Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Mar 1938

Vol. 70 No. 8

Committee On Finance. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education.

Tairgim:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £124,041 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1939, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Oideachais.

That a sum not exceeding £124,041 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, 1939, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education.

Sé £4,682,309 meastachán iomlán an chaiteachais i gcomhair na bliadhna 1938/39 ar na Seirbhísí Oideachais fé Bhótaí 45 go 50 agus an dá bhóta sin a chur san áireamh, .i. Oifig an Aire, Bun-Oideachas, Meadhon-Oideachas, Céard-Oideachas, Eoluidheacht agus Ealadhain, Sgoltacha Ceartúcháin agus Sgoltacha Saothair. Is ionann sin agus £193,661 de bhreis, nó beagán le cois 4 per cent. ar an bhfigiúr i gcomhair na bliadhna 1931/32.

Is ar bhótaí an Mheadhon-Oideachais agus an Chéard-Oideachais is mó a tháinic méadú.

Má cuirtear na figiuirí i gcomhair na bliadhna 1938/39 i gcomparáid leis na figiuírí i gcomhair na bliadhna roimhesin sé iomlán na sé bhótaí i gcomhair oideachais don bhliadhain 1938/39 £4,682,309, agus sé an t-iomlán don bhliadhain roimhe sin £4,635,508; sin árdú do réir a haon fá'n gcéad.

Tá £7,873 de árdú tagtha ar an bhóta i gcomhair Oifig an Aire Oideachais. Sé an t-árdú a tháinic ar bhonus an chostais bheatha is ughdar le tuairim £6,800 de sin.

Tá £15,539 níos lugha riachtanach i mbliadhna ná mar bhí anuraidh i gcomhair Bun-Oideachais. Sé an laghdú a tháinic ar an uimhir dáltai agus an sábháilt a bhí ar thuarastail Múinteoirí dá chionn is ughdar leis sin. Sábháileadh £4,430 de bharr an laghdú a tháinic ar an uimhir mac léighinn ins na Coláistí Ullmhúcháin. Ta an meastachán i gcomhair pensiúin múinteoirí £9,900 níos lugha i mbliadhna ná mar bhí anuraidh mar go ndearnadh meastachán ro-árd i gcomhair na bliadhna 1937/38. Tá an caiteachas ar phensiúin ag dul i méid 'chuile bhliadhain, ach tháinic laghdú neamh-ghnáthach le gairid ar an uimhir atá ag dul amach ar phensiún.

Ar an taobh eile den sgéal meastar go gcosnóchaidh na riaghlacha nua atá ann, agus fá na dtugtar deontaisí le sgoltaca a théidheadh agus a ghlanadh, £30,000 san mbliadhan 1938/39. £14,400 a chosainn san sa mbliadhain 1937/38.

Tá £12,085 d'árdú le tabhairt fá deara i gcás an Mheadhon-Oidheachais.

Tá £36,003 níos mó ag teastail i gcomhair Céard-Oideachais i mbliadhna ná mar bhí sa mbliadhan 1837/38. Siad na deontaisí do sgoltacha Gairme Beatha (£285,547 in aghaidh £252,678) is ughdar le na fhurmhór sin. Tá £645 de mhéadú tar éis teacht ar na síntiúisí i gcomhair pensiúin agus deolchairí agus tá £1,135 de mhéadú tagtha ar dheontaisí i gcomhair aisíoc iasachta le Céard-Sgoltaca agus Sgoltacha Gairm-Oideachais nua a thógáil. Rachaidh an caiteachas i gcomhair an dá nidh sin i méid sa ngáth-shlighe go ceann roinnt bhliadhan.

I gcomparáid leis an gcéad mheastachán glan don bhliadhain 1937/38 beidh £6,534 de bhreis ag teastáil i mbliadhna i gcomhair bhóta na hEoluidheachta agus na hEaladhna, ach má hairmhightear an Meastachán Breise de £9,500 a bhí ann le gairid i ngeall ar chostaisí nach raibh súil leo agus a bhain le foillseacháin Ghaedhilge, beidh an figiúr i gcomhair na bliadhna seo £2,966 níos lugha ná figiur na bliadhna anuraidh. £15,000 an meastachán atá déanta i gcomhair na bliadhna 1938/39 le leabhra Gaedhilge a sholáthar. £22,500 an costas a bhí ann i gcomhair na bhliadhna 1937/38 (agus an Meastachán Breise a áireamh).

Beidh costas breise £3,001 ann de bharr ceapachán sa mbreis a rinneadh san Árd-Mhusaeum, sa Leabharlainn Náisiúnta, agus i gColáiste Náisiúnta na nEaladhan agus de bharr an ardú (£1,138) a tháinic ar bhonus an Chostais Bheatha. Tá £1,000 sa mbreis de dheontas le tabhairt i mbliadhna do Choimisiún Bhéal-Oideasa Éireann. Tá sábháilt bheag de £155 le tabhairt fá deara sa Bhóta i gcomhair Sgoltacha Ceartúcháin agus Saothair. Tagann athrú ar an gcaiteachas ina chomhair sin do réir an uimhir malrach a cuirtear fá chúram na sgol sin. Tá an uimhir atá ins na Sgoltacha Ceartúcháin ag méadú beagán (150 in aghaidh 115) agus tá an uimhr 'sna Sgoltacha Saothair agus in áiteacha coinneála beagán níos lugha.

Scéim na bPainéal: Is iomdha athrú tábhachtach a rinneadh ar na seirbhísí oideachais le bliadhanta gairide ach, gan aimhreas ar bith, sé an ceann is tábhachtaighe de na hathruighthe sin an ceann a chuir deire leis an neamh-sheasmhacht a bhain leis an bposta atá ag oidí bunsgoile. Is sa mbliadhain 1937 a tháinic an t-athrú tábhachtach sin i bhfeidhm. Is mar seo a cinneadh ar an athrú a dhéanamh: Tar éis do Chumann Cliar-Bhainisteoirí Caitliceacha na hÉireann comhairle a ghlacadh le hÁrd-Chomhairle Chumann Oidí Bhun-Sgoile na hÉireann cheapadar molta áirithe le n-ar aontuigh Easbuig na hÉireann maraon le hionadaidhthe oideachais na bProtastún. Chuireadar na molta sin os comhair Aire an Oideachais. Bhí de thoradh air sin go ndearnadh athrú bunudhasach ar na riaghlacha oifigeamhla ón gcéad lá d'Eanair 1937, ionnus nach mbeadh baoghal feasta go mbrisfí as a bposta oidí conganta agus fó-mhaighistreásaí conganta nó go laghdóchthaí tuarastal príomh-oidí de bharr laghdú a theacht ar an meadhon-tinnreamh i n-a gcuid sgol.

Ní stoptar feasta tuarastal oidí conganta ná fo-mhaighistreásaí conganta nuair a thuiteas an meadhon-tinnreamh fá'n uimhir atá riachtanach le na bhfágáil ins an bposta. On gcéad lá de Dheire Foghmhair, 1937, tá painéil deoighse agus painéil aitheanta eile bunuighthe i n-a bhfuil ainmneacha oidí a mbaineann an cás leo. Fágtar na hoidí sin i n-a bposta agus íoctar a dtuarastal leo nó go mbíonn malairt postaí feileamhnacha le tairiscint dóibh i sgoltacha eile. Rinne an socrú sin athrú bun barr ar choingheallacha seirbhíse na n-oidí. Rinne sé seasta i n-a bpostaí iad ionnus nach gádh feasta d'oidí conganta agus d'fhó-mhaighis-treásaí conganta atá ar fostú i sgoltacha i n-a bhfuil an meadhon-tinnreamh ag tuitim imnidhe a bheith orra go gcaillfe siad a bpostaí.

Foirgnimh Sgoile: I rith na bliadhna airgeadais 1936-7 ceaduigheadh £227,900 a thabhairt ina dheontaisí le bun-sgoltacha a thógáil agus a fheabhsú. Tugadh na deontaisí sin le 48 sgoil nua a thógáil ina mbeadh slighe do 8,820 dalta, le 14 sgoil díobh sin a bhí ann cheana a fhairsingiú ionnus go mbeadh spás ionnta do 1,139 dalta sa mbreis agus le feabhas a chur ar 315 sgoil eile ó thaobh a ndéanaimh, an trosgáin, etc.

As meastachán caiteachais de £1,203,990 do ceaduigheadh i rith na gcúig mbliadhan dár críoch 31adh Márta, 1937, £883,150 a thabhairt le 196 sgoil nua a thógáil, le 131 de na sgoltacha a bhí ann cheana a fhairsingiú agus le feabhas a chur ar 1,276 sgoil.

Taisbeánann na figiúirí sin an dul chun cinn atá déanta agus atáthar a dhéanamh le feabhas a chur ar na sgoltacha i gcoitchinne. Cé is moite do Condae-bhuirg Atha Cliath, áit ina bhfuil deacrachtaí fá leith de bharr a bhfuil an Bárdas agus dreamanna eile ag tógáil de thighthe nuadha, atá sgoltacha measardha sásmhail anois ins na bailte móra agus ins na cathracha tríd is tríd. Is iontuigthe, ámhthach, ó thuairiscí na nDochtúr Oifigeamhail Condae agus ó thuairiscí Cigirí na Roinne nach bhfuil an sgéal chomh sásamhail sin i gcuid de na ceanntair tuaithe. Is iomdha áit sa tír ina bhfuil sgoltacha lochtacha fós agus tá múinteoireacht dá dhéanamh i sgoltacha nach bhfuil déanamh feileamhnach ortha agus atá lochtach ó thaobh folláinteachta. Ins na cásanna sin táthar dá chur i dtuisgint do na bainisteoirí an gádh atá le sgoltacha nuadha a chur ar fagháil nó le feabhas a chur ar na cinn atá ann. Tógfa sé tamall, ámhthach, an riaráiste a ghlanadh, gan trácht chor ar bith ar sgoltacha nuadha a chur ar fagháil in áit na gceann a théigheas as úsáid in aghaidh na bliadhna. Is maith is eol don Roinn an deifir atá leis an sgéal, ach tá constaicí ann atá ag coinneáil cúl ar an obair. Ceann de na constaicí sin, agus ní hé an ceann is lugha é, a dheacra is a bhíos sé go minic ar bhainisteoirí láthracha feileamhnacha a fhagháil i gcomhair sgol. Is minic a bhíos sé deacair ortha, freisin, an cuidiú airgid áiteamhail atá riachtanach le cur le deontais an Stáit a sholáthar.

Le bliadhanta gairide tógadh 22 sgoil nua i gCathair agus i gCondae Atha Cliath agus do hath-chóirigheadh agus do méaduigheadh go mór 12 sgoil de na cinn a bhí ann cheana. Tá sé cinn de sgoltacha nua dhá dtógáil fá láthair agus táthar ag déanamh ullmhúcháin le 35 sgoil a chur ar fagháil ar imeall na cathrach in áiteacha a bhfuil go leór tighthe dhá dtógáil nó a bhfuil sé ar intinn iad a thógáil. Orra seo beidh 12 sgoil a dtillfe ó 800-1,000 dalta i ngach ceann.

Tá leagan-amach níos fearr ar na sgoltacha nuadha ná mar a bhíodh ar na sean-chinn. Ní foláir láthracha níos mó i n-a gcomhair agus beidh níos mó ionnta do na daltaí. Beidh deis aerighthe níos fearr ag gabháil leo agus is mar sin freisin don tsolus agus don deis glantacháin. Maidir leis na cinn mhóra beidh halla ag gabháil leo in ar féidir aiclidheacht chuirp agus drámaidheacht a chleachtadh. Beidh deis ionnta freisin le léigheachta a chur ar fagháil agus le feidhm a bhaint as na slighte eile atá ann le cuidiú le cúrsaí oideachais. Na sgoltacha a tógadh do réir an leagan-amach nua tá moladh dá fhagháil acu i ngach áird.

An chaoi a dtoghtar oidí bun-sgoile: Maidir leis an méid oidí atá ag teagase ins na bun-sgoltacha tá laghdú seasta ag teacht ón mbliadhain 1933-34 ar an meadhon-uimhir daltaí atá ar rollaí na mbun-sgol. Tháinic 25,000 de thuitim ar an meadhon-uimhir i rith na dtrí mbliadhan dár críoch 30adh Meitheamh, 1937. Is mór an curisteach atá déanta ag an tuitim sin ar an méid oidí a bhíos ag teastáil in aghaidh na bliadhna i gcaoi is go ndeachaidh an méid múinteóirí—idir fhir is mná—go bhfuil ceal oibre ortha i líonmhaire.

Táthar ag leanacht de na hiarrachta a rinneadh cheana leis an droch-stáid sin a mhaolú ach bhí an sgéal chomh dona sin go mb'éigin iarracht níos láidre fós a dhéanamh le líon na n-oidí nuadha a laghdú. Uime sin rinneadh tuilleadh laghduighthe ins an mbliadhain 1937 ar an líon fear a-tógtaí isteach ins na coláistí oileamhna agus laghduigheadh an líon ban chomh maith. I n-a theannta sin táthar tar éis a fhógairt, i gcás fear agus ban, nach dtionólfar ins an mbliadhan 1938 an comórtas oscailte a bhíodh ann le dul isteach ins na coláistí oileamhna. Ní tionólfar i mbliadhna ach an oiread an sgrúdú a bhíodh ann do dhaoine ar theastuigh uatha a bheith i n-a bhfo-mháighistreásaí conganta ná ní glacfar aon chéimidhe ollsgoile isteach ins na coláistí oileamhna. Leanfar den socrú sin nó go bhfógartar a mhalairt. Do réir mar fógruigheadh ins an mbliadhain 1935 beidh deire le scéim na ndalta-oide nuair a glacfar isteach ins na coláistí oileamhna, i Meadhon Fhóghmair, 1938, an uimhir bheag de bhuachaillí agus de chailíní go bhfuil a gcúrsa ullmhúcháin dhá chríochnú acu fá lathair. Fágann sin, cé is moite de'n dream deiridh sin atáthar tar éis a luadhadh, nach nglacfar isteach ins na coláistí oileamhna ins an mbliadhain 1938, go dtí go mbeidh athrú ar an sgéal, ach daltaí as na Coláistí Ullmhúcháin go bhfuil tús curtha aca cheana féin le n-a gcúrsa oileamhna agus baill de chuallachta Chreidimh agus daoine atá ag obair fá láthair mar oidí conganta sealadacha neamh-oilte.

Na Coláistí Ullmhúcháin—Scoláirí ó'n bhFíor-Ghaedhealtacht. —Tá scéimeanna speisialta i bhfeidhm ó 1931 i leith chun comhthrom a thabhairt do dhaoine óga ós na ceanntair Ghaedhealacha ar dhul isteach ins na Coláistí Ullmhúcháin. Tá na scéimeanna sin léirighthe i Riaghlacháin na gColáistí Ullmhúcháin a foillsightear i n-aghaidh na bliadhna. Sul ar cuireadh na scéimeanna san i bhfeidhm ní bhíodh ach suas le 100 duine, idir bhuachaillí agus cailíní, ó'n bhFíor-Ghaedhealtacht ag dul fé'n Scrudúchán Iontrála, ach de thoradh na scéimeanna san tá breis mhór dalta ar an líon san. Bhí 444 (165 buachaillí agus 279 cailíní) ó'n bhFíor-Ghaedhealtacht fé'n Scrúdúchán Iontrála i 1937.

An Obair ins na Scoltaca. —Rinneadh trácht anuraidh ar an méadú atá ar an uimhir pháistí sna hárd-ranga ó céad-fheidhmigheadh an t-Acht Freastail Scoile. Ag dul i méid atá sé go fóill. Agus má cuimhnightear air gur mó go mór an uimhir pháistí atá indiu i meadhon-scoltacha agus i ngairm-scoltacha agus fós go bhfuil lán-uimhir na ndaltaí sna bun-scoltacha laghduighthe go mór, caithfear a rádh gur mór an chéim chun tosaigh atá déanta agus a rádh go bhfuil 62% de dhaltaí i ranga VI-VIII thar mar a bhí aon bhliadhain déag ó shoin.

Na h-Oidí: Is feidir a rádh go bhfuil furmhór na n-oidí dúthrachtach dílis i mbun a ngnaithe mar bhíodar riamh. Cóimhlíonaid a ndualgas dá dtír agus dá ndaltaí do réir a n-acfuinne, agus ghníd mórán ar son na bpáistí nach bhfuil innsint scéil air. Cúis maoidhimh an toradh a bhíos le saothar na n-oidí an-éifeachtach agus ní shroichid an réim sin gan díograis agus clisteacht teagaisc thar an meadhon do theasbáint.

