance, cleansing, and heating, and of dealing with ordinary wear and tear repairs, as distinct from what I might call big alterations or modifications. He said that schools were allowed to deteriorate, some of them continuing to exist where it was very hard to know how they did, owing to the neglect of them. Deputy O'Connell pointed out that I had omitted to mention that. It was an omission on my part. There were omissions with regard to other matters, and I will refer to these in a moment. This matter undoubtedly largely enters into the general problem of school buildings. Deputy O'Connell has pointed out that solutions of this question have been offered, and if I was not in a position to give an answer it was not because answers had not been suggested. He called attention to and read an extract from the Report of the Killanin Committee. In that, as in other matters, various suggestions have been made, and the advantages of these suggestions have been pointed out, but it has been left for me to consider the disadvantages that would be involved in adopting them.

The Killanin Committee suggested that the care of the schools should be a local charge, that more responsibility and a bigger burden, practically, should be thrown on the county councils. These are the councils that we have now, but there were district councils then. It was also suggested that local committees, such as the school attendance committees, should be asked to administer the funds received in that way. Before making up my mind to adopt any such scheme I would like to be convinced, first, that that would be unavoidable, and, secondly, that there would be any prospect that such local committees would deal with the problem successfully. Remember that we have had to scrap these committees when they were doing the work that they were called into existence to perform, the securing of the attendance of children at school. We did not think that they were the best means of obtaining a solution of that problem, and I doubt the wisdom, a couple of months after that of practically calling them again into existence.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I am sure the Minister realises that the failure of the Compulsory Attendance Act was not entirely due to the fact that it was administered by committees, but rather that it rested in the machinery of the Act itself.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I quite admit that, but the Deputy will remember that the question was raised here as to whether local committees of this kind were the most proper and the best to carry out the new Act, and the Deputy will remember also that when any suggestion was made to extend the sphere of these local committees the attitude taken up by me, and approved by the House, was that it should be resisted, purely from the point of view of efficiency. In fact, I was more or less put in the position of having to answer as to why I kept them on in certain places, and the answer, the Deputy will remember, was that I could not help it. It was because the authorities in the places where the committees are retained were not yet ready to take on the new method of dealing with the problem. I think the Deputy also quoted from the National Programme Conference. Theirs was merely a statement of the problem. They did not suggest, as well as I remember, perhaps Deputies will correct me if I am wrong, any particular solution.

Mr. O'CONNELL

No, they drew attention to the existence of the problem.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Undoubtedly these are problems, and, as Deputy Thrift suggested, the fact that they are recognised as problems is, in itself, perhaps, an advance. I, again, must declare that I am ready to try to secure a solution of the many problems as best I can. I do not possess the extraordinary revolutionary mind of Deputy Good and, therefore, will have to try and make every effort to solve these problems but if possible to avoid too much revolution.

Another matter mentioned by Deputy Professor Magennis was the question of Advisory Councils. He said that previously we had boards and no Minister; now we have a Minister and no boards. He pointed out that in many cases, in the past, the various boards—the one he particularly mentioned was the Intermediate Board— had been open to criticism because they ignored and practically never consulted those actually engaged in teaching. He also pointed out there was danger that we might become, if we had not these Advisory Boards of a more or less permanent character, doctrinaires and notionists—these were the words he used—and that the presence of such bodies would be a useful corrective to such an obvious tendency on the part of a bureaucrat like a Minister naturally is inclined to be.

About that question of an Advisory Committee and the question of the bureaucratic character of the administration, I would like to define my attitude. Deputy Professor Magennis pointed out that the success of the Programme Conference ought to suggest the advisability of having a more or less permanent council of the kind. I suggest that the success of the Programme Conference points to exactly the opposite conclusion, and that it was because of the fact that a conference of that kind was appointed ad hoc to deal with the specific problem, that its success was due. Imagine that you have an Advisory Council of this kind dealing with all the problems of this administration. Is it to be one Advisory Council, or are there to be several for the different activities that come under this Department? If the latter, you are cutting across the very aim that Deputies have insisted upon here, again and again, namely the effort at co-ordination. Therefore I take it for granted there is to be only the one Advisory Council. I think it would be exceedingly difficult to get men who would be able to give technical advice, not merely general advice, on all the problems that the Department has to handle. I suggest the way the Department has proceeded up to this is the more satisfactory way.