Múineadh na Gaedhilge: Nuair a cuimhnighthear ar an mbail a bhí ar an nGaedhilg sna scoltacha chúig bliadhna déag ó shoin, caithfear a radh gur mór an dul chun tosaigh atá déanta le linn na tréimhse sin. Nuair a cuireadh na cúrsaí samhraidh do mhúinteoirí ar bun san mbliadhain 1922 ba dhcacair múinteoirí a raibh a ndóthain Gaedhilge aca d'fhagháil leis na cúrsaí a theagasc. Agus anois níl ach 16% de na h-oidí gan teastas éigin aca, agus 55.9% díobh a bhfuil an t-árd-teastas nó an teastas dá-theangach aca; sin níos mó ná a leath díobh atá áirimhthe mar mhúinteoirí atá i n-inmhe an clár iomlán Gaedhealach a mhúineadh.

Cé gur féidir maoidheamh as an méid atá déanta, níor cheart a cheilt, ámh, go bhfuil a lán le déanamh fós sul a mbí an Ghaedhilg as contabhairt. Sé an chontabhairt is mó atá indiú ann do'n Ghaedhilg a laghad suime as a chuireas an choitcheanntacht san gcúis. Dá gcuireadh pobal Éireann an oiread spéise san teangain is a chuireas lucht scoile, agus dá mbeadh caoi ag na páistí taobh amuigh de'n scoil, agus san saoghal amuigh ar fhágáil na scoile dhóibh, chun an teanga do labhairt go hiondual féadfaí a rádh go raibh an chontabhairt thart.

Múineadh tré Ghaedhilg: Tá tuilleadh á mhúineadh tré Ghaedhilg ó bliadhain go chéile do réir mar thagas oidí atá lán-oilte ar an nGaedhilg isteach ins na scoltacha agus do réir mar thagas feabhas ar chumas na bpáistí i labhairt na teanga. Mar adubhradh go minic cheana níl sé ar intinn na Roinne iachall a chur ar oidí teagasc tré Ghaedhilg a thabhairt muna bhfuil a ndóthain Gaedhilge chuige sin ag na múinteoirí agus ag na daltaí.

Deontas £2: Maidir le stáid na Gaedhilge mar ghnáth-theanga labhartha sa nGaedhealtacht agus sa mBreac-Ghaedhealtacht, tá scéim ann chun deontas £2 do dhíol le tuismightheóirí (agus caomhnóirí) sa nGaedhealtacht agus sa mBreac-Ghaedhealtacht, ar son gach páiste leo idir sé bliadhna agus ceithre bliadhna déag d'aois atá ag freastal bun-scoile sa nGaedhealtacht no sa mBreac-Ghaedhealtacht, agus gur dearbh do'n Roinn an Ghaedhilg bheith mar theanga theinnteáin an pháiste agus í bheith go pras líomhtha dá réir aige. Ní foláir, 'na theannta san, tinnreamh féilteamhail agus dul ar aghaidh sásamhail a bheith déanta ag an bpáiste ar scoil i gcaitheamh na scoil-bhliadhna chun an deontas do thuilleamh.

I n-aghaidh na scoil-bhliadhna dar tús i Iúl agus dar críoch 30 Meitheamh íoctar an deontas, agus b'í an scoil-bhliadhain 1936/37 an ceathramhadh scoil-bhliadhain gur íocadh an deontas 'na leith.

Tá neartuighthe go mór ar an nGaedhilg mar ghnáth-urlabhra ins na ceanntracha Gaedhealacha. Sul ar cuireadh an córas so ar bun, 151 scoileanna a bhí cláruighthe mar scoileanna sa bhFíor-Ghaedhealtacht; tá méaduighthe go 170 ar an uimhir scoileanne san atá cláruighthe anois mar scoileanna sa bhFíor-Ghaedhealtacht. Ní mór a rádh nach gcláruighthear scoil mar scoil sa bhFíor-Ghaedhealtacht go dtí gur dearbh do'n Roinn gur ceanntar 'na labhartar an Ghaedhilg mar ghnáth-theanga teaghlaigh go coitceannta ceanntar na scoile sin, agus gurb í an Ghaedhilg amháin, nó go háirithe gur fearr Gaedhilg ná Béarla, a bhíonn ag na páistí óga ag dul ar scoil dóibh an chéad lá.

Sgrúdú Teastas na Bun-Sgoile: Maidir le Sgrúdú Teastas na Bun-Sgoile, cé nárbh' fhéidir, ach an oiread leis na bliadhanta 1935 agus 1936, ball-raidheacht an Chomh-Choiste láir a bheith chomh cothrom agus bhíodh sé na bliadhanta roimhe sin, is léir mar sin féin ón tuairisc a chuir sé ar fagháil go raibh an chaoi a ndearnadh an sgrúdú sásamhail thríd is thríd agus gur mar sin freisin do na freagraí a tugadh. Chuaidh an uimhir a ghnóthuigh an teastas i méid ó 74.4% sa mbliadhain 1936 go dtí 76.1% sa mbliadhain 1937.

Cé go ndeachaidh an uimhir daltaí a chuaidh fá sgrudú i méid de bheagán tá an tinnreamh mí-shásamhail fós féin, agus dá chionn sin tá an Roinn thar eis cnámharlach sgéime nua a chur ós comhair Chumainn Bainisteoirí agus Múinteóirí le n-a mbreith a fhagháil air le súil go mbeadh cuidiú níos fearr le fagháil agus go nglacfadh na sgoltacha i gcoitchinne páirt níos dlúithe ins an scéim ná mar ghnídís roimhe seo. Sé an príomh-rud atá ar intinn ins na molta nuadha nach mbeadh an cúram ar aon dream amháin ach go mbeadh coistí ceanntair de Bhainisteoirí agus de Mhúinteoirí ar a mbeadh Cigire na Roinne ina chathaoirleach. Siad na coistí seo a dhéanfas gach ullmhúchán roimh-ré i gcomhair an sgrúduighthe agus siad a cheapfas feithmheoirí agus sgrúdthóirí as Painéil a ceadóchar chuige sin. Sí an Roinn a leagfas na páipéirí sgrúduighthe mar ghnídís roimhe sin, agus cuirfear toradh an sgrúduighthe i gcoitchinne fá bhreith Comh-Choiste láir a ceapfar do réir mar atá leagtha síos ins an scéim ar glacadh leis sa mbliadhain 1929.

Meadhón-Oideachas: Tháinic fás seasta ins an líon meadhon-sgoil agus ins an líon daltaí i rith na ndeich mbliadhan a chuaidh thart. 329 meadhón-sgoil aitheanta a bhí ag obair ins an mbliadhan sgoile 1936-37, sin péire níos mó ná mar bhí ann an bhliadhan roimhe sin. Bhí 35,890 daltaí ag freastal na sgol sin agus bhí 779 de bhreis ag an uimhir sin ar an uimhir a bhí ann ins an mbliadhan sgoile 1935-36. I mí Feabhra, 1938, chuir an Roinn cearcalán chuig Bainisteoirí na sgol ag fógairt go mbronnfaí breis sgoláireachtaí ar thoradh sgrúduighthe Meadhón-Teistiméarachta na bliadna 1938.

Tá an líon sgol ina ndéantar múinteoireacht thré Ghaedhilg ag dul i líonmhaire i gcomhnuidhe. Ins an mbliadhain sgoile 1936-37 bhí 87 sgoil ann arbh í an Ghaedhilg an ghnáth-theanga múinteoireachta ionnta. Ní raibh an sgéal amhlaidh ach i 77 sgoil an bhliadhain roimhe sin. Ar an gcuma gcéadna, rinneadh sa mbliadhain sgoile 1936-37 cuid den teagasc thré Ghaedhilg i 114 sgoil, sin trí sgoil de bhreis ar an uimhir a raibh an sgéal amhlaidh ionnta an bhliadhan roimhe sin. Na h-adhbhair léighinn: An Ghaedhilg. Furmhór mór na ndaltaí nuadh a thagas isteach ins na meadhón-sgoltacha gach bliadhain is ó Bhun-sgoltacha na Roinne a thagaid. Bíonn cuimse mhaith Ghaedhilge aca sin agus do réir chunntas na gCigirí is ag dul i bhfeabhas atá an Ghaedhilg ó bhliadhain go bliadhain i gcás na ndaltaí a thagas ó na Bun-sgoileanna Náisiúnta. Tá roinnt de na daltaí nuadha agus is ó sgoileanna príobháideacha a thagaid—ó sgoileanna príobháideacha a ghabhas le meadhón-sgoileanna áithride agus ó sgoileanna príobháideacha eile. Is beag ceann de na sgoileanna príobháideacha sin nach bhfuil an Ghaedhilg dá múineadh innte, agus thríd is thríd is beag dalta nuadh a thagas isteach ins na meadhón-sgoileanna anois, cé is moite dhe na daltaí a tóigeadh thar lear, gan a bheag nó a mhór den Ghaedhilg do bheith aige.

Teagasg tré Ghaedhilig: Léirigheann na figiuirí seo leanas an chaoi a bhfuil an teagasg tré Ghaedhilg ag méadú ó bhliadhain go bliadhain—

1935-36—

Sgoltacha i Roinn A

77

Sgoltacha i Roinn B1

44

Sgoltacha i Roinn B2

67

1936-37—

Sgoltacha i Roinn A

87

Sgoltacha i Roinn B1

47

Sgoltacha i Roinn B2

67

Seo mar atá na hiarrataisí i gcomhair na bliadhna 1937-38:—

Iarrataisí ar Roinn A

101

Iarrataisí ar Roinn B1

44

Iarrataisí ar Roinn B2

64

Cúig bliadhna ó shoin (1933-34) ní raibh ach 60 A-sgoileanna ann agus sé bliadhna ó shoin ní raibh ach 47 A-sgoileanna ann.

Buaidh-Sgiatha na Gaedhilge: Bhí an comórtas i gcóir na Sgiath seo chomh dian an babhta seo is bhí riamh roimhe. Is léir go gcuireann na sgoileanna an-tsuim sa chomórtas agus gur mhór acu an Sgiath do bhuadh-chaint. Bronnadh Sgiath na gCailíní ar Choláiste Muire, Clochar na Toirbheirte, Móinteach Mílic, agus Sgiath na mBuachaillí ar Sgoil na mBráthar, Daingean Uí Chúise.

Na Teangthacha eile: Níl aon sgoil sa tír nach múintear an dá theangaidh, Gaedhilg agus Béarla, innte. Taobh amuigh díobh sin 'siad na teangthacha a múintear ins na sgoltacha de ghnáth ná Laidean, Gréigis, Frainncis agus Gearmáinis.

Mar leis na teangthacha eile sin, seo cóimhmheas idir an méid sgoileanna ina múintí iad deich mbliadhna ó shoin (1927-28) agus an méid sfioileanna ina bhfuilid dá múineadh fá láthair: cuirfear na figiúirí sco san Tuairisg Oifigiúil.

Do I understand the Minister to say that he intends to incorporate in the Official Report a table of figures he is not reading out?

That course is permissible in the circumstances.

Well, that is probably a very good plan.

The House is agreeable to that?

I am agreeable to it.

Seo iad na figúirí.

Teanga

An méid sgoileanna ina raibh sí dá múineadh 1927-28

An méid sgoileanna ina bhfuil sí dá múineadh fá láthair

Méadú fá'n gcéad

Laidean

216

281

30%

Gréigis

50

58

16%

Frainncis

193

239

23%

Gearmáinis

16

22

37%

Tá an Laidean dá múineadh fá láthair in 83% de na meadhón-sgoileanna uilig—idir sgoileanna buachaillí agus sgoileanna cailíní, agus tá an Fhrainncis dá múineadh in 71% de na sgoileanna. Ins an sgrúdúchán san mbliadhain 1937 bhí níos mó 'ná an tríomhadh cuid de na buachaillí agus níos mó 'ná an cearthramhadh cuid de na gearrchailí a raibh ceithre teangthacha mar ádhbhair sgrúduighthe acu.

Seo mar bhí sgéal na dteangthacha ag na daltaí a bhuaidh sgoláireachtaí san mbliadhain 1937:—Ar an 72 bhuachaill ar bronnadh sgoláireachtaí ortha bhí:

36 a raibh 3 teangthacha mar ádhbhair scrúdúcháin aca.

25 a raibh 4 teangthacha mar ádhbhair scrúdúcháin aca.

1 a raibh 5 teangthacha mar ádhbhair scrúdúcháin aca.

Bronnadh sgoláireachtaí ar 40 gearrchaile; ortha sin bhí

15 a thóg 3 teangthacha sa sgrúdú,

24 a thóg 4 teangthacha sa sgrúdú,

1 a thóg 5 teangthacha sa sgrúdú.

Ní bhfuair duine ar bith, buachaill ná gearrchaile, sgoláireacht gan 3 teangthacha, ar a laghad, a bheith mar ádhbhair sgrúdúcháin aige, agus bhí 4 teangthacha, nó níos mó, ag 50% de na buachaillí agus ag 62.5% de na cailíní a bhuaidh sgoláireachtaí. Is léir ó na figiuirí sin nach laghdú ar bith ach méadú atá ag dul faoi na teangthacha clasagacha agus na nuadh-theangthacha ins na meadhónsgoileanna. Na cúrsaí léighinn a bhíonn dá múineadh ins na sgoileanna bíonn siad leathan go maith de ghnáth, agus is fírbheagán sgol ná deineann níos mó arhbhar do theagasg ná mar atá d'fhiachaibh ortha a dhéanamh do réir na Riaghlachán.

Múineadh na dTeangthach: Múintear an Laidean agus an Ghréigis go maith ó thaobh na gramadaighe dhe ach bíonn na cigirí ag gearán nach gcaithtear dóthain dúthrachta le fóghar ná le caindidheachta na bhfocal.

Sean locht is mó atá ar theagasg na Frainncise ná nach bhfuil labhairt na teangadh ar a ndeis ach ag roinnt bhig de na múinteoirí. Níl aon leigheas ceart air sin ach na múinteoirí nach bhfuil oilte ar an teangaidh tréimhse do chaitheamh sa bFrainnc sa tslighe go mbeidh deis aca leagan ceart agus foghar ceart na teangadh do phiocadh suas go nádurtha. Gheobhfí, ámhthach, feabhas do chur ar an sgéal dá mbaintí breis earraidheachta as ceirníní gramafóin agus as an gcraobhsgaoileachán.

Múintear an Ghearmáinis go maith ach níl ach glac bheag de na daltaí ghá foghluim go fóill.

Tá furmhór na gcigirí ar an tuairim go bhfuil bail mhaith i gceart ar an mBéarla ins na sgoileanna, agus deir duine aca gur fearr a múintear an Béarla fá láthair 'ná mar múintí í fiche bliadhain ó shoin. Cloistear corrghearán nach mbíonn gramadach ná leitriú an Bhéarla go maith ag na daltaí ag teacht isteach ins na meadhón-sgoileanna dhóibh.

Na hAdhbhair eile. Is beag má tá aoinní nuadh le rádh faoi theagasg na n-ádhbhar eile—Stair, Tíreolaidheacht, Matamaitic, Tráchtáil. Tá an méid seo ráidhthe ag duine de na cigirí faoi'n Tíreolaidheacht:—

"Sí an Tíreolaidheacht an t-ádhbhar is laige ins na sgoltacha, is dóigh liom, agus sé is cúis le sin ná droch-nós atá ann go fóill i gcuid de na sgoltacha múinteoirí nach bhfuil sáthach eolach ar an Tíreolaidheacht a chur ina cionn." Deir an cigire céadna an méid seo i dtaobh na Staire:—"Tá na múinteoirí i gcoitchinne fíor-shásta leis an atharrach a rinneadh i goúrsa Staire na Meadhon-Teistiméireachta, agus tá gach aon chosamhlacht ann gur fearr an obair a déanfar feasta de thairbhe an atharraigh sin."

Gairm-Oideachas. Is fiú trácht fá leith do dhéanamh ar dhá nidh atá le h-aithint go follasach ar na Scéimeanna Gairm-Oideachais do'n tseisiún 1936-37:—(1) ranga bheith á gcur ar bun i n-áiteacha nach raibh siad ionnta go dtí sin, agus (2) eagar níos fearr bheith ar an obair i n-áiteacha ina raibh sí ar cois cheana. Ní h-olc an comhartha ar an gcéad nidh aca an méid scoil nuadh, fá n-a ndíol ceart comhghar, do foscladh agus do bhí i bhfeidhm iomláin sa tseisiún sin.

Cuireadh ag obair naoi gcinn déag de na scoltacha nuadha sin—4 i gCeanntar na Mumhan, 4 i gCeanntar an Tuaiscirt, 5 sa gCeanntar Theas de Laighin, agus 6 i gCeanntar an Iarthair. Ní h-iongnadh, mar sin, an méadú mór do tháinig ar an tinnreamh.

I seisiún a 1935-36 bhí 12,500 ar rollaí an lán-chúrsa lae, ach i seisiún a 1936-37, bhí beagnach 13,200 ar na rollaí, agus bhí an méadú sin roinnte go comhthrom ar na Scéimeanna Condae, ar Scéimeanna na gCondae-Bhuirg, agus ar Scéimeanna na gCeanntar Tuaithe. Ba mhaith an nidh é sin, ach mheas na Prímh-Fheadhmannaigh agus lucht na gCoiste nár lugha de thábhacht ná sin eagar níos fearr do chur ar an obair i n-áiteacha ina raibh sí ar cois cheana, agus d'aimhdheóin í do bheith ag fás ina lán áiteach aca sin ó cuireadh Acht an Ghairm-Oideachais i bhfeidhm i mbliadhian a 1931. Dá réir sin, rinneadh an obair do bhreathnú agus do mheas, féachaint an bhfeicfidhe laige ar bith a mb'fhéidir é do leigheas. Tá a lán Scéim eile ann ar shocharach dóibh an rud céadna do dhéanamh leó.

Mar bhí cheana, tá suim mhór agus dúthracht dhá gcur i riarachán na scéim ag na Coistí Gairm-Oideachais. Ins an mór-chuid de na ceanntair cuireadh ar fagháil an ráta is mó atá ceaduighthe. Ina lán áiteach ina bhfuil níos mó ná aon cheard-scoil amháin tá sé ina ghnás ag an lucht riaracháin fó-choistí do thoghadh chun aire fá leith do thabhairt do gach scoil. Fir ghnótha agus daoine a bhfuil suim i n-oideachas aca, ghnítear iad do chomh-thoghadh ar na fó-choistí agus gheibhtear congnamh an-socharach uatha. Bíonn deagh-scéal le h-innsint, maidir le líon na scoláire, leis an tinnreamh, agus le h-éifeacht na scoile, i ngach aon áit ina bhfuil fóchoistí maithe bríoghmhara.

Le n-a chois sin, tá na Coistí Gairm-Oideachais ag baint tuilleadh feadhma as an gcumhacht atá aca chun scoláireachta do thabhairt uatha. Deir na Cigirí go mbíonn méadú deimhin, gach bliadhain, ar Scoláireachta na Gaedhealtachta. Rud eile táthar ag teacht ar bhealaigh nuadha le gnó na scoláireacht do riaghlú ins an gcaoi is mó a mbainfear sochar asta.

Tá fuagraidheacht tairbheach dhá dhéanamh maidir le furmhór na scéimeanna. Bionn taisbeántais ag cuid mhór de na scoltacha i ndeireadh an tseisiúin agus cuireann na daoine i gcoitcheann suim mhór san obair le n-a linn sin.

In gach áit beagnach ina bhfuil scéim ar obair, tá sé le feiceáil go bhfuil tuilleach eolais; agus dá réir sin, tuilleadh measa ag éirighe ag lucht gnótha ar obair na Scoil Gairm-Oideachais. I seisiún a 1936-37, tugadh postaí do 100 scoláire dá raibh ag na cúrsaí lae i gCathair Chorcaighe. I gCathair Luimnigh fuair suas le 70 scoláire obair agus suas le 60 i bPort Láirge.

Tá an glaodhach ar Oideachas Leanúnach ag méadú ó bhliadhain go bliadhain. Do réir na dtuarascbháil do fuarthas bhí níos mó scoláire ar na rollaí seisiún a 1936-37 ná mar a bhí i seisiún 1935-36. Ins na condae-bhuirg agus ins na mór-bhailte eile, b'éigean "liostaí feithimh" do dhéanamh, mí roimh thús an tseisiúin, le h-aghaidh móráin de lán-chúrsaí lae. Ba ghearr go raibh na scoltacha go léir comh lán agus b'fhéidir dóibh bheith i mBaile Atha Cliath. Thárla an rud céadna i gCorcaigh, i Luimneach, i bPort Láirge agus i dTráigh Lí; bhí an oiread sin ag iarraidh áiteacha ins na cúrsaí lae agus gur bh'éigean cuid mhór do dhiúltú, mar nach raibh fairsingeach ins na scoltacha dóibh go léir.

Ní raibh an glaodhach comh tréan sin ar fad ins na ceanntair tuaithe ach mar sin féin is beag áit nach dtáinig méadú do réir a chéile ar líon na scoláire. Ba mhó bhí sin le thabhairt faoi deara ins na h-áiteacha i n-ar foscladh scoltacha a bhfuil a ndíol de nuadhchomhghair ionnta.

Tá na cúrsaí so-athruighthe, agus, chomh fada agus is féidir é, ghníthear gach ceann aca d'éagrú sa gcaoi is fearr a n-oireann sé do riachtanais an cheanntair ina mbíthear ghá theagasc. Go geinearálta féadtar a rádh fá gach ceanntar go bhfaghann na cailíní tréineáil mhaith iomlán i n-ádhbhar Tíoghbhais mar aon le teagasc i n-ádhbhair choitcheannta. Le n-a chois sin bheirtear teagasc i n-ádhbhair Tráchtála do chailíní ins na mór-bhailte. Maidir le furmhór na gceárdchúrsaí do bhuachaillí, is é rud is bunchlár dóibh lámh-obair adhmaid, lámh-obair miotail, Matamaitic, agus Línidheacht. Níor bh'fhéidir cúrsaí i n-Eólaidheacht Tuaithe do chur ar bun ach i gcorráit. Easbhaidh múinteóir tréineáilte agus easbhaidh talaimh do bhéadh comhgarach, nó oireamhnach, ba chúis le sin. Táthar ag súil, ámhthach, go dtiocfaidh athrú mhór chun feabhais ar an scéal, an seisiún seo, óir tá sé mhúinteóir dhéag tar éis a dtréineáil do chríochnú go sásamháil, agus tá siad sin anois ag obair i scoltacha tuaithe ar fud na tíre.

Ins na condae-bhuirg agus ins na mhór-bhailte go léir tháinig méadú deimhin i seisiún a 1936-37 ar líon na ndaoine do bhí ag iarraidh bheith ina mbaill de ranga ceárd-oidheachais. Bhí an méadú sin le h-aithint go speisialta ar na ranna bhaineas le Meiceanóireacht, le h-Innealltóireacht, Leictreachais agus Gluaisteán, agus ar ranna an Tíoghbhais agus ar ranna na Foirgneóireachta. Ag trácht ar an méadú sin do na cigirí, deir siad go dtáinig feabhas mór ar an tinnreamh agus ar obair na scoláire de thairbhe an atheagruighthe de rinneadh le gcirid ar Scrúduighthe na gCeárd-Scol. Maidir leis an méadú do tháinig ar líon na bprintíseach le h-innealltóireacht ghluaisteán i ranga oidhche na gcondae-bhuirg, deirtear nach beag mar chúis chuige sin an ghnáth-obair lac bheith rannta ina codacha speisialta; óir má's mian le printíseach eólas beacht d'fágháil ar gach roinn dá chéird ni mór dó freastal do dhéanamh ar Cheárd-Scoil. I mBaile Atha Cliath, bhí 700 scoláire ar na rollaí le h-aghaidh ranga na Foirgneorachta i Scoil Shráid Bolton, agus bhí corradh agus 500 ag fághail teagaisc innealltóireachta ins na ranga oidhche; agus i gCeárd-Scoil Shráid Chaoimhghín bhí corradh agus 600 ag fágháil teagaisc i n-eólaidheacht agus i n-innealltóireacht leictreachais.

Mar rinneadh cheana cuireadh a lán cúrsa speisealta tréineála ar bun i n-áiteacha ina bhfuil tionnscail cheana, nó i n-áiteacha ina bhfuiltear ag súil le tionnscail nuadha. Na cursaí speisialta bhaineas le Tionnscal an Bhiatais, is iad is mó suim, ach d'éirigh go maith le cúrsaí de'n tsamhail chéadna i mórán tionnscal agus gairm eile—neithe mar Chlódóireacht, Innealltóireacht Iarn-Ród, Meiceanóireacht Ghluaisteán, Táthadh Leictreamhail, Snadhmadh Cábla, Cineamachas, Telegrafacht Radio, Deileadóireacht Troscáin, Déanamh Lampa Leictreach, Ceardaidheacht Bhácús, Tionnscail Olna, Láimh - Fhigheadóireacht, Déantóireacht Bhróg, Innealltóireacht Leictreachais, Súdaireacht, Deantóireacht Scriú agus Táirnge, Déantóireacht Bhall Eadaigh, Déantóireacht Chnaipe, Déantóireacht Bhreagán, Potaireacht, Tionnscail lascaireachta, Fuagraidheacht, agus Árachas Sláinte. Bhí cúrsaí speisialta ar an nós sin de'n iomad cineál ann—ó Thréineáil Chócaire Tighthe Osta go dtí Déantóireacht Bhrais-Síoda.

Sa tseisiún céadna sin 1936-37, bhí méadú eile arís ar líon na scoláire do bhí ag saothrú cáilidheachta chun Gaedhilge do theagasc faoi Scéimeanna Gairm-Oideachais. Bhí 138 iarrthóir, agus d'éirigh le 75.

Bhí Céimeanna le h-Onóracha i nGaedhilg na h-aimsire seo nó ins na Teangthacha Ceilteacha ag ochtar de na h-iarrthóiri. D'éilimh siad sin bheith saor ar chuid na scríbhneóireachta de'n scrúdú agus ní dhearna siad ach dul faoi'n triail béil. D'éirigh sa scrúdú le seisear aca.

Mar sin de, ní'l ganntanas ann de Mhúinteóirí Gaedhilge a bhfuil an cháilidheacht aca atá riachtanach. Ní'l leith-scéal ar bith ag Coistí Gairm-Oideachais aon mhúinteóir do thoghadh ach duine a bhfuil iomlán cáilidheachta aige.

Is fearr ná sin féin atá an scéal maidir leis an méid múinteóir a bhfuil an Ceárd-Teastas Gaedhilge aca. O cuireadh ar bun an Teastas sin, i mbliadhain a 1932, chuaidh 946 iarrthóir faoi scrúdú agus d'eirigh le 442.

Má's fadálach féin é, tá teagasc tré Ghaedhilge dhá sholáthar do réir a chéile sa nGaedhealtacht. Sa gcuid de Chondae na Gaillimhe atá do'n taobh thiar de'n Chathair agus de'n Choirb rinneadh na h-ádhbhair go léir do theagasc tré Ghaedhilge i seisiún a 1936-37. Ortha sin bhí Oideachas Leanúnach, Geilleagar Tuaithe, Cunntasóireacht Feirmeach, Eólaidheacht Tíoghbhais, Obair Adhmaid, Eólaidheacht Tuaithe, Sníomhachán, Dathúchán, Déanamh Líonta agus Deisiú Líonta. I gCeis Chairrgín, i gCondae Liathdroma, is tré Ghaedhilge do teagascadh na h-ádhbhair go léir ach amháin Obair Adhmaid. I n-Acaill agus i mBéal an Mhuirthid, agus ins na buan-ionaid éile i gCondae Mhuighe Eó, ghníthear cuid mhór de'n teagasc tré Ghaedhilge. Tá an scéal mar an gcéadna i nGaedhealtacht na Mumhan, go h-áirithe i gCondae an Chláir agus i gCondae Chorcaighe.

Sa seisiún a mbaineann an tuarasc-bháil seo leis chuir an Roinn ar bun Taisbeántas de Phleananna Scoil-Fhoirgneamh, agus foscladh an Taisbeántas go h-oifigeamhail, an 24adh lá de Lughnasa, 1937, sa gColáiste Náisiúnta Ealadhan, Sráid Chill Dara, Baile Atha Cliath.

Níor coinnigheadh an Taisbeántas i muinghin pleananna de scoil-fhoirgnimh do rinneadh in n-Eirinn. Chuidigh na consol-ionadaidhthe atá i mBaile Atha Cliath leis an obair go caomhamhail, agus dá thairbhe sin fuarthas as tíortha eile cóip-phleananna do bhí an-spéiseamhail ar fad.

Maidir le Ard-Mhusaeum na hEireann rinneadh ath-chóiriú i rith na bliadhna atá caithte i ngach roinn, ach rinneadh sin go mór-mhór ar na snuasachta caladhan agus sean-iarsma Eireannach. Mar a rinneadh ins na bliadhanta roimhe sin caitheadh a lán ama le roinn na sean-iarsma Eireannach ag glacadh isteach agus ag rannú an chuid mhór ádhbhair a bhí le fagháil de bharr an lear tochaltáin do réir scéime a rinneadh i dteannta na dtochaltán a bhí ar siubhal fá chúram ollsgoile Harbhard. Ar an gcuma gcéadna tá roinn na luibheann agus na mbeodhthach ag glacadh isteach ins an gcnuasacht luibheann a lán iarsma plandaí agus maidir leis an gcnuasacht beodhthach tá a lán aicmí a fritheadh ins an am a chuaidh thart dhá gclárú anois mar go bhfuil a sháith d'fhoirinn ins an roinn.

Níl aon laghdú ag teacht ar an méid atá dhá fhághail i gcomhair Roinn na sean-iarsma. De bharr na seirbhísí fionnachtana tá tuairiscí ar fhionnachtain atáthar a dhéanamh ag teacht isteach as chuile áird de'n tír. Ina theannta sin tá cnuasachta iomlána dhábhfághail, agus orra sin tá cuid mhór atá ag teacht as Tuaisceart na hEireann. Cuir i gcás, is san Ard-Mhusaeum is fearr atá eolus le fághail anois ar an saoghal a bhí ar Oileán Reachra le linn na chéad áitreabhaidhthe.

The discussion will, I assume, in accordance with the usual procedure, range over the whole group of Votes for which the Minister for Education is responsible, that is Votes Nos. 45 to 51. The discussion on these Estimates and on the motion to refer back Estimate 45 will proceed together. When the Minister shall have concluded the discussion, two questions may be put, first on the motion to refer back and, when that has been decided, the main question without further discussion. I now call on Deputy Hurley to move the motion that stands in his name.

I move the motion standing in my name—"That the Estimate be referred back for consideration." I do so to draw attention to the ineptitude, the indifference, the total disregard of public opinion of the Minister's Department and their contempt of the probable reactions on a big section of the Minister's employees, as I call them, which will arise as a result of this Vote. The Vote for the Office of the Minister, we are told in the Minister's statement, is up by £7,873, of which £6,800 approximately, is accounted for by the increase in the cost-of-living bonus. I have no objection to that amount being allocated for a cost-of-living bonus for people engaged in the office, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that the primary teachers in this country have been, and are still, suffering very serious resentment and very serious discontent owing to the treatment they have received with regard to salaries and other conditions for a number of years past. Up to 1920, the primary teachers were the worst paid body of public servants in this country. In that year, the British Government, then functioning in this country, on a conference being held, agreed to certain scale of salaries under what was known as the 1920 salary agreement for national teachers. That scale of salaries was the result of a conference between the representatives of the British Treasury, the teachers and the Department of Education or, as it was called at the time, the Education Office. It definitely laid down these salaries for what were to be normal conditions, not war conditions. There was also a definite understanding that these salaries were to be accompanied by a pension agreement without any reduction of teachers' salaries. These were two important points which made the salary agreement acceptable to the teachers although the salaries allowed under that agreement could not be in any way classified as exorbitant.

Some people think that the salaries offered to national teachers under the British Government settlement were in the nature of salaries for a particular period of prices but, as I want to emphasise, these salaries were definitely laid down for normal times. Despite that fact, within a few years of a native Parliament being set up in this country, the teachers were, curiously enough, the only public servants to be singled out by the then Government, the Cumann na nGaedheal Government as we called it, for a special cut in salary. They were singled out for that cut, without any reference to the usual understanding that one would expect between employees and employers. There was no conference or no indication whatever to suggest that the cut was about to be inflicted. Naturally enough they resented that 10 per cent. cut. That was bad enough, but other emoluments which the teachers enjoyed were also taken away and the result was that the position of the national teachers, as regards salaries and conditions of employment, was considerably worsened.

That position went on until we had a change of Government in 1932. Previous to that change of Government, the Party who were then seeking power were very loud in their denunciations of the treatment of the teachers. They were very vocal and very vehement in their condemnation of the position to which the teachers had been brought under a native Government. Therefore, when, in 1932, a change of Government was brought about, the teachers seemed to take it for granted that no longer would they suffer reductions in salaries and that, whatever reductions had been made under the previous bad Government, would now be restored under this new and very efficient Government.