It has not only an Advisory Council; it has several Advisory Councils. Again and again it has shown its readiness to consult those intimately connected with the problems we are called upon to deal with. I have mentioned the Primary Programme Conference. I do not think that anyone acquainted with the facts would suggest that the Ministry is not open to suggestion from organised bodies of opinion in the country. These bodies are always ready to come to the Department and to advise them and sometimes to give them a great deal more than advice.

Mr. HEWAT

What about the Dáil experts?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That is a permanent advisory council, as far as we are concerned, and the Dáil is the body to whom we are responsible. The Deputy, on the last day, said that the Department naturally is inclined to resent any inclusion in control or management. That is a hint going far beyond mere advice. I think a couple of years ago Deputy O'Connell, discussing a matter of this kind, suggested that he did not want a body merely for advisory purposes, but for something else as well.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Read the Constitution.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The Constitution gives power to do these things. That is an entirely different matter. I am discussing the matter from the point of view of its advisability. The Constitution does not mention that the Minister for Education must have an advisory council. There are people who think that not only should you have an advisory council of this kind in connection with the national management of education, but that you should have local permanent advisory councils as well. Now, I think the readiness, and I might say the extreme readiness, that the Department has always shown to consult expert opinion, upon all matters, is a proof that there is no necessity for such a body, and that it might do more harm to the progress of education than good. Take the Primary Programme Conference. That Conference presented its programme to this bureaucratic Department which put it into force without changing a comma. I suggest that that is not trampling under foot the opinion of people interested in education outside.

The next important question that was touched upon, if I may still for a moment keep on the question of primary education, was the amalgamation of schools. There were two different kinds of amalgamation advocated. I am not quite clear that the type advocated by Deputy Magennis and supported by Deputy Thrift was meant to exclude the other. We can deal with the particular type of amalgamation first. That type of amalgamation of schools has not been out of the mind of the Department. We have made attempts, and it was found to be extremely difficult to achieve success in that particular way. Some of the attempts have been a complete failure—such, for instance, as using a van in order to bring the children to school. How far these difficulties are insurmountable it is difficult to say. In one case where you would expect it to be a success it was a complete failure. The same car was a success in a different part of the country altogether, but there are great difficulties in that particular method. It is doubtful whether the experiment would be a success in this country. The reason that Deputy Thrift brought forward in support of it was the advisability of doing away with as many of the smaller schools as possible and having—I will not say large schools—but larger schools, pointing out in that direction the extreme difficulty of getting teachers, or rather, getting the proper timbre for teachers. I wonder does he say that we ought to go forward with this and do away with the smaller schools in the country; I take it his idea would be that ultimately it would be a large amalgamation, envisaging that by a process of selection you would be able to do with a lesser number of teachers in the future than we have at present, and, therefore, with the prospect before you of getting better timbre—better timbre, so to speak, for our teachers.

That prospect would be an improvement but the difficulty is there. I can realise certain advantages from that point of view. The difficulties, judging by past experience, are great. There are financial difficulties and other difficulties, just as it is not suggested that there might not be ultimate economy. I wonder whether that is actually so or not? It is a problem requiring, as the Deputy will easily see, careful examination. But our experience up to the present does not give us much hope that if we were to try to do it on a larger scale that we would meet with very great success. Take the other type of amalgamation, what is generally understood by amalgamation——

Professor THRIFT

If I might interrupt the Minister, I would like to say that I have been informed, for example, that in the North of Ireland in one district where there were three primary schools there is now one large school and the cost is only two-thirds of the three primary schools. I think it is well that the Minister should get such information.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes. On the other question of amalgamation I asked Deputy Gorey to help us in the matter with his advice, but though he was in the most friendly spirit to everybody on that particular day, he did not give us advice. He had no advice on the matter one way or another. A pamphlet was read out by, I think, Deputy O'Connell, which was supplied by Deputy Wilson, protesting against amalgamation ! Undoubtedly there were rather startling statements made in that pamphlet——