A Christian Government.

Yes, a Christian Government. Unfortunately, the teachers were again singled out amongst public servants to suffer under the economy axe. In 1933, with other public servants, the teachers suffered another reduction in salaries. Again here, the point I want to emphasise is that all through these cuts, the teachers seem to get a special cut. A special wield of the axe was reserved for the teachers. In connection with that cut in 1933, which we are told by the Fianna Fáil Government was to be in the nature of an economy in order to make good the results of inroads on public expenditure in other directions, we were informed that the teachers and other public servants were to suffer equally. What really happened was that 62 per cent. of the total amount which had to be found by this economy drive was taken from the national teachers' salaries. Why that discrimination was made against teachers' salaries I could never understand, but the fact remains that it was. That was in 1933.

In 1934 we had a definite, and up to the present, a permanent cut in teachers' salaries of 9 per cent. In other words the cuts, which were inflicted in 1933, were continued to the extent of 9 per cent. True it is to say that a so-called pensions settlement was made which embraced, for the first time, pension rights for convent teachers and J.A.M.'s. I shall have something more to say about that later on. In any case this was supposed to be the reason for inflicting the cut of 9 per cent. Again the teachers were the only public servants who were singled out for this permanent cut. Why that is, I do not know. Yesterday in the debate on the cuts in salaries of the Guards there was a suggestion that the Desborough Commission, which went into the position of the R.I.C. in this country, laid down a definite scale of salaries for the Civic Guards. The Minister for Justice denied that. A commission was definitely set up here in 1920 to deal with teachers' salaries and there was a definite agreement between three parties. In 1923, 1933 and 1934 that agreement was flagrantly broken by the Governments of the day. Why there was that special picking out of teachers' salaries for deductions I do not know. The fact remains that they took place.

The position is that the primary teachers are the only class of workers that are definitely worse off than they were in 1932, when the present Government came into power. Some people may say that teachers are a body of public servants that could be very usefully done without. Of course that kind of criticism does not weigh with this House, because we all understand that education, especially primary education which is the only education that 90 per cent. of our children receive, is a social service that must be maintained at the peak of efficiency. I submit that we cannot have that high standard of efficiency in education when those who operate the system— the primary teachers—are treated as I have shown they have been treated for many years. Padraig Pearse was a great educationist and is very often quoted in various directions. He stated at one time:

"Between the salary offered to the teacher and the excellence of a country's education system there is a vital connection."

That is a truism to which we can all subscribe. He went further and said:

"I would make the teachers a national service, guaranteeing an adequate salary, adequate security of tenure, adequate promotion and adequate pension."

I am afraid we have gone very far on a different road from that which Padraig Pearse visualised that the Irish nation would travel when we had our own Government operating here. The teachers were under the impression that if a native Government was operating there would be no necessity for any demands for proper salary scales, or that they would have to fight against cuts in salaries, believing that a native Government would realise the importance of the educational service, and that a contented and an efficient teaching service would be the most important social service in the country. That was given voice to in 1922 when at a teachers' congress in Dublin the then Minister for Education said:

"At the moment when Irishmen responsible to the Irish nation, and to the Irish nation alone, were taking control of education, in the operation of that change the teachers of Ireland of whatever class or creed, have nothing whatever to fear."

Unfortunately the teachers have been very much disillusioned since then by the operation of the "cuts" in salaries. In March, 1928, Deputy O'Sullivan, who was then Minister for Education, said:

"I do not think, in the interests of the service, and in the interests of education, that further decreases in salaries can be contemplated by the Government. I believe it would be disastrous."

On the same occasion An Taoiseach, who was the then Leader of the Opposition, said:—

"There is no money so well spent and no money for which we get such value as money spent on education. I certainly will not be one to ask the Minister for Education to try to reduce the Education Vote."

With these declarations, it is no wonder that the teachers in 1933 and 1934 did not anticipate reductions in salaries. But they have been disillusioned even since then. Teachers perform a very useful and a very important work in the schools. The Minister in his report has paid a very high tribute to them. He pointed out that more than half the teachers have some qualifications in Irish. The restoration of the Irish language was one of the most important works allocated to the primary teachers, and I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that they have done that work faithfully and well. They have restored the language to the position it should occupy. As well as that, outside of their school work, they have engaged in other work that has been equally beneficial to the nation. They are engaged in Coiste na bPaisti, Cumann na nOg, and they are the life and soul of the G.A.A. They form the bulk of Savings Certificates Committees. That is all done outside their work in the schools. While the Minister and the inspectors have appraised the work in the schools as having high educational value, the teachers are treated worse than any other body of public servants. The primary teachers had to shoulder the burden of restoring the Irish language, and they did it at great inconvenience to themselves and at a great tax to their strength and health. That is evident from the returns of the Irish National Teachers' Benevolent Fund during the last ten years. Absence through ill-health has doubled and medical certificates which had to be furnished in order to get grants from the fund show that the absences were in the main caused by overwork and strain. That overwork and strain was due to services rendered the nation by the teachers.

One would think that for such important services there would be some measure of sympathy, if not generosity in the treatment of teachers. I submit that the reverse has been the case. In the Vote there is no suggestion of a restoration of the "cuts" that were made in teachers' salaries. There is an actual decrease in the amount allocated for salaries, which is explained by the Minister's statement as being due to the declining school population over the three years ending 30th June, 1937. That decrease represents 25,000 children less than were attending the schools in 1934. As a result, a large number of teachers were in danger of losing their positions. The managers, representatives of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, and the Department then devised a scheme to prevent the dismissal of teachers when the average in the schools declined. That was a very useful and a very welcome statement by the Minister. It was actually necessary when there was such an alarming decline in the child population that some steps should be taken to prevent the unemployment of a large number of teachers. The teachers have been singled out for very unjust treatment as regards cuts in salaries both by this Government and by the previous Government. Cumann na nGaedheal started off in 1923 to the tune of 10 per cent., and Fianna Fáil followed up in 1933 and 1934 to the extent of 9 per cent., so that at the present time the position is that national teachers are 20 per cent. worse off than they were in 1922.

There is another rather disturbing feature with regard to the cuts in teachers' salaries and the position of teachers generally in this country and that is the position of the rural school. In a rural school, I submit, it is necessary to have the very best teachers. First of all, it is necessary in the interests of education in the district to have teachers who have the very highest qualifications in these rural schools. With the pay and the prospects of promotion, you are not likely to get the very best teachers for rural schools. Those parents who can do so will then be forced to send their children into the towns and cities to receive that education which is not available in the rural district. From that point of view, therefore, the position of the teacher should be one where the salary and the inducements would be such as to induce him to qualify himself and to be ready to sacrifice himself, if necessary, in order to give to the children in his district the very best possible education. That is not possible under the present system.

I do not wish to compare the salaries of teachers in other countries with salaries here, but I think I should be allowed to compare the salaries of teachers in this part of the country with those of teachers in another part of the country. I refer to what is known as Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, the teachers in 1920 came under the salaries agreement then made with the British Government. They received their first cut in 1925. The teachers in this part of the country received their first cut in 1923. Here the cut was to the extent of 10 per cent. and in Northern Ireland it was 7 per cent. But, as an offset, the fees for school gardening, mathematics, and subjects like that were still continued in Northern Ireland; they were all wiped out here by our Government after the cut of 1923. In Northern Ireland, there was a further cut in 1931, but that was restored in the last Estimates in Northern Ireland. The position then to-day is that in this part of the country the normal scale of pay paid to men teachers commences at £140 and reaches £303 per year. In Northern Ireland, the starting salary is £160 and it goes up to £344 for men. For women in Northern Ireland the normal salary scale is £145 to £280, as against £128 to £246 here, so that there is a better position as regards salaries at present in Northern Ireland. Then, in Northern Ireland, pension rights were accorded to convent teachers and junior assistant mistresses in 1922 when the Northern Parliament was set up. Here we did not get pension rights for similar classes of teachers until 1934.

Great play has been made by the Minister for Finance with regard to the pension settlement of 1934, and it is urged that that settlement was the reason for this cut in 1934. We urge that that pension settlement was brought about by circumstances over which the teachers or their executive had no control. Previous to that there was a pension fund set up, partly supported by teachers' subscriptions and partly by the State. The remarkable fact about it is that the side of the fund to which the teachers' contributions went was all the time solvent; the insolvency was on the other side, the State side, and that insolvency began away back before 1922, when the pension fund was taken over. It was pointed out at the time by the teachers' executive to the Provisional Government that the fund was not solvent so far as the State side was concerned. Despite that, the responsibility was taken over as it stood. The teachers were expected in 1934 to make good the delinquencies of the Government of the day. Even granting that they had to make it good, the position is that the Minister for Finance in a calculation told us that at the peak point the liability for pensions would be somewhere about £421,000. In the Estimates which we have before us, the figure for teachers' pensions is down by £10,000, showing that the peak point has been reached, or is almost about being reached, as there is a decline in the amount set out in the Estimates, which is £378,000.

I submit that out of this cut in teachers' salaries, with the supposed offset for pensions, the Minister for Finance is making a very good profit. I am not going to go into figures, but I will submit that if the position were examined, the Minister for Finance is making a very good profit on the teachers' pension contributions. Besides that amount which was deducted from the teachers' salaries in 1934, a sum of £2,250,000, the assets of the pension fund, were taken over by the Government and, as I say, in the present Estimates the amount provided for pensions is actually down by £10,000. The pension deduction has been urged by the Minister for Finance as a reason for teachers' salaries being cut. But, again, teachers are the only body of public servants on whom this kind of liability is put. Is the State liable for teachers' pensions or is it not? Are teachers bound to pay for their own pensions? That is what they are doing at present. Not alone are they paying for their pensions, but the Minister is actually making a profit out of the payment. Then we are told that we are provided with pensions guaranteed by the State as against the cuts in salary.

One point with regard to the pensions for junior assistant mistresses and convent teachers was the treatment meted out to a small body of teachers who had resigned prior to that arrangement in 1934. These teachers had served for 40, 44 or 45 years in national and convent schools and because they resigned prior to this 1934 arrangement, they were completely outside the scope of this pension arrangement, while if they were in Northern Ireland they would have got pension rights since 1922. I was occupying the position of President of the I.N.T.O. at the time, and I urged on the present Minister for Education their claim, but it was not conceded. The number was about 60. I was told both by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education that, as the number was not very large, they would not be brought in, and they were never brought in. Of course, anno domini is now doing the work that the Minister did not do, giving them pensions but many of them are dying out.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the cumulative effects of this adverse treatment of teachers both as regards the cuts in their salaries and their pensions and to point out the reactions that these things are having on the teachers, on the work of the teacher, and the reaction that that position will have on the educational services of this country. If we hear at the present time that the resentment amongst the teachers is great and is growing, and that means other than those of making speeches in the Dáil and in the country will have to be resorted to if there is not some improvement in the position, Deputies can very easily understand from what I have said the reason for all this. I have tried to show you that the teachers in this part of the country, if I could compare them with the teachers in England, are in a much worse position than the teachers across the water. But what I want to emphasise particularly is this, that not alone has the Minister been deaf to all entreaties from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, but that he has also been deaf to the importunities of his own governing body, the Ard-Fheis, which a year or two ago, if my memory serves me correctly, demanded that the cuts in teachers' salaries should be restored. Nothing has been done about it since, and, as I have said, the latest is that the teachers are so resentful that they are thinking of other means of enforcing their very just demands.

Now, I would like to refer to the indifference of the Minister, and to the position that has arisen in the country. We had the same cynical kind of attitude adopted on the Rhynana scheme, of men out on strike and letting them go out. I suppose if the teachers determined to go out on strike, the Minister would sit tight and see what would develop from it. I suggest that is not the way for this House, or for the Minister for Education, to face up to their responsibilities as regards the education service of this country. It is one that must be continued uninterruptedly as far as the efficiency of it is concerned. You have, as the Minister stated in his report, a very efficient service of primary education in this country, but the conditions I have referred to and their reactions are bound to have very detrimental results on the educational service of the country. Then, I need not point out, that not alone have those cuts been inflicted on the teachers' salaries, but there is the question of the increased cost of living which has occasioned an increase in the actual Vote for the Minister's Department of £6,800. You have the increased cost of living operating detrimentally against the teachers of the country.

There is another fact that I would like to draw the Minister's attention to, one which affects the position of teachers, and that is that in some parts of the country—we have the same position here in Dublin also—you have young teachers marked "highly efficient" by the inspectors of the Department, and teaching their subjects through Irish, but, because they have not the paper qualification of the bilingual certificate, they are being deprived of their increments. That position has gone on for some time, so that those teachers who, in the opinion of the inspectors, are doing very highly efficient work, are being deprived of their increments for that work. I would like to suggest to the Minister that where a teacher is doing highly efficient work, and doing that work through Irish, that that surely is a guarantee that the teacher knows Irish, and is able to teach through Irish. That, I think, should be sufficient to warrant a teacher getting his increment.

In the Vote we have an increase in the grant for heating and cleaning schools. To the ordinary observer the sum set down may appear a very large sum—£14,300. According to the calculations of the Department of Education, a sum of £50,000 extra was required to heat and clean adequately the schools of this country, but owing to the method adopted for the disbursement of that money—£1 for £1 being demanded from the locality by the Department—the figure has fallen from £50,000 to £30,000. That £50,000 was to be an extra to the £14,000 already granted. I suggest that the Department could very usefully take on the responsibility of heating and cleaning the schools of this country. I am sure many Deputies will remember their own school days when they had to remain on after school hours to sweep out the school, and in the mornings to bring a sod of turf under their arm to provide a fire in the school during the winter months. I suggest that we have gone beyond that day and should now be in a position to get these things done, and done adequately, by the State.

With regard to school buildings, the Minister has told us, and rightly so, that in the cities and towns school buildings have improved very materially and are in a very good condition. Speaking from my knowledge of the City of Cork, I can say that we have excellent schools there, but I must say that I get complaints from teachers in parts of the country that some schools are not in the position that we would wish them to be. They are certainly unhygienic, insanitary and in very bad repair. I have got particulars with regard to a district in County Cork where a new school is to be built. The children in the old school that is there at present are obliged to work under very adverse conditions. On a wet day the teacher has to open his umbrella in the school. He has to do his work with the chalk in one hand and the umbrella in the other. I am quite serious in saying that. These things happen, but they should not happen. There is a certain amount of red tape and regulation that must be broken through before you can get things done in regard to school buildings. I suggest that a good deal of the red tape could be cut away, especially where new school buildings are an urgent need.

I was pleased to see in the Vote that there is an increased amount for scholarships to the Gaeltacht of £500. That is money that is well spent, and I congratulate the Minister in taking steps in that direction. This scheme started as a voluntary organisation. It has been very well supported by all classes in the community, especially the working classes. We have schemes in operation in Dublin and Cork and in other parts of the country under which numbers of children are sent to the Gaeltacht for a month during the summer period. The Minister has increased the amount to come from his Department. I can assure the House and the Minister that there is very good value got for that money, not alone as far as the learning of Irish is concerned, but also from the point of view of the health of those children. It is a very fine scheme, and I hope that next year the Minister will again see his way to increase that grant.

In conclusion I wonder would it be too much to hope that the Minister, on reconsideration of what I have said and the position as he knows it, would go back and see in what direction those cuts in teachers' salaries can be restored. They have caused much definite resentment amongst teachers. My colleagues on the other side, Deputy Breathnach and Deputy O'Rourke, will bear me out when I assert that it is no exaggeration to say the position is one of resentment, one of actual indignation against the Government which continues to single out teachers as the only body of public servants to be discriminated against in the matter of salaries, pensions, and conditions. I am not making an exaggerated statement when I say to the Minister that unless something is done, and speedily done, there is going to be a very serious upheaval in the educational service of this country. I am not making any threat. As I said, I can appeal to my colleagues on the other side and they will bear me out when I say that such is the position. Education has been looked upon in some assemblies as the Cinderella of the services, but I suggest that in Dáil Eireann that idea does not prevail. We know that education is one of the most important services, and the Minister for Education will get the help of every Party in this House if he comes to us and tells us that he is not going to allow the teachers of this country to be treated in this fashion; that he is going to insist that the teachers of this country are to be treated at least as well as other public servants. Not alone will he have support from every part of this House in that matter but he will have the gratitude of the 11,000 national teachers in the country. I have spoken at some length—but, as far as I am personally concerned, without any resentment—because I want to put the facts as I see them before the Minister and the House. In doing that, I am hopeful that the Minister will take heed of the signs that are there; that he will take back this Vote and on reconsideration come to us and tell us that he has decided to restore the cuts which have been inflicted on the salaries of national teachers.