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

In the resolution.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes, I mean in the resolution. But because these statements were what I may call exaggerated to the point of the ridiculous, it does not follow that they might not represent a very strong feeling in the country that was not open to the charge of being exaggerated, certainly not ridiculous. There is no getting away from this particular fact, that there is a very strong objection, on the part of those who are entrusted with the moral welfare of the great bulk of the population of this country, to having girls and boys taught in the same school. The objection is undoubtedly there. It is very strong. Attention has been called to the fact that you have a little over 3,000 schools already where boys and girls are taught together, that the Killanin Commission contained the present Cardinal O'Donnell and the present Chairman of the Catholic Managers' Association——

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

The present Secretary of the Catholic Managers' Association.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes, Dean Macken. These undoubtedly are facts; but Deputies might remember that even though a certain abuse might be tolerated, there would still be an objection to anything that savoured of an extension unless there was an absolute necessity. This problem of amalgamation is a serious problem. Again I have to protest that the rosy side of all these solutions is presented by the Deputies. It is my unfortunate task to have to present the difficulties that we have to face in the solution of these problems. Now if circumstances compel us—financial stringency, shortage of teachers, and also the question of the efficiency of the teaching—to go into this question of amalgamation, I would like the Deputies to understand the difficulties that there are and will be in the way, and, certainly, whatever the moral objections, the very strong objections there may be to educating in the same school boys and girls under the age of 14, the objection would be insuperable when it comes to the question of educating them between 14 and 16. In connection with this problem, a factor that must be before our minds is that the necessities of the case may in certain instances force us to take a step of this kind. The extent of it is a matter that will require very careful consideration—that is, if it is found possible and advisable.

Secondly, the question of securing much greater efficiency in the schools arises. The problem is an extremely hard and an extremely delicate one in many ways. If I did not mention that problem of technical education on the last day, the reason was not that that problem was not engaging the attention of the Department and my own attention. Deputy Good referred to the fact that my opening statement contained very little reference to the subject of technical education. Well I never like to speak at length to the Dáil and there was a prospect of being able to get what I had to say on technical education said when introducing the Technical Education Vote. But what I am going to say now in answer to Deputy Good will absolve me from making that general declaration of policy on technical education. It might be as well to deal with that particular matter now. Technical education belongs to this Department only since June, 1924, barely two years. One of the first things that the Department did when it took over that particular branch of education was to appoint a Departmental Committee to go into the question of the whole position of technical education in the country. It was purely a Departmental Committee of two inspectors appointed primarily for the purpose of telling the new Department and the Minister what exactly was the position as regards technical education in this country. They were also empowered to make suggestions as to any difficulties that were there and how these difficulties should be remedied.

Mr. GOOD

Has that Committee issued a report?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The Committee was purely for the purpose of informing the Department and the Minister what the position was. That Committee has not issued a report in the sense that no report has been published, but if Deputy Good means whether the Committee has concluded its investigations, made up its mind as to suggestions, and put them before the Department, I can tell him it has.

Mr. GOOD

Has it taken evidence?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I know the Deputy takes a great interest in this matter, but I would ask him to wait a little longer and I will tell him. It reported as to the situation, and that report, as a matter of fact, was supplied not merely to our Department, but to other Departments, which we thought might be particularly interested in technical education, namely, the Departments of Finance, Industry and Commerce, Agriculture, and Fisheries. Our system of technical education is an extremely complicated one. There is no doubt about that, and the finances of the system are quite as complicated as the system itself. One thing of which I am convinced as a result of the labours of that Committee, and that is, if I may say so, that I am not convinced that a thorough overhauling of the system is not necessary. I do not know enough, and I doubt if anybody knows enough, to come to a sound conclusion on the matter. I do not mean to suggest that because I do not know enough that nobody knows enough about the question, but I doubt if anybody knows enough to state definitely whether a thorough overhauling is necessary, and if it is necessary, what precise lines the process of overhauling must follow.

I must candidly confess that there may be a lot that is perfectly sound in our technical education system, and there may be a lot that is not sound, but I am not in a position to say what is, and what is not sound, and I doubt if there are many people in a position to say so. One thing which the Departmental Committee has proved is, that we have not enough information to reach a conclusion as regards the value of our technical education, and as regards the changes which would be advisable to introduce into it. We cannot say whether there is much scope for technical education in this country, and the interchange of civilities between Deputy Good and Deputy Johnson the other day has not cleared my mind on the question as to whether there is such a lot of scope for technical education in this country. I am not by any means going to hold the balance between Labour and Capital, or to say which is to blame, or which is as white as snow —possibly neither is very white.

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Good is red.

Mr. GOOD

Deputy Johnson, I suppose, takes it that he is white.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

If we are asked to provide technical education of an advanced type to train apprentices, the matter which was indirectly under discussion the last day, we should like to know what we would do it for. Are we to be told, say, in ten years time, "Your elaborate system of technical education costs the State so much money; what is it for, for export?" Deputy Good will, perhaps, tell me that Deputy Johnson is to blame, and Deputy Johnson will probably tell me that Deputy Good is to blame. One will say that it is the restrictions put on by the trade unions as regards the question of apprentices and on the number employed in certain trades.

Mr. GOOD

Would it not be better to export them rather than have them paupers at home?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That problem has arisen again and again in connection with professions in this country, and I hardly care to go into it in detail now, and I hardly think it is necessary. I suggest that it is one of the important features of the situation that will have to be examined. If we undertake to deal with this problem of technical education, we will have to have some clear idea as to what will happen to those who go into technical schools. I have not the slightest doubt that Deputy Johnson will throw back the charge as to who is to blame on Deputy Good, and Deputy Good will blame Deputy Johnson, but I want a little more clarity on this point.

Mr. GOOD

I would not like the Minister to take it that I blame Deputy Johnson. I said that there were two parties to blame.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I understand, but I want to make it clear that there is that problem, and that it is one of the problems which we have to face. It must be obvious to everyone that we must appoint still another Commission, that this bureaucratic body has to consult others besides itself before it can take important steps. It was open to us to appoint a general Committee to inquire into the whole system of post-primary education, but it struck me, after considerable consideration, that that might really not give us the particular type of advice we wanted, as regards this particular narrow problem of technical education. Therefore, I thought it was better to have a smaller Committee, a Committee composed strictly of practical experts in the matter, and, consequently, we intend, if we can get it together, to set up a committee of that kind. Its composition would be something like this: one representative of the trade unions and one of the employers.

I think I made out a case that they, at all events, should be represented on this particular committee and that the Department of Education (Technical Branch) would also be represented. There would be a member of that particular branch because an intimate acquaintance with the system here is necessary, and it would not do merely to get it by means of evidence, because at every step the committee would be up against the necessity of being made acquainted with the prevailing difficulties. There would also be one representative of the Department of Finance (for very obvious reasons), and one representative of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I am not satisfied that everything concerned with technical education is known in this country or across the water, where, I believe, their system is very much like ours. I doubt indeed if it is better in many respects. Therefore, a country, situated as we are, should try to get representatives from a country like Switzerland and also from Sweden. I think that a committee such as that ought to be able to give us valuable advice on this question. The terms of reference would be something like this: "To inquire into and advise upon the system of technical education in Saorstát Eireann in relation to the requirements of trade and industry." I could have made these remarks the last day but, as I said, I did not want to speak too long and I thought I might postpone them. They will serve now, perhaps, as an introduction to the Technical Vote.