Deputy Hurley has stated the case of the national teachers with restraint and with very great effect, if he will permit me to congratulate him upon his effort. I disagree with him in one particular. He said that the national teachers represented a body of workmen who were worse off than any other body of workmen in this country as compared with the position they occupied five years ago. That is not strictly true, because, while the position of the national teachers has deteriorated, it has not deteriorated as badly as has the position of the agricultural worker. Comparatively, the agricultural worker has suffered much more severely. He has lost a great deal more in the year than the teacher has lost. I should like to see both the teacher and the agricultural worker co-operating to get for both classes a restoration of the standard of living which they both enjoyed before the little experiment on which we embarked five years ago was tried on.

Frankly, I am much more interested in the children in the schools than I am in the teachers. The teachers have plenty of people to speak for them. They have a powerful organisation. The children in the schools and their parents appear to have no organisation, and most of the people who ought to speak for them are afraid to do so. For the last eight years in this country we have been living under the deplorable system of insisting that in the infant classes of our primary schools the children should hear nothing but a language which none of them understands. Last year and for several years before that I have pressed upon the Minister the urgent necessity of inquiring into that aspect of education, and into the general question of how Irish is being advanced throughout our entire school curriculum, both in the primary schools and in the secondary schools. Last year I quoted for the Minister from a report of one of his own inspectors. I think it was the Chief Inspector of the Department of Education. I propose to quote it again. The inspector stated in his report:—

"The majority of the inspectors are dissatisfied with the progress made in the speaking of Irish by the infants, and a great number of the teachers in the city schools are complaining of the little knowledge of Irish which the infants have when they leave the infants' school. The children are usually unable to speak the language when they cease to attend school. They have not the vocabulary to do so, and they have neither fluency nor accuracy nor power of conversation. The majority of them fail to give an accurate, intelligent account of simple fundamental things. They mix the tenses of the verbs in such a way as would make one despair."

That is the Minister's own chief inspector's report on the system that the Minister himself is insisting on maintaining.

Would the Deputy please give the reference?

I quoted that at column 155, volume 66 of the Official Reports. When we turn to the report of the Department of Education, 1935-6, which incidentally is published two years after the year to which it refers, we find that the preface, and chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all written in English. We then come to chapter 7, which deals with the teachers, the work of the schools, the condition of the children, teaching through the medium of Irish, the curriculum, the teaching of English, music, and a variety of other things relating to the every-day and all-important matter of primary education, and we discover it is all written in an obscure Munster dialect of Irish. Having finished that part of the report, we then return to English. Now I make no disguise of the fact that I do not understand the dialect of Irish in which this is written, and I do not believe a single one of the Donegal Deputies would be able to read it. Having given five-sixths of the report in English, what is the idea of turning to this one part of the report and giving it in an obscure southern Irish dialect which nobody can read except the inspector who happened to write it? That seems to me to be extravagantly absurd, and to bring the whole language movement into ridicule. I suspect that the reason it is written in an obscure Munster dialect is because as much of it as I have been able to make out supports and confirms the observations I have just quoted from the chief inspector's report. On page 22 of this report, I have endeavoured to translate a quotation from an inspector's report relating to the teaching of Irish, and, as far as I can discover what it means, it says that some of the inspectors are very optimistic and some of them pretty pessimistic, but that the truth, probably, is to be found more or less in the report of an inspector who wrote on the question more or less as follows: "That the new curriculum is helping Irish in any school where"—I gather—"the teacher has a fair knowledge of Irish"—that is a very running translation, I may say—"but that there are other schools in which there is comparatively little Irish and that the difference made by the new curriculum is greatly to weaken the general standard of education without doing any good to Irish." Now, that, if you please, is written in this obscure Munster Irish, while the whole of the rest of the report is written in English. Unless it is the Minister's deliberate intention that nobody should read his report, that seems to me to be both discourteous and absurd.

The Minister, in the course of his speech to-day, said, in effect: "As has been said on several occasions previously, the Department does not intend to compel teachers to give instruction through the medium of Irish unless such teachers and their pupils have the command of Irish necessary for that purpose." That is, more or less, what the Minister said. Now, that statement is not true. In every infant class in this country the strongest possible pressure is brought to bear on the teacher to let the child hear nothing but Irish. Of course, the way the Minister is going to explain that is by saying: "Oh, well, I said that the Department does not intend to compel teachers to give instructions through the medium of Irish; we do not want to compel them to do so— we only want them to speak Irish to the children." Now, that is simply codology. It is simply a wriggling and a playing with words in order to cover up the position into which the Minister has allowed himself to be moved. I know some of the most earnest and conscientious teachers and partisans of the Irish language who do not agree with that policy. I know of one teacher who was a past-master of the language and a most conscientious teacher and one with great enthusiasm for the language. For a few months the teacher in question did her best to carry out the Department's instructions, yet no progress was made at all. That teacher then made up her mind that she would disregard the Department's instructions, abandon the whole scheme, and teach the children Irish with the assistance of the language they used—the language of their parents—which was English. At the end of 12 months an inspector arrived and he was astonished that, after 12 months, these children had such a command of the Irish language. He could not understand how so young children could have got such a command of the language in 12 months, and he was filled with enthusiasm. He wanted to get into his car forthwith in order to bring the Minister out to see this marvellous school; but when he was getting too enthusiastic the teacher was getting a little bit alarmed and did not want to get praised for carrying out a system which she knew was contrary to instructions. So, before the inspector left she said: "Now, look here, before you go to the Minister, I think you had better know that I gave up trying to teach the children Irish through the medium of Irish 12 months ago, and it is just because I started teaching them Irish through the medium of English—the language they knew— that the standard is as good as it is." I give that case as an example, and I believe it is known to the Minister.

It is not.

It is not? Well, I believed it was. In any case, however, it is true. It bears out, at all events, the absurdity of the case the Minister makes when he more or less tells us that his honour is at stake in this matter and that he must stand or fall by this grotesque system of teaching, let us say, English through the medium of Irish, when English is the vernacular of the child's home, or teaching Irish through the medium of Irish to pupils whose vernacular is English. I am sure that both the Minister and I agree that we want the children of this country to learn Irish in the quickest possible way, but I suggest that if you absolutely refuse to speak to the children in their own vernacular, it is absolutely hopeless to teach them. I have just told the Minister of a case of an immense success of teaching Irish to children with the assistance of their own vernacular, but the Minister, instead of being delighted with that, seems to be rather indignant about it, and seems to be surprised and annoyed, if it be true, that that system was more successful in teaching the children Irish than the absurd system he has here. Does any sane man suggest that it is not absurd that when a small child leaves its home for the first time, and goes into strange surroundings in its first school, that the teacher must first speak to the child and endeavour to teach that child through a language the child does not understand? Is not the first thing you want to establish the closest possible contact between the child and the teacher in order to instil in the child confidence in the teacher, so that the teacher may be enabled to make the child feel at home and free to communicate with the teacher? Instead of that, however, all we are doing by this system is to impose an absolute barrier between the child and the teacher, and to forbid the teacher absolutely to take down that barrier. According to the present system, the teacher must not address the child in the only language the child can understand. I suggest that that is absurd. It is doing great damage to education, great damage to the children of this country, and great damage to the cause of the Irish language, because it is creating in the minds of the parents a violent prejudice against the language, and that is something that I would greatly deplore, and that, I believe, the majority of Deputies in this House would greatly deplore.

I do not see my old friend, Deputy O Briain, or my friend, Deputy Kissane, in the House. I notice their absence, because at this stage they usually bristle and begin to make objections. I had hoped that they would be here to-day, and that they would begin to start popping up as usual, because then I might have been able to bring their attention to the fact that the Prime Minister himself had taken the field and announced that he gradually had come round to my point of view, and that he was satisfied that the Minister for Education agreed with him. The Prime Minister announced yesterday that he was satisfied the time had come when an impartial inquiry should be held into the whole question of the teaching of Irish in the schools. That is all I want. If an impartial inquiry is held, at which everybody will be free to speak their minds honestly, then I have not the slightest doubt the necessary reforms will be put into effect. But there is no use setting up an inquiry consisting of three inspectors of the Department of Education, who must, if they are to vindicate their own past, approve of the policy in operation at the moment. It ought to be a commission of independent educationists who would not be afraid to suggest any improvements that may appear to be necessary.

In connection with the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, I noted with regret that he said the inquiry should refer only to the teaching of the Irish language in secondary schools. Why should that be? I know perfectly well that parents who are well-off are better able to make their voices heard than the great number of small farmers and labouring men whose children go to the national schools. But there is no reason why the children going to the national schools should be left to labour under any disability that we propose to remove from the children going to the secondary schools. If it is unsatisfactory to continue teaching all subjects through the medium of Irish in the secondary schools, it is ten times more unsatisfactory to go on teaching all subjects through the medium of Irish in the primary schools, in many of which neither the teachers nor the children are properly equipped to do it.

Deputy Hurley referred to the large number of teachers with high testimonials in regard to their knowledge of Irish. I got the Ard-Teastas myself once, and yet I could not teach Dr. Douglas Hyde "God Save Ireland" in Irish. The Ard-Teastas does not equip any man to teach anything through the medium of Irish, even assuming the pupil has an expert knowledge of the language. It is ludicrous to suggest it does. If you have a teacher who is virtually a native speaker teaching a class of children, all of whom are native speakers, or who have lived all their lives in an Irish-speaking household, then you may get somewhere teaching through the medium of Irish; but to have a teacher with an imperfect knowledge of Irish trying to teach ordinary school subjects through the medium of Irish to a group of children whose knowledge of Irish is extremely imperfect, is pure cod and everybody associated with the schools knows it is cod, but 90 per cent. of the people directly associated with the schools are afraid to say it is cod, because they are afraid the next time the inspector comes he will——

Give them the sack.

Not necessarily the sack, but he will take it out of them in some way, and instead of certifying them as "highly efficient" he will mark them as "efficient," and in that way they would be deprived of the emoluments to which they would become entitled if they got the higher rating. Everybody knows that the vast majority of the teachers are opposed to teaching through the medium of Irish, outside the Gaeltacht, but it is rarely, if ever, that anyone has the courage to say a word about it. I only hope and pray that something may be done, and done soon, because the children coming out of the national schools are really astonishing; the extent of their ignorance is perfectly staggering.

I see that the Minister to-day said in his speech that an occasional complaint reaches him as regards the standard of English grammar and the spelling of pupils entering secondary schools. An occasional complaint reaches the Minister himself, we are told. What becomes of all the complaints that never reach the Minister at all? Does the Minister seriously expect a national teacher or a secondary teacher to say to him: "Look here, sir, the system of teaching that you have prescribed in the primary schools is rotten and the children cannot spell when they go to the secondary schools as a result of it." If they did that would they get a very cordial reception in Marlborough Street? They would be marked down as people trying to sabotage the National Government and they know that and so they say nothing.

The Minister goes on to say that hardly any comment is necessary as regards the teaching of the other subjects, such as history, geography, and mathematics. He goes on to tell us that it has been said, concerning the teaching of geography, that geography is the weakest subject in the schools and the cause for such weakness lies in the fact that in some schools the teachers have not a sufficient knowledge of the subject and are placed in charge of large classes. Just imagine the Minister announcing that there are national teachers who have not a sufficient knowledge of geography to teach what is necessary up to the sixth standard in a national school.

If the Deputy reads what I said — I gave him a copy of my statement — he will see that the remarks do not refer to the primary schools at all, but to the secondary schools.

Do these remarks refer to the secondary schools?

So the standard of geography is higher in the primary schools than in the secondary schools?

The Deputy must be very highly educated. If, when an inspector says the teaching of geography is not satisfactory in the secondary schools, that proves that the teaching of geography is better in the primary schools, then the Deputy must be a very highly educated man, particularly in logic.

Does it mean that the teaching of geography is worse in the primary schools? What does it mean? Does it mean anything?

If the Deputy would read to the House what the inspector says, and leave the House to interpret the statement, it might be much better.

The Minister will remember that the House has had an opportunity of listening to him, and we may assume Deputies followed carefully all he read. I am sure they do not require me to read to them a speech which the Minister made. That would be an impertinence on my part which I would not dream of attempting. However, let me say what no inspector has summoned up his courage to say, although I thought some of them would have the courage to say it. Let me say that the knowledge of geography of the pupils coming from the primary schools is grotesquely inadequate, and I do not believe it is due to the fact that the teachers do not know geography. I believe they do and they could teach it to the children if they would be allowed to teach it, but they cannot teach geography to the children through the medium of a language which the children do not understand. I say that the standard of mathematics of the children in the primary schools is scandalous. I would expect the children from the primary schools to have an adequate knowledge of arithmetic, but I do not believe they have that. I say the standard of writing and spelling in the English language of children from the primary schools is scandalously low and that is because they are not given sufficient time to learn to write in both languages properly and they are not given sufficient time to learn to spell in both languages properly. Steps ought to be taken to provide children coming out of the primary schools with a competent knowledge of reading and writing in English, of arithmetic, and a decent knowledge of Irish. That can be done. The present system is resulting in the children coming out of school with no knowledge of Irish, little knowledge of English, little knowledge of arithmetic and no knowledge of any other subject at all. I have considerable experience of these children coming out of primary schools and my experience is that after the very day they leave the schools they never utter a word of Irish. There is less Irish spoken in and around Ballaghaderreen to-day than there was 15 years ago.

I welcome the scholarship scheme under which we send children to the Gaeltacht. Deputy Hurley referred to that scheme. I welcome it so far as the children are concerned. But what effect is it having on the people of the Gaeltacht? How long is the Gaeltacht going to survive the perennial visitation of 400 or 500 children into their midst every year, children whose knowledge of Irish is little and who, while they are in the Gaeltacht, speak English amongst themselves.

The Deputy ought to give proof of what he is saying.

This is not a criminal court. I was in the Gaeltacht before I ever heard of the Minister.

Did the Deputy ever listen to the children speaking in the Gaeltacht and try to learn from them?

Well, I am sure the House would rather listen to me for ten minutes speaking English than listen to the Minister for an hour reading Irish. What is wrong with me is that I am too polite to comment on the Minister's Irish. It is from too much politeness I suffer.

Yes, and the Deputy being a colleague of mine on the Roscommon County Council, knows that. I was saying that this system of Irish in the schools has resulted in the shrinkage of Irish as a spoken language in the country and I very much fear that this system of sending children to the Gaeltacht to learn Irish will result in killing the Irish language in the Gaeltacht. In the old days wherever you had an Irish college you had a very rapid infiltration of the English language. That is inevitable in such cases. While that difficulty has to be faced it ought to be appreciated that you are doing something that will not help the language. I doubt very much if the best system is to have large centres where you constantly send in large numbers of children and turn the place into a regular colony. We all know of the system that is generally followed of sending children to the Continent to learn a foreign language. You send a child into a family and that child picks up the language of the family. It is different with the system that is pursued in the Gaeltacht. Sending one individual child into a family is very different from concentrating a number of them in one area. I think from the point of view of the child he would get a very much better knowledge of the language, if he, an English-speaking child, were sent to an isolated family in an Irish-speaking area. Then, again, from the point of view of the Gaeltacht, this scheme would not do so much injury to the language there as the system of sending into one area large numbers of children to learn Irish. The trouble is that while the children speak English amongst themselves the Irish of the Gaeltacht population is being killed. That is how the language is injured under the present system.

I hope that the question of teaching children Irish in the primary schools and the present system under which the teaching is given will be examined by an independent body at an early date in accordance with the principles laid down by the Taoiseach at the Dublin Feis yesterday. I do not ask for any more than a detached examination where everyone would speak his mind openly. I say the system of teaching Irish exclusively in the first and infant classes is a very great scandal to-day. I do say that the pressure, not the compulsion, but the pressure brought to bear upon the teachers generally throughout the primary schools has the effect of having people masquerading as competent teachers through the medium of Irish. This system of masquerading as competent teachers through the medium of Irish is deleterious to the whole system of primary education in this country. It is I think entirely wrong to teach children any curriculum through the medium of a language which they do not understand. I strongly urge on the Minister for Education that he should recast the whole programme in respect of Irish and ensure that in the future the children will get a knowledge of the three R's; reading, writing and arithmetic. If that is done the Irish language instead of being driven out of the country as it is at present may yet be revived. I believe this system of teaching school subjects through the medium of Irish and the system of teaching Irish itself is a fraud. I think the system of doing examinations through Irish has been resurrected for the purpose of getting children through their examination who would have no chance of getting that examination if they did answer their papers in English. I will I know be denounced as having libelled and slandered the pioneers in the language movement. I do not mind that because it is true. I know this whole thing is a ramp and that the best interests of the children are being ruthlessly sacrificed to a gang of noisy old cranks. There is a gang of noisy old cranks going around this country and everybody is afraid of them. However, it is time to deal with them; I do not mind what they say to me. My skin is thick.