Deputy Heffernan, at the opening of his speech, raised a small question as to the treatment of the older pensioners. As I tried to remind him, that is not a matter for which I have responsibility. Deputy O'Connell appealed to my parental interest in all teachers, past and present. It is a matter that is being considered by the Department responsible for it. The Department in the present stringency finds it difficult to increase an award where obviously there is no return in efficiency to be expected for it. Deputy O'Connell, I think, referred, when dealing with the national programme, to the question of too many subjects. with the general principles enunciated by Deputy O'Connell, and repeated by Deputy Alton, I agree. I think it is much better to have a person thoroughly trained, if it were only in one subject, than for him to have a general slip-shod knowledge of a whole lot of subjects. I think the training he gets in one subject will enable him to deal afterwards with others. There is that particular question of training. I think in certain subjects we are getting, and likely to get, a good training of the mind, that is, so far as general principles are concerned. On the other hand, I do not think even with the addition of rural science that our programme at present is overladen. I think, from that point of view, that it compares very favourably with most programmes in Europe.

Deputy Heffernan, and afterwards in another speech, Deputy Baxter, returned to the old question of rural bias. I think that is what it was called in the earlier days of this Dáil and in the days of the last Dáil. I quite admit that I see no reason a priori at all events why an effective training of the mind cannot be given about things at the person's door. I think it could be done much better than with things far away. That is a matter that is for our teaching system, our teachers and our inspectors, and they are trying to deal with that particular matter and to bring about a change. The change may not be perfect. I remember when the State was first set up that there was a fierce letter in one of the papers. I used to read the papers then. They said that questions in arithmetic should be Irish. That did not mean that they should be written in Irish but should be something as follows:—Take a question of this sort: One train leaves London at the rate of thirty miles an hour. Another train leaves Edinburgh at forty miles an hour and the distance between them is—all my knowledge of geography is gone, I am sorry to say—. Where do they meet? It suggested a question of this sort: "When a train leaves Dublin and sets out for Cork, where should they meet?" There you would get what might be called local colour in the question. Whether that is of much value I doubt.

Mr. GOOD

You had not any coal strikes in those days.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I dealt with the whole question of training to a certain extent in the Supplementary Estimates. Undoubtedly the question of training and the possibility, if possible, of bringing Universities into closer touch with our present system is very important; but I pointed out to the Deputies on the last occasion that it involves an immense expenditure of money. One of the Deputies who advocated it said it meant an enormous increase in expenditure. It would involve, I should say, a couple of hundreds of thousand pounds per year. That is the particular scheme that was at one time brought forward by a conference in which the teachers, the National University, and other people were represented. That, I gathered, would possibly involve the State in an additional annual expense. I was quite clear the last day; it was not with any great boasting that I read the figures of the money we were expending in education. I pointed out the position in comparison with other countries, but I also pointed out— strange to say, I gather one newspaper, at all events, was inclined to stress this particular portion, namely—that there was a state of stringency, and therefore that would have to be taken into account.

I admit that possibly got a little more show in the Press than most of the other matters I dealt with, but it is a fact, even if it is mentioned in connection with a campaign that has been as ruinous to this country as the Irregular campaign. I think it is a fact that will have to be borne in mind in matters in connection with education, that is, how much can the national exchequer stand? I can put forward claims to the Minister for Finance for more money, and Deputy Dr. Hennessy will say that I should be master of my own household, and that every Minister should be master of his own household in connection with this matter of expenditure. I am afraid that if the Minister for Finance were not there it is not a Budget of twenty-five millions we would be debating here to-day, but possibly one of double that amount. He is a very effective and necessary bar. These matters of national expenditure will have to be weighed at present.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Will the Minister say what did he estimate the cost of the scheme to bring the training colleges into closer touch with the universities to be? I think he said it would involve a couple of hundred thousand. If he mentioned any such figure I should like to know what he based it on.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It was Deputy Baxter who brought that up to my mind. I remembered that I had mentioned a figure of that amount a couple of months ago, and having done so, I presume I had good grounds for mentioning it. That is a natural conclusion for me to draw. However, I think it is based on the fact that, roughly speaking, it would cost the State, in the case of each student, close on £100.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Eighty pounds.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes, eighty pounds. You double the time of training. You increase it from two to four years in the proposal on that scheme. Am I not correct? That would involve a sum like £160 for each student.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The total cost of training is £72,000 for the two years' course. Even if you give everyone of them a university training it would only double that.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