And so is your head.

I would advise the Deputy not to make any references to anybody's head. I have eschewed for a number of years any references to the Deputy's head. We have experience of children being put in for examination. The papers are translated from English to Irish. The children are requested to answer through Irish. If they answer through Irish they get a bonus of 10 per cent. in their marks. I assert that in marking these papers no regard at all is had to the quality of the Irish used in answering the paper. If the correct answer is "I am a man" and if they answer "tá mé fear" they will be given just as much marks for it as if they were to write "is fear mé".

How does the Deputy know that?

I am giving that as an illustration. In examining the papers there is no regard to the correctness of the Irish used in the answer. I also know that if due regard were had to the quality of the Irish used, the results, as far as the examination is concerned, would be very different but there is a bonus of 10 per cent. given notwithstanding the children's inability to express their thoughts in a language that they imperfectly know.

When does one perfectly know a language?

I do not suppose that either the Minister is or I am in a position to answer that from the point of view of the Irish language.

Or any other language.

Well, the Minister has a pretty fair knowledge of the English language and so have I. There is one thing certain that neither the Minister nor I know Irish perfectly well and much less many of those in the secondary schools of this country. Nevertheless, though they do not know the language perfectly, the Minister is prepared to insist that all instruction in every subject must be imparted in a language which the teachers do not know.

The Deputy knows that they are not being taught through Irish as a general rule. It is only where the teacher is thoroughly qualified to teach through the medium of Irish.

The Minister is a past-master in this sort of thing.

Only slightly over half the children are being taught through the medium of Irish.

The Minister is a past-master in avoiding issues. It was years before we induced him to admit that the children in the infant schools were taught through the medium of Irish. The quibble was that they were not being taught anything. The teachers were only talking to them in Irish and teaching them nothing. If children come to school they go there to be taught.

Has the Deputy ever been in an infant school in his life?

A Deputy

He was never an infant.

I was in an infant school.

If I told the Minister where perhaps it would not be fair to the teacher, but I will tell him.

Very well, tell us.

It was in Marlborough Street.

Mr. Kelly

He has not named the school teacher or the school.

The Deputy is entitled to make a statement. The Minister will afterwards have an opportunity of rebutting what he said.

I was in the Marlborough Model Schools and no such pandemonium did I ever see in my life as I saw in that school. There was a teacher presiding over that school, and the children were climbing over the seats and desks. The teacher was shouting "suidh" and the children turned round and said "wha'?" That is to say, when the children did listen to the teacher saying "suidh" they asked "wha'?" I was accompanied by a friend of mine who is an official of the Minister's Department. The position was that the teacher could not tell the children what was wanted in a language that they could understand because it was against the rules of the Department to use English in the school. So she was frantically addressing them in Irish and requesting them to "suidh." She was frantically addressing them in Irish, and not one of the children knew what she was saying. We both stood in rather embarrassed admiration and then left arm in arm. My friend of the Minister's Department who thought with the Minister, said: "Was it not a very edifying scene?" I said, in a rather choking voice, that it was, but I do not think that we both meant the same thing by the word "edifying."

Whether the Minister agrees or disagrees with me, I must say that I have no axe to grind in the matter. It can afford me no advantage or no gain to make these representations. He must know, whether I am right or wrong, that a great many think with me in regard to this matter. All I am asking is that some kind of effective body should be established which could hear in confidence the representations of interested parties in regard to this matter and that that body ought to report to the Minister as to what is the true state of affairs obtaining in the country. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition. I made it last year and I repeat it now. I say that if the cause of the Irish language is to be effectively served something on these lines should be done and at once. If the present situation is allowed to continue it will be impossible for anyone to save the Irish language in two or three years' time. I very much doubt if the cause of the Irish language is not already lost. So much ill-will has been created in the minds of people against the language and so much ground has been lost in the past ten years that it may be now impossible to get the enthusiasm or the material wherewith to establish the language as the vernacular of the people.

I would never wish to see this country mono-lingual. I would never wish to see Irish only spoken in this country. My desire would be to see the people here speaking English and Irish just as the Swiss speak French and Italian, or German and Italian. I believe that the present idea of trying to force unwilling children to learn the language is a mistake. I believe the real solution of the problem of reviving Irish in this country can best be achieved by making of Irish in this country what French used to be in Russia before the war. Irish should be the language of the aristocracy. Irish should be a language which anybody who had any sense of pride would insist on knowing. If you had established a system whereby Irish would be the hallmark of a superior education in this country, instead of forcing it down the throats of the people, every person who sends his child to a primary school would be anxious to equip him with two languages which, in the ordinary battle of life afterwards, would stamp that child as having received an education above the ordinary. Such a scheme would, of course, require elaboration, and this is neither the time nor the place to go into it.

There are other matters which require attention here. One is the matter of defective schools in rural Ireland to which the Minister has referred. We have a declining school population in the country and we have no reason to think that there will be any remarkable upturn in that for some time to come. The fact is that you cannot have decent schools where you have only a dozen pupils. You cannot have the accommodation you should have where you have only 12 or 14 children. That fact has been realised years ago in America. For the last 30 years, I do not suppose that any small rural schools have been built in America. That fact also has been realised in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Instead of building these hopeless small schools out in the middle of the bogs, where a teacher is all alone, out of any touch with an academic atmosphere, beset with great difficulties trying to teach children or to dry their clothes on a wet day, they have built shelters. To these shelters they send round buses in the morning. Instead of having six little inadequate schools, they have built six shelters at which the children assemble, are picked up by buses and brought into one decent central school where you have an adequate staff of teachers and adequate accommodation, where the children can have a warm meal if they require it, where you can have, perhaps, a little gymnasium, where a certain number of children gather together and live a useful school life, where you can have a useful centre of learning, where you may have five or six teachers brought into intellectual intercourse and where you can provide an academic atmosphere that does not exist over a large part of rural Ireland.

It is important to remember that when you bring up here a young man from the country to take out his B.A. degree, and send him back to the middle of the bogs, that in ten or 15 years time he has forgotten most of the academic lore that he had accumulated during his sojourn in University College. If you give him a university training, then you should allow him to go back to something approximating to an academic centre, to a central school where there would be six, seven or eight other teachers. The tendency then would be to maintain his academic pursuits, so that he might remain an educated man in the proper sense of the word. That is to say, he would be a man who would be constantly broadening his outlook by reading, seeking fresh fields and pastures new. I believe that from the point of view of the teacher or the children the central school catering for a wider area is an urgent matter. The Minister's reply to that is characteristically departmental. I never saw any body of men collapse so hopelessly into the thralls of red tape as did the Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Party. They were extremely obstreperous and violent in their prognostications when they were in opposition, but since they got into office, never have we seen lambs lying down with the lions more docilely. That is particularly true of the Minister for Education. His reply is that he cannot build a school without the permission of the manager and that it is quite impossible to get any manager who will give him permission to build schools of this kind. That is all nonsense. You may not get any manager to raise the requisite sum in his own school area to build the kind of central school that I want. If you are going to go around looking for managers who are prepared to do that, you will never get such schools built, but it is the Minister's job to make an experiment. It is the Minister's job, if he is satisfied that this experiment is a great improvement on the old system to finance that experiment. If he is prepared to do that and go to a manager and say: "If you will subscribe the amount that you would be expected to subscribe if you were to build the old type of school, I am going to give you a sufficient additional sum to make it possible to build a central school and we will draw the teachers in there from the surrounding areas; I am prepared to make the experiment if the managers co-operate with me," he would soon reach a solution of the problem. The Minister must make some attempt in that direction if he believes the experiment is worth trying. Such schools have already been built in America and in Britain. The experiment has been proved successful in these countries and surely it is time to deal with the problem in this country. I often see children during the winter—and Deputy O'Rourke sees them too—travelling through the rain to school. When they arrive at school there are no facilities to dry their clothes. Their clothes and their feet are wet. What can the children or the teachers do in such circumstances? We ought to get over that difficulty now.

I am sorry to have to mention to the House something which emerged in the course of our examination of the Public Accounts. It has now become fashionable not to discuss the report of the Public Accounts Committee at all, and so these matters are never referred to in the Dáil. I regret to say that in the course of the examination of the Public Accounts something emerged that had become a serious problem. I refer to the fraudulent inclusion of names on teachers' rolls for the purpose of securing capitation grants to which teachers were not entitled. Further regulations are being made, but I suggest to Deputy Hurley and to other members of the teaching profession that they should be as vigilant as the Minister to ensure that in future that is not allowed to go on, because the good name of an honourable profession is greatly besmirched by the misconduct of an infinitesimal minority who go in for that kind of dishonest chicanery.

I heard a good deal of talk about raising the school age. As that would require legislation I do not propose to advocate it now, but I would suggest that a great many children are electing of their own free will to stay at school after the age of 14. Would it not be possible in our primary schools, particularly if we had the central schools to which I am now referring, to make it optional for a boy who was staying on after 14 years of age to study practical agriculture? I know institutions in England where there are secondary schools and attached to them are mixed farms and poultry farms. When a fellow is finished his academic course in the secondary school he can stay on as a kind of senior boy for two or three years, and serve an apprenticeship in the atmosphere of the school, and under the supervision of a schoolmaster, to practical farming, with the result that when he comes out at 19 he is able to walk straight into his father's place, and help to run his farm. If the father required to be absent his son could take over and run the farm for him during any temporary absence. It would make an immense difference in rural Ireland if such a scheme could be put into operation.

There is a proposal — I do not think it will be ever adopted — that we should have demonstration farms in rural Ireland for the purpose of demonstrating to farmers modern methods of proved usefulness under the local conditions. Would that not be possible if we had central schools and attached to them demonstration farms? I do not mean experimental farms. It is important to distinguish between the two. I mean demonstration farms where methods of proved usefulness could be put into operation. Could we not attach to the central demonstration farm for a district practical instruction in agriculture which those who stay at school could use to their own advantage when their school days were over? I think that plan is worth considering, because the farmers of the locality would benefit greatly in seeing modern methods of agriculture in operation and under the conditions in which they have to work. Children going from the primary schools would then get their first introduction to work under the best possible auspices, as they would be taught at once the best way to run the land and would be very much more useful citizens than they now are.

Similarly, I would suggest that girls who elect to stay at school from 14 to 16 years should be given the kind of training in cookery and housewifery that is at present provided in vocational schools. There is a good deal of useful instruction to be had if the girls would go there. I think girls could easily start to learn these subjects at a much earlier age than they do now. It would be important to ensure that the cooking and housewifery which would be imparted to them in national schools would be of a kind that could be turned to practical advantage in their homes. I do not want to teach children attending primary schools the kind of housewifery that would equip them to become domestic servants in England. It might be useful to them afterwards if the girls went to England, but I do not think we ought to equip them to be good domestic servants in London. I would like to provide them in the primary schools with the proper equipment so that they could be good farmers' wives in this country. If they did not want to be farmers' wives, and wanted to go abroad, I think as citizens of this State, they are entitled to get the equipment that would enable them to earn a living abroad. That belongs to the sphere of technical education. In the technical schools they ought to be able to learn to be factory hands, cotton workers, or domestic servants, or whatever work they want to follow in Great Britain or America before they go to these places. I want to distinguish between general technical education and the kind of education I would like to see girls who remain at national schools getting. I would like to see them equipped to be good farmers' wives. Afterwards when they leave to earn a living they may want technical education of one kind or another. I think they are entitled to get whatever kind of technical education they require to put them into the class known as skilled workers.

I know nothing more pitiable than the position of unskilled workers either in this or in any other country. I think it is relevant, because technical education comes under this Vote, to urge on the Minister the vital necessity of giving more attention to that question. Nothing is more heartrending when in England and in towns like Jarrow — which, by the way, was one of the most hideous places I have ever seen — than to see Irishmen there as common labourers. Every skilled man in Newcastle-on-Tyne and South Shields is actually sought after. They have not to look for jobs, but our unfortunate fellows, being unskilled, are queueing up at the labour exchanges trying to get the dole. That is simply due to the want of skill. If they were skilled workers they would be able to earn high wages in the very centres in which they now stand unemployed and waiting for work. It is a long and a weary day since the Irish were forced to go abroad as hewers of wood and drawers of water. It is a long story from the time when that situation developed to our own day. Thousands of our people are now going abroad, and if they are to go away, we ought to take steps to ensure that they go as skilled tradesmen, and not as common labourers, as at present.

The last matter to which I want to refer concerns reformatories and industrial schools. Nobody gives a hoot about the unfortunate children who are sent there for one reason or another. They are nobody's business. Nobody hears about them and nobody cares.

I am not at all satisfied — and here again I have no doubt that I will bring an avalanche on my head—that the reformatory in this country is being satisfactorily conducted. I have no doubt that the reverend men in charge of the establishment are doing their best with the resources at their disposal. I have no doubt that they are acting in good faith. But I am not satisfied that the care and skill requisite properly to reclaim children being sent to the reformatory is available or is being used at present. I would urge on the Minister most strongly to abolish altogether the existing system of reformatories and industrial schools in this country and to adopt a new system, which obtains in Great Britain and which has for years obtained in many States in the United States of America, of approved schools, schools of a different character altogether.

It is absurd to emphasise, as is emphasised in this country at present, the punitive aspect of restraint in the case of juvenile delinquency. I do not want for a moment to be sentimental about the matter or to suggest that adequate measures should not be taken to train a child who has proved itself to be very recalcitrant; but it is ridiculous to be solemnly invoking the machinery of the law to punish some unfortunate little mite of 11 or 12 years for some misdeed of which he has been found guilty, and this system ought to be put an end to. The matter of juvenile delinquency should be approached, in my submission, from one point of view and one point of view only, and that is, are the parents able to look after the child? If, after ample inquiry, it appears that the parents are wholly incapable and that the child will go to the devil unless taken out of their hands, then, and only then, should the State take the child over. If they take it over, I think they should wipe out all the incidents that led up to the decision that the State will have to take care of the child. From the moment that that decision is taken, then all its past misdeeds should be forgotten and it simply should be regarded as a child who has to be got on the rails and straightened out.

That is subject to one exception, that you do get some children mentally affected, not imbeciles, but mentally abnormal, and they call for special treatment. I propose to leave them on one side because they present a very peculiar and particular problem, which is really more a problem of medicine than of education. Having got that group of children who you make up your mind may not be safely left in their parents' hands, and that is a decision which ought to be come to with very great reluctance indeed, then, instead of sending them to industrial schools or reformatories or anything of that kind, you should have a series of small schools in which there would be no more than about 60 or 70 children.

Many people will immediately say: "Why, many a good boarding school has far more than that." You are not dealing with children who are entirely normal, but with children who had a very bad start, so bad a start that the State has made up its mind that it has to take them out of their family's care altogether and give them a new start. You cannot treat them as you will treat children coming from a happy, comfortable home and going to a swell boarding school. You have to recognise that you have a hard job to do to unteach the child a lot which it has learned in the past, to start de novo, to teach him all the things he ought to know and will have to learn before he is capable of going out on his own and making his way in life. Therefore, you want a reasonably small school which will not have a larger number of children in it than the headmaster or the headmistress can become personally acquainted with.

When you have got a school of that kind, if you can find competent people to man it, nine-tenths of the job is done. You are then down to the ordinary problem of educating children, and that is not an insuperable task. I venture to say quite plainly that, in my judgment, if we are to embark on the experiment, the safe way would be to go straight to the Society of Jesus and put it up to them and simply say this: "We propose to make an experiment with a view to achieving the impossible and, accordingly, we turn to the Society and invite them to man the first of the approved schools, admitting that the difficulties of starting this plan would be immense." I think that is just the kind of job they would be competent to do.

I do not know whether or not any Deputies take the least interest in this problem, but they ought to. There is this immense difficulty in connection with it; that you are dealing with a type of child which is being sent to an approved school, or to a reformatory or industrial school in the existing dispensation. You have this terrible difficulty, that if misconduct of any kind in the treatment of the children has taken place, it is virtually impossible to discover it, for the simple reason that the children, owing to their unfortunate upbringing before they were put in the institution, are very frequently unholy liars and will very frequently invent extravagant falsehoods in order to be revenged upon some superior, who has found it necessary to punish, at any rate in some way or another to maintain discipline. Therefore that child's word is suspect. Suppose there is a genuine grievance and the child makes a complaint and the superior denies and rebuts all the child says, it is very difficult to reject the superior's word and accept the child's.

Therefore, it is vitally important, in my judgment, to commit these institutions largely to the care of religious, who are constrained to carry out their work in accordance with the spirit of their undertaking, not only by Government regulation, but by the spiritual discipline of the Order to which they belong. We can have no certainty no matter what precautions we take, but we can get as near certainty as it is humanly possible to get if we commit an experiment of this kind into the hands of such a body of men as the members of the Society of Jesus, and I believe that if anybody could make a success of it, they would.

I said yesterday, when referring to the Department of Justice Vote, that in regard to this matter of juvenile delinquency, the Department of Education was dead from the neck up. I wish I thought that was not true, but I must say that my experience of the Department of Education in connection with this matter is that they are antediluvian in outlook. They think of this whole problem in terms of 40 years ago, and they allow their whole judgment in the matter to be vitiated by the representations of the Department of Finance. If they would take a bold line in the matter of juvenile delinquency, they could blow the bottom out of the representations of the Department of Finance without the slightest difficulty. Every side of the House, I am certain, would be prepared to endorse any remedial measures suggested by the Department of Education in order to provide the ideal treatment for this class of child, and no representations from the Department of Finance would be allowed to stand in the way. No immense sum of money is involved. It is not a question of spending millions at all. It would be a comparatively small sum, but I believe that it would be money for which we would get better value than almost all the other money we can spend.

These are matters to which I invite the Minister's very special attention, and I do earnestly beg of him to take his courage in his hands and, supported by that formidable ally, the Prime Minister, to have the whole question of Irish in the schools thoroughly exhausted. I know that cranks will leap upon him with fury, and I suggest that, when they do, he should call out the Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister has shown himself to be an adept at frightening every member of his own Party. If he cannot tackle the Gaelic League, no man can. When he went to the Feis last night, the first procedure there was that the Gaelic League tried to twist his tail, and I must say that with great spirit he seized the Gaelic League by the whisker and drubbed their faces in the mud. I have no doubt that if the Minister for Education turns to him for aid and assistance in the encounter that must inevitably ensue, if the Minister takes any intelligent action at all in regard to the Irish language movement, he will get all the aid he wants.

I suggest to the Minister for Education this barometer: that if in his new departure he excites the undiluted wrath of the Gaelic League he may be certain that he is right, but if he finds that in his new departure the present Gaelic League congratulates him, or assures him that he is serving the best interests of the Irish language, he should stop and examine his conscience. Both the Minister and every section in this House are, I believe, combined in their desire to revive the Irish language. The first essential, in order to get that done, is to knock the cranks out of their present position of pre-eminence, and restore the influence of those who love the language and are not trying to make anything out of it. If that is done, I believe that the fight may yet be won, but I honestly believe that if the language revival movement is left in the hands of those that control it at present, then before very long neither the cranks nor anybody else will be able to save the Irish language from destruction as a living language. It may survive as a kind of historic relic of a long-distant past. It will be a great reflection on our day and generation if, in the first two decades of Irish independence, such a thing should happen. There is not much time left now if we are to save it, but I believe that we can save it if we put our minds to the task.

The first thing to do to ensure that is to secure the goodwill of the vast majority of the people. The Prime Minister pointed that out himself last night. You cannot do that if you leave parents in the country under the impression that their children are being denied a fair standard of education in the name of Irish and as a result of Irish. You must get the people on your side if you are to save the language, and the way to do that is to persuade them that, in addition to providing their children with an adequate and useful education, the State will also devise a plan whereby the children can become fluent and graceful speakers of the Irish language. In my opinion, it is not impossible to do that. It is a perfectly practicable thing, I believe, to give the children in the primary and secondary schools an adequate education in general matters and an adequate knowledge of the Irish language, but that, I am convinced, will never be done by the methods that are at present being pursued.

I want to make a few remarks on the Estimate in view of some of the statements that have been made by Deputy Dillon. He seems to have an exaggerated notion altogether of the compulsion that is brought to bear on teachers with regard to the methods of teaching Irish. I have been teaching the language myself for a very long time, and I cannot say that I found any cast-iron compulsion in practice in the schools. I have found the inspectors generally very reasonable. It is not correct to say that a teacher, when giving instruction in Irish, cannot use a word of English. That has not been my experience. I have never been checked for doing it. If a pupil fails to understand an Irish word or phrase the teacher is at liberty to use an English word so as to get the child to understand.

In the infant schools?

It does not matter what the class may be. We have not the cast iron discipline in the schools that the Deputy spoke of. As a matter of fact, if we had I believe it would be quite idiotic. I think the Deputy is a good deal mistaken in regard to a good many other matters as well. It is not correct to say that you cannot teach pupils through the medium of Irish almost from the very beginning. The pupil may not understand everything that is said, but the aim should be to get the child to think in Irish. That has been the experience of everyone who has ever taught Irish. With regard to the general standard of education in the country, there may possibly be something in what Deputy Dillon has said. He compared the young people who are going into apprenticeship to-day with those of 15 or 20 years ago. I consider that if there is a defect in the general education of the young people to-day as compared with 15 or 20 years ago, and in some subjects I would say there is, I attribute that to the low school leaving age.

When I was going to school — it is not such a long time ago — most of the boys and girls of my time remained at school until they were well over 16 years of age. To-day the great majority of the children leave when they reach the age of 14. They are simply waiting to reach that age so that they can leave. When you consider that in a rural school children who leave at that age have had long periods of absence due to illness and other causes, it is no wonder that there would be a certain deficiency in their education when leaving school. Deputy Dillon has spoken of this defect. I know that he has been in touch with apprentices, but if there is such a defect, and I believe there is in the case of children who had been bad attenders at school — I do not admit it with regard to the pupils who attend school regularly — the obvious remedy for it is to raise the school-leaving age. I say that the age of 14 is altogether too low — that it should be raised to 15½ or 16 for the rural districts. I know, of course, the argument the Minister will put up against that, but in my opinion the age of 15½ or 16 is young enough for pupils to leave school. The fact of the matter is that, taking everything into account, scholars at present do not spend sufficient time in the primary schools to enable them to get an all-round reasonable education.

Coming back to the subject of Irish, I believe that Deputy Dillon is genuinely interested in it. Everyone is anxious to see the people of this country become Irish speakers. The Deputy said that after the pupils leave school they do not speak much Irish. I do not agree with him there or with the inspector who said that pupils leaving school cannot speak Irish. They are not perfect, it is true, but I believe that most of those who leave school, after reaching seventh standard, can carry on a conversation in Irish reasonably well. That has been my experience, and I stick to that. I have met and taught many pupils who can do that. I want to put this point to the Minister: that he should, in view of the number of young teachers, men and women, who are highly qualified in Irish, who have the bilingual certificate and the Ard Teastas, try and get continuation schools in Irish, possibly with Irish history, started, because there is no doubt that, as things are at present, most of the work done in the primary schools is lost. The pupils do not speak the language at home, and unless some chance is given to those pupils after they leave school to continue their education, and particularly their conversational knowledge of Irish from, say, the age of 14 to 17 or 18, then most of the work done in the primary schools will, I say, be lost.

I do not agree with Deputy Dillon that nothing is being done in the secondary schools for Irish. I know a number of pupils who have been to secondary schools and I cannot agree with him that they are not capable of following instruction in Irish. If the Deputy had an opportunity of meeting them I am sure he would be surprised at their all-round knowledge of Irish and their ability to converse in Irish. The primary schools, as we know, cater for about 90 per cent. of the pupils of the country, and for that reason I want to stress the point that I have been making: That unless something is done after they leave school, to continue the instruction that they have received during their school years then I fear that most of the work done in the national schools, as far as Irish is concerned, will be lost.

There are a few other matters in connection with the Estimate that I desire to refer to. Take the teachers preparatory colleges. They have to go through a secondary course. I find, however, that although they are supposed to do that, Latin is only an optional subject with them. I do not think that should be so at all. I think that Latin should be one of the ordinary subjects of instruction in the teachers' preparatory colleges. Otherwise, you are not giving the teachers of the future a fair chance. They are going to be handicapped. I presume that many of them will try to pursue University courses. I would ask the Minister to have that matter remedied, and to see that Latin is included at least as an ordinary subject in the teachers' preparatory colleges. I will be told of course that the teachers are preparing for work in the national schools. But a teacher may wish to continue at the University, and I think he should be given a chance to have Latin at least as one of his ordinary subjects.

With regard to what Deputy Hurley has said, I am very much in sympathy with it. I am not, of course, in sympathy with the motion to refer back. I do not see what useful purpose would be served by it. I agree with him in saying that a heavy strain has been put upon the teachers. There is no question whatever about that. Also there has been a great deal of ill-health and breaks-down amongst the teaching profession for some years past. There must be some explanation of that. I also think that the teachers as a body have not got the treatment to which they are entitled. However, I am not at all despairing about that. I believe that the present Government mean well to the teachers. I am certainly prepared to believe that the Minister is not unsympathetic to the teachers in any way. I believe that the time will come, I hope very shortly, when the present Government will be in a position to restore the salaries, either wholly or partially. As far I am concerned — I make no secret of it — I think it is up to the Government, or to any Government of the future, to do that. In saying that, there is no use in sliding over the fact that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party were the first to reduce the teachers' salaries. They set the example, and there is not much use in their coming along now and saying they are sympathetic towards the teachers. I for one can give no credence to that. If they were sympathetic towards the teachers they would not have started this reduction in salaries.

I should like to say that, in my opinion anyhow, there is no need to get as alarmed as Deputy Dillon seems to be getting about the condition of Irish in the schools, or about education in general. I certainly believe that education is progressing. Taking the pupils, either in the national or the secondary schools, age for age and year for year, I believe they are better to-day than they have been for generations. I know that impossibilities cannot be done in the national schools, because the time is too short, but I say that age for age the pupils to-day either in the national or the secondary schools are better than they ever were in this country.

A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, Deputy Dillon opened a very long and interesting speech by saying that he regarded the children in the schools, and the interests and welfare of the children, as of very much more importance than even the interests of the teachers. He did not follow that up by any very clear expression of his own attitude or the attitude of his Party on the subject raised by Deputy Hurley. I hope that some subsequent speaker from that side of the House will clarify the position so far as their Party's attitude to the restoration of the teachers' cuts is concerned. I should just like to say, in regard to Deputy Dillon's opening remarks, that I believe there is no section of the people in this country more concerned about the welfare of the school children than the section of which Deputy Hurley is himself a representative. I believe that the teachers in this country have always demonstrated their concern for the welfare of the children under their care, and for the welfare of the educational system of the country generally. I would appeal to the Minister, and I would particularly appeal to the Deputies of the Minister's Party who are themselves teachers, to use whatever influence they have to ensure that the teachers, in this matter of the cut, will get a square deal and will have that cut restored.

I do not desire to spoil the good case which has already been made by Deputy Hurley by going into the details which he has already dealt with in regard to this matter, but there are one or two particular aspects of it to which I should like to refer. He made it clear that the teachers of the Six Counties are to-day in a better economic position than the teachers of the Twenty-six Counties. I suggest that that fact has an important bearing upon a matter in which all Parties in this House are interested, the matter of the removal of Partition. You have in Northern Ireland 3,000 or 4,000 teachers. I suggest to the Minister for Education, to the Minister for Finance and to the Government, as well as to the various Parties in this House, that those 3,000 or 4,000 teachers are important and influential citizens of that part of the country, and, if we are appealing to them to use their influence to bring about the end of Partition in this country, we are making a poor sort of appeal if the best we can offer them is a cut of anything from £40 to £50 a year in their small salaries. I suggest that that is one aspect of this question of the restoration of the teachers' cuts which should receive the serious consideration of the Government. You can make no reasonable appeal to the teachers in the northern part of this country to throw in their lot with their fellow-countrymen on the basis of making that sacrifice of their own economic conditions in order to do it. No doubt the teachers there, like here and elsewhere, are prepared to make sacrifices towards a patriotic end, but I suggest that in the long run they will be slow to make a sacrifice when they know at the same time that in exchange for political freedom they are going to lose their economic freedom and their economic position.

There is also another aspect of this matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the absence of any provision for free primary education. According to the new Constitution, primary education is supposed to be free, but I suggest to this House that, while the children of the poorest sections of the community are compelled to pay for their school books and other school requisites, it cannot be said that primary education is free. Reference has been made in this House before to the present position of the parents of some of those children. We were talking recently about the workers on the Rhynana scheme, and about the heads of unemployed families, even in the larger centres of population, whose sole income to maintain their families is £1 per week; and we were talking about the agricultural workers throughout the country on their 24/- a week legal minimum wage. These people cannot afford to provide their children with school requisites if they have got to pay for them, and I suggest that this House is not making provision in these Estimates for free primary education when no provision is being made to supply the children with the books and school requisites which they require.

Reference has been made during this debate to the raising of the school-leaving age. That, again, is a matter upon which I hope Fianna Fáil Deputies who are interested will bring pressure to bear on their Party, so long as their Party remains in office, because I do not think anyone would suggest that a child has been sufficiently educated to face the world at 14 years of age. I think that the time for raising the school-leaving age is long overdue. Again, in that respect, I should like to pay a tribute to the teachers of this country, because there is no body of people in this country who have kept that matter of the school-leaving age and the provision of free books and free school requisites for children, not merely in their own interests, but in the interests of the children of this country and of the country itself, more consistently before the people of this country than have the teachers themselves.

Now, with regard to the question of teaching through the medium of Irish, to which Deputy Dillon devoted so much attention, I should like to say that, whether there are in the existing system of reviving Irish through the schools all the defects that Deputy Dillon suggests, or whether there are not, there is one thing definite, at any rate, and that is that the present system of reviving Irish through the schools is imposing an additional strain on the teachers of this country — probably on the pupils also—but certainly on the teachers. I think that Deputy Dillon has very much exaggerated, as he very often exaggerated other things, the defects in the actual teaching of Irish, but I think that there is some degree of truth in some of the allegations he has made. Arising out of some of my own experiences in this matter, I have known of instances in the Civil Service of boys entering the clerical and junior executive grades of the Civil Service, coming from school where all subjects were taught through the medium of Irish — primary and secondary schools — taking their Civil Service examinations in Irish and getting very high marks, and being very highly placed in the examinations, and then, after 12 months or two years in the Civil Service, failing to pass the oral Irish test which, as the Minister knows, is a necessary condition to their retention in the Civil Service. I do seriously suggest that that fact alone — that boys and girls can go through the primary and secondary schools, learning all subjects through the medium of Irish, entering the Civil Service, having passed their examinations and obtaining high marks in Irish, and then, after 12 months, failing to pass the test of the Civil Service Commissioners in oral Irish — indicates a defect in the system. Either it means a defect in the system or in the method of applying the Civil Service test, but it does seem extraordinary that these boys and girls should fail to pass the oral test after being 12 months away from school and after having passed in all subjects in school through the medium of Irish.

Apart from the merits of teaching through the medium of Irish, I should like to suggest that teaching through the medium of Irish in the schools has definitely imposed a strain on the teachers and that that fact itself should induce the Minister for Education to give attention to the cause of the teachers in this matter of demanding the restoration of the cut. We all know that the Minister for Education is an enthusiast so far as the revival of the Irish language is concerned, and we also know that, on more than one occasion, he has publicly paid his tribute to the work of the teachers in that respect. Having regard to these facts, I think that the Minister should put his weight behind the teachers in their claim for the restoration of the cut. I hope, sir, that we will hear from the Fine Gael benches a definite declaration that they also are sympathetic with the demand that the teachers should get justice in this matter, and I shall conclude by strongly appealing to the Minister to announce before the close of the discussion on this Estimate that there is some hope for the teachers in getting, not ultimately, but immediately, the restoration of the cut. Nobody has disputed the increase in the cost of living which has taken place in the last few years. The Estimates themselves reveal that provision has been made for other people by reason of the increased cost of living. In the circumstances, therefore, there can be no justification for the continuance of the cut in teachers' salaries, and, apart from other considerations, I think that it is time that the Minister for Education, as well as his colleagues in every other Department of this State, should realise that this business of cutting wages and salaries in the long run is not good national economy, and I think that the Government should realise, and that this House should realise, that there can be no prosperity in this country on the basis of low wages, and that the restoration of this cut in the teachers' salaries would be a welcome sign that the State, as an employer, is coming to have some conception of its responsibilities and its duties to the community.