There would be university fees in addition. The question of finance is there. Whether it is £100,000 or £200,000, it is a very serious matter, and it is not a matter which, in the national stringency at present, I should care to press altogether too strongly on the Minister for Finance. I am not going to pretend that the Minister for Finance is the person who is keeping me back. Everyone has responsibility in this matter as well as he has, and if he were not there to keep us in check we would quite possibly advance a little too quickly. Each Department is not alone. It will have to bear in mind what the National Exchequer can safely bear. I think I have dealt with most of the matters I intend to deal with in the replies to the various Deputies.

Mr. ALTON

Would the Minister be able to answer the question I put him?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

In giving that figure I was referring to the recognised pupils.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

There are just two matters that I would like to ask the Minister about. The first is with regard to the system of payment of teachers. A public servant who is being paid a regular salary every month likes, naturally, to get his salary paid to him on a specific date, and in most employments and in all Government services that is the usual practice. But it is not the case with national teachers. This present system, of course, has come down to us for many years, and there is a great deal of uncertainty even still as to the date in the month on which a teacher gets his salary. Returns are sent up at the beginning of the month, and payments begin to issue from the Education Office about the fifth or sixth of the month. They finish up somewhere about the 15th or 16th, and often about the 20th. A teacher who gets paid on the fifth of the month in March does not get paid until the fifteenth or twentieth in April. He is never quite sure as to the particular date of the month on which he will be paid. I think a system ought to be devised whereby a teacher, like every other public servant, or other person who earns a salary, would know, everything being regular, the day on which he would get his monthly payment. I quite understand that there are difficulties in the way, but I think it is necessary that these difficulties be got over. I think they can be got over.

There is another matter of very great importance at the moment, owing especially to the scarcity of teachers. It should be known to the Dáil that a teacher has to provide his own substitute in the case of illness, and to pay him. The substitute must have the qualifications laid down by the Department. In this case the teacher differs from the civil servant. His salary is not payable beyond a month's illness unless he provides a substitute at his own expense. Owing to the fact that there is a great scarcity of qualified teachers it has been found, within the last year especially, that teachers who become ill and who are bound by the rules to provide substitutes have been unable to provide them, and, because of their failure to provide substitutes, their salaries have been stopped for the period in which they were supposed, by the rules, to have the substitutes employed. That is a very great hardship, indeed, on teachers. It is quite unfair to hold up the salary of a teacher because he is not able to do what is impossible in the circumstances of to-day, when there is only a limited number of teachers. The person concerned makes all the efforts possible, by advertisement and in every other way open to him, to find a teacher to act as substitute, but he is unable to do so. Surely the Minister will recognise that it is not fair, in the circumstances, that the teacher's salary should be withheld, especially at a time when he would want his salary most to meet the expenses of an illness. I do hope the Minister will be able to say that he has devised some plan whereby in the circumstances either the full qualifications that are required by the rules will not be insisted upon, or if he is satisfied that the teacher has made a genuine effort to provide a substitute, and has failed, that his salary will be allowed. I think it will be necessary, while the present stringency exists, that some relaxation of the existing rules must be made. Otherwise great hardship and great injustice will be done.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The first question raised by Deputy O'Connell was as to the irregular payments to teachers. That has to do, largely, with the number of teachers that has to be paid. A number of the returns do not come in until the 1st of the month. Approximately about 50 per cent. come in on the first of every month. By the fourth of the month possibly about 90 per cent. of the returns are received. The remaining ten per cent. of the returns come in later. Under the former system of payment which was by Money Order the first issue of salary in any month was made on the 12th of the month, and from 50 to 70 per cent. of the salaries were included in that particular issue. A portion was issued about that day week; that is on the 19th, and the remainder a week later, on the 26th. That was the older system, after the introduction of the monthly payments. With the introduction of the system of paying by an Order on the Paymaster-General it was found possible to advance the dates of payment and also to expedite the actual payments themselves. But the actual payments issued on any particular date in a particular month would be affected by a number of circumstances. A general issue takes place on the 5th of one month, then on the 9th, then on the 12th and another on the 16th. Some months are much harder to deal with than others. In the first two months there is a definite sum in pounds given. Whatever there are in the way of fractions of pounds must be set right in the third month. Similarly, there is one month in which income tax is deducted. Also there is a month—I forget whether it is the same month as the income tax month or a different month—in which is a question of deducting the necessary percentage for the Teachers' Pension Fund. Then there may be certain individual cases held up by the failure of the returns to arrive on the first of the month and also possibly by some irregularities of attendance at school, and so on, on the part of individual teachers. I take it for granted Deputy O'Connell is not referring to exceptional cases of that type.

Mr. O'CONNELL

No.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The delay is due to that and due to the fact that the Paymaster can deal effectively with an issue of about 4,000 at the time. Something like that occurs in the different months. For instance, in the month in which there is no trouble through the various complicated questions—income tax, the setting right of the previous fractions, the question of deduction for pension, and so on, on the 5th of the month you have, roughly speaking, 4,000 orders issued, four days later 4,000 more, three days later 4,000 more and that leaves about 600 or 700 to be dealt with. But take a month in which there is this balancing of the quarter to be done, you may have on the fifth only dealt with 1,500, on the 8th about 4,000, on the 12th another 4,000, perhaps, and on the 16th you would have as many as 3,000 to be dealt with.

Matters of that kind which do not occur regularly month by month cause a difference in the actual payments from month to month. I can, however, further look into the question with the object of seeing whether there is not a possibility, without unduly increasing our staff, or without throwing burdens on other staffs, of having a little more regularity. As regards the other question raised by Deputy O'Connell, I regret that I am not in a position to give him an answer at the moment. The matter he touched upon is one that is engaging the attention of our Department and the Department of Finance, but as yet no solution has been arrived at as between the two Departments.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I take it the Minister recognises the hardships that exist?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I recognise the problem quite clearly. I quite see the matter the Deputy has referred to.

Professor THRIFT

I believe, in his opening statement, the Minister said it was his intention to appoint a Committee to inquire into the inspectorate of primary schools.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes.

Professor THRIFT

Unfortunately, I did not hear the Minister's statement and I do not know what particular subjects he referred to. Did the Minister touch upon the present system of superannuation of inspectors?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

No. It was a question of the inspection of schools merely. It is a matter that has arisen in view of the complaints we heard from different sides. There have been different and conflicting complaints from different sides. We are told that our system of inspection—our inspectorate—has not a sufficient grip on the schools. That is the subject of one complaint. The other complaint is that they have too much of a grip— that they have such a grip that the schoolmasters especially cannot breathe and that there is no liberty left. It is to investigate those complaints that the Committee is being appointed.

Professor THRIFT

Will the Committee deal with the general system of inspection?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It will consider the general system of the efficiency of teaching in the schools.

Professor THRIFT

I was endeavouring to draw from the Minister an answer to a question with reference to what I do believe is want of efficiency in the system of the superannuation of inspectors. I do not know whether I could refer to that matter now or bring it up at a later stage, when, for instance, we come to the sub-head dealing with inspectorships.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

It would be more advisable to bring the matter up later on.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

There is a sub-head dealing with inspectors. I am afraid, however, the question of superannuation does not come under my Department.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The question of superannuation would be one for the Minister for Finance.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

On page 169 of the Estimates there is a Grant-in-Aid for superannuation, and I think we could bring the matter up under that.

Professor THRIFT

Yes, under sub-head B 2.

General MULCAHY

Do I understand from the Minister that he would prefer to discuss technical education under the Technical Education Estimates?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes.

Professor THRIFT

Does the same thing apply to matters connected with secondary education?

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.