The House has been engaged, time after time, in the last few years, in enacting legislation for the improvement of social conditions in various directions. Until recently we have been engaged in legislation with the object of improving the conditions of shopworkers, and, prior to that, with improving the conditions of workers in factories. Surely the time has come when the State itself, as an employer, should give a lead in this matter, when they should show, by giving equitable treatment to the teachers, that they are serious when they suggest that employers generally, private employers in industry, should take their responsibilities as citizens seriously? Surely the time has come when the Articles of the Constitution, which refer to Christian standards of living and so on for our people, should be put into practice? I suggest to the Minister that one way of giving a lead in this respect is to start with the teachers, restore the cuts and give the teachers something approaching decent economic conditions and, at the same time, to offer an inducement to the teachers in another part of this country to throw in their lot and associate themselves with the desire of all of us to eliminate the boundary and bring about the unity as well as the independence of this country.

I should like to give the House my own experience in regard to this matter of education, and not merely my own experience, but the experience of people with whom I come in contact, including teachers, managers and others. There is general dissatisfaction in regard to education. I am surprised that anybody could say that the standard of education at present in the primary schools is anything like fair. It is indeed very low and that is admitted by everybody with whom you may enter into conversation. It is noticeable that there are very few prepared to speak out their minds largely because of a certain aggressive form of propaganda. There is an attempt being made to spread the idea that education is progressing wonderfully and that Irish is making rapid progress. There is no truth in that. The standard of education is remarkably low and the progress made in the teaching of Irish is very poor indeed.

I can say that not 1 per cent. of the children ever speak the Irish language when they go home from school. That is one indication that the teaching of Irish is a failure. The children are unable to carry on conversation if they meet people who can speak Irish. That is proof enough that the teaching of Irish is a failure, in so far as Irish alone is concerned. When you take into account the other subjects they should know the matter becomes very serious. The fact is that the generation now being brought up is being deprived of the right to which it is entitled, the right to earn a living in this or any other country to which our young people may be forced to go. That is all due to the low standard of education. It is true that there are very few people who speak out their minds, but I am glad to notice that of late people are beginning to talk plainly. I notice that some of our Bishops have spoken clearly and emphatically. I also note that some people, whom I believe are teachers, have had the moral courage to speak their minds as regards what they know to be the fact.

I have here a newspaper cutting containing the report of a speech made by Mr. P.J. MacNamara, M.A. I know nothing about the man. I merely read the report and it seems to me that he knows the subject he is talking about. He is not afraid to say what is in everybody's mind, or at least in the minds of 99 per cent. of the people. Perhaps others could not say it as well as he did, and I propose to quote what he is reported as having said at Ennis:—

"‘It must be hell for a child to spend two or three years in a school, without his little interests being catered for,' said Mr. P.J. MacNamara, M.A., in a vigorous criticism of the Government's educational system at a meeting of Clare teachers in Ennis.

"The result of such a system, he added, was that the child became mentally stagnated. The brilliant child became a mediocrity and the average child was absolutely stupefied.

"For the past six or eight years the teachers had been working an over-loaded programme, ruining one or two generations of children, at the behest of people who never had had any connection with schoolwork in their lives.

"It was the duty of the teachers now to point out the real situation to the people whose children are like sheep driven to the slaughter. A poor, unfortunate child was driven to school by the Civic Guards, and then he had to sit for a year or two at school listening to the teacher speaking a language that he had never heard before.

"The child simply could not think, because he was only learning like a parrot a number of Irish phrases that had no meaning for him.

"The school programme was complex, indefinite and totally absurd from top to bottom; it was the bane of the teacher and the ruin of children."

That is the opinion of Mr. MacNamara, and I take it he is a teacher. That report appeared in the Irish Independent. It was a report of a meeting of national teachers in Ennis, a meeting held about a month or six weeks ago. Another speaker, Mr. T. Hanly, said that notwithstanding all the efforts made for the revival of the language they would not hear in Ennis, or towns like it, one child opening his mouth to express a phrase in Irish. He said that the memories of the children were being over-taxed and their little lives stultified by the present method of teaching, which was unnatural. That represents the opinions of people who have been spending their time, I suspect, in trying to force the language down the children's throats. It is really unnatural.

Everyone would like to see the Irish language getting a chance, but we are going the wrong way about teaching it. As long as you attempt to force anything on people it will never be effective and it will never be grasped. I entirely agree with what Deputy Dillon said, that the way to encourage people to learn Irish is to make of it something to be aspired to. Take the people with a higher education and see that they have a thorough working knowledge of Irish, that they are able to speak it, and then those who are at the primary schools will be anxious to acquire a knowledge of Irish and will avail of every opportunity of acquiring the language and they will equip themselves adequately in order that they may be able to attain something worth while. As long as you try to force the language down their throats they will be more or less disgusted, there will be a reaction, and the people will turn against Irish altogether, especially if it deprives their children of becoming qualified in the other branches of education such as arithmetic, grammar, spelling, geography and agriculture — that subject used to be taught in our time. These things are very important; they are useful and necessary subjects, but the position at the moment is that all these are practically eliminated.

You could scarcely get a child now to write an intelligent letter or spell ordinary words. The children know nothing about grammar and very little about arithmetic. Generally speaking, they are badly equipped to go into any business which the ordinary child from a primary school should be qualified to enter. Of course, it is not for me to say what is wrong with the teaching of Irish. I do not pretend to be an authority on it. I am very glad to know that the Taoiseach is going to appoint a commission to investigate this matter. There could be nothing so important at the moment. I hope something good will come out of it. I believe any commission that will inquire into the matter will be in a position to devise some scheme that will be superior to the haphazard methods in operation.

I have spent some nights trying to learn the Irish language, and anyone who takes it up will understand that one of the greatest difficulties the learner of Irish has to face is that there are so many dialects. When you master one you find there are at least two others. You have the Munster dialect, the Connacht and the Ulster. If a commission is set up to go into this matter it should decide upon one standard, whatever that standard may be, let it be either Munster, Connaught or Ulster, or even a mixture of all three. There should be one recognised standard. In addition to that, there should be a simplification of the spelling. The present spelling is absurd, and it is almost impossible for anyone not brought up to Irish to follow it. Even people acquainted with the language find the spelling troublesome. Why not simplify it? Now that the languages of the world are being simplified and that such a progressive country as America is simplifying the English language, I think it would be opportune for us to simplify Irish spellings. There is such difficulty in reviving the Irish language that I should say it would be rather a good thing if it were simplified. These are some points that could be brought before the commission. I do not propose to go in detail into this question at the moment, but there certainly are some points that we have to keep in mind. I do hope the Minister will change his methods and also change the curriculum in these schools. This is a matter that has given rise to much criticism by people who are qualified to decide.

There is just one other question. The teachers' salaries have been cut, and a good deal has been said about this cut. There is a motion before the House on this question. Personally I have not very strong views on the subject. I am very sympathetic towards the teachers and I should like to see them getting a fair crack of the whip, but I should like to see every other class doing fairly well too. I would like to see the burden fairly divided. If the condition of the agricultural community were improved I would wish to see the condition of the teachers improved; but it is not right that one class should be put in a much more favourable position than another. It is our interest, as the Deputy who has just sat down said, to make every class in this State very much better off. If the condition of all the people here were improved it would be an inducement to people on the other side of the Border to come in and join us. While the standard of living of everybody on this side of the Border is worse than the standard on the other side, it is hopeless to expect the removal of the Border.

When the time does come to improve the pay and prospects of the teachers I suggest that any increase they get should be paid on the results of their work. I remember years ago when the pay of the teachers was much lower than now. A certain proportion of that pay was awarded on results. That method was justified. I would like to see that plan again adopted, so that the teacher who does the best work would get the best pay. That is my view with regard to the teachers' salaries. I would like as soon as the country is in a position to afford an increase that an increase would be given and that the increase would be paid on the results.

The size of this Estimate, bordering on an expenditure of approximately £3,500,000, necessarily compels the Dáil to devote considerable care and consideration to the question as to whether the money which is to be expended is to be well and satisfactorily spent. I think going to a vegetarian and asking him what is the best kind of meat to eat is like asking the Department of Education whether there is anything wrong with national education in this country. I do not think you could rely upon the Department, because it is the peculiar character of Departments to think that what they have decided upon themselves is the very best possible thing. I have no doubt that the Department genuinely believe that the present method of imparting education is satisfactory and that it is the best possible system that could be devised. I expect it is from their standpoint. I have no doubt that with their preconceived ideas and stubborn notions, it is very hard to alter their outlook. Some of these ideas have been of long standing. It is, therefore, because of these stubborn notions that I am reluctant to take the views of the Department as a reliable guide as to what is the best system of education for the country. Personally I would prefer to rely on such experience as one in public life can gather. I prefer the views of people who have more disinterested ideas about education than the Department or the Minister has.

I doubt very much as to whether we are getting value for the large sum of money that is at present spent on education in this country. I am not an advocate of any reduction in the amount spent on education. This country is too poor intellectually to be able to afford to economise on education. I believe the expenditure of further money on education is justified if that money be spent in a wisely conceived manner. If it is it will, in due course, yield a substantial return in the form of a better standard of education. The standard at present is not so high as not to need improvement. Our whole endeavour should be to raise the standard substantially above the present level, and to see that, having regard to the large expenditure on primary education, we get a satisfactory return. I would like to say that the whole question of having this examined by interested officials should be changed and that the problem should be examined by disinterested educationists and public officials whose only desire would be, not to justify the methods adopted in the past, but to ascertain whether these methods are the best and whether they could be improved, especially having regard to the preponderance of rural occupations in this country.

I would like if the Minister for Education would tell us if he has been able to obtain from the Civil Service Commissioners any viewpoint as to the present standard in the national schools. Quite a substantial number of persons who have left school compete annually at the Civil Service examinations. Has the Minister any return from the commissioners as to whether they are satisfied with the standard of education in schools and as to how that standard compares with the standard of five, ten or 15 years ago? Information from a body like the commissioners would be a much more reliable barometer as to our educational tendency than any returns from the Department of Education. In this country, because of its character and because of the vast mass of propertyless people who are turned out by the schools annually, it is very doubtful if our educational system is the best that can be devised. In other countries where the standard of living is perhaps higher than it is here the need for doing that is perhaps not as great as it is here, but in Ireland we have got to recognise that for the vast mass of our children the national school is not merely their kindergarten; it is their primary school, their secondary school and their university. The only education they get, looked at from the purely cultural standpoint, is such as is imparted to them in the national schools. It behoves us therefore to make sure that such money as is spent on education in this country is spent in imparting the best possible system of education and in ensuring that that education is imparted under conditions which will enable the children to derive the maximum amount of benefit from the system of education adopted.

I wonder whether we are getting the best possible results or whether there are any serious results or whether the system of education in operation in this country. It is well known, and the Minister has admitted it in his speech, that many schoolhouses are dreary, drab, dilapidated buildings. It may be that some slight improvement is going on in some areas from year to year, but deterioration is also going on in other centres from year to year. When you consider the improvements on the one hand, and the deterioration on the other hand, it is questionable whether there is a credit balance to the State in the long run from the standpoint of providing better schools. The Minister indicated in his speech that certain sums had been expended in the erection of new schools and in the improvement of other schools, but the outstanding fact is that there are still in the country too many dilapidated schools which are anything but conducive to the reception of knowledge by the pupils who have got to spend five and sometimes six hours per day in buildings of that kind. The Minister is anxious that steps should be taken to relieve that position and to remedy it, in the course of time. I am not so sure that the methods that are being adopted are those best calculated to remedy the problem. They may relieve it to some slight extent, but I doubt if they are calculated to give us anything like a complete solution, or to give us the decent schools that are necessary if we are going to have schoolhouses to which it will be a pleasure to send children and in which they may be able to absorb education under the best possible conditions.

The Minister mentioned in the course of his speech that one of the difficulties in the matter of providing better schools is that local managers are not able to get the sum required as the local contribution for the improvement of schools or the erection of new schools. That is a problem that time in itself is not going to efface. If the trend of population away from the rural areas to towns and cities is an indication of any long-continued drift in the population, then that problem of the manager not being able to put up the local contribution is a problem that is going to become more acute as time goes on, because as parishes dwindle in population, the capacity of the parish to raise the necessary funds will correspondingly diminish. Merely, therefore, leaving the matter to time is not producing a remedy, and I should like to know from the Minister what he proposes to do in cases where the manager is unable to provide the money, either because of other commitments in the parish, or because of the general poverty of the parish, and his inability from an economic standpoint to raise the necessary money. That problem must be tackled by the Department. It must be tackled by the Minister, who has a special responsibility in the matter. I should like to know what his proposals are to deal with a situation of that kind. It ought not to be impossible to devise some scheme by which local managers, on the credit of the parish, would be advanced the amount necessary to provide the local contributions, relying upon certain public-spirited persons locally to undertake the repayment of the sum in the event of default, or it ought to be possible for the State to provide the entire cost of the school, getting over such difficulties such as we all know exist in connection with the question of managerial control. Whatever the remedy, or whatever methods may be adopted in the effort to find a remedy, I think the Minister ought to tell us what way his mind is moving in that matter, what he proposes to do, or whether we are merely going to have an annual statement of the difficulties that are experienced by local managers in raising their proportion of the cost of building schools and simply leaving the problem in that way. If that is going to be the attitude of the Minister and the Department, I am afraid we shall continue to have bad schools, insanitary, dreary, drab schools, which can only retard the promotion of any satisfactory system of primary education in the country.

We have another handicap arising out of the question of the school-leaving age. Last year, I think, we had a statement from the Minister indicating that the Departmental Committee set up by his Department had produced a report with regard to the school-leaving age. It was in many respects a remarkable report. The keystone of the report was that the committee were satisfied that children of 14 years of age were not too immature to enter industry. I should like to see some members of that committee send their own children into a modern factory. Let them send them into a mill for instance. Let them send them into a mill to stand by a loom for 40 or 48 hours a week, and see what the effect is on a child's mind and body, surrounded by machinery for 48 hours of the week, constantly up against the problem of keeping its hands away from the mass of highly developed machinery which the child is operating. I imagine that the effect on the mind and body of a child of 14 years of an occupation of that variety must be very serious indeed. While those who constituted the committee apparently felt that in respect of children attending primary schools, it is quite all right to allow them to go into industry at 14 years of age, I venture to suggest that such members of the committee as had children themselves and the responsibility for educating them and fitting them for the battle of life, would not allow these children to go into industry at 14 years of age and would not permit a child of theirs of 14 or 16 to enter one of those highly mechanised factories which have grown up in this country.

In any case, we had a declaration from the Minister last year that the Government accepted the general principles of that report. Since then we had a statement from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the effect that if you attempt to raise the school-leaving age, you must raise it from 14 to 16, that you cannot raise it from 14 to 15. What the basis of that contention is I confess myself unable to fathom. It seems to me that there ought to be no difficulty whatever in so adjusting the school programme and the school curriculum so that the school-leaving age could be raised from 14 to 14½, 15; 15½ or 16 years of age. I think it is only a matter of adjusting the programme in order to fit in with the school-leaving age.

This whole matter has an important bearing on the question of education in the country. It has a very important bearing on the average attendance of children at school because the children are leaving school at 14 years of age and a smaller number are coming in at the younger ages with the result that teachers are being rendered redundant throughout the country. The livelihood to which they have devoted themselves, and in the accumulation of knowledge for which they have spent a good deal of time and money, is being thwarted because of the fact that averages in schools are falling as the young population of the country is falling. We have, therefore, a situation in many areas where children are going out of school at 14, while young children are not coming in, in sufficient numbers, to replace those who are going out. That is creating another problem, the problem of providing for the teachers who are redundant and the problem of what is going to happen to the teachers when they are rendered redundant.

That problem has been solved.

The problem has been solved to some extent but the Minister knows that the organisation catering for the economic interests of the teachers has told him that the problem has not been fully solved and that there are some aspects of it still awaiting solution. That problem has given rise to a general feeling of insecurity and has certainly caused inconvenience to many teachers.

The Deputy should have heard Deputy Hurley.

Deputies know all about it from teachers throughout the country. The Minister will not deny that it is possible, under the scheme which he has evolved for settling the problem, that a teacher whose home is in a particular area may have to leave that area and take employment as a teacher elsewhere at the risk of losing his salary. Is not that one of the provisions of the scheme for settling the average question? Does that not cause inconvenience and possible hardship to teachers and possible serious interference with the education of the children?

In the rural areas at all events, and of course in most of the smaller towns, children are being turned adrift from school at 14 years of age; not that they are compulsorily sent out of school at 14 years of age, but whether they are or not, they are leaving school at 14 years of age in large numbers. They are not going into any gainful employment, because in most cases it is not available for them. Children of 14, 14½ and 15 years of age who are allowed to roam the streets are a menace to themselves and are calculated to develop habits and practices which are not likely to promote their future well-being. I think, therefore, that the Department ought to apply itself to considering what is the best method of dealing with a situation of that kind.

Can the Minister, by administrative Act, raise the school-leaving age?

The Minister told us last year, if you recollect, that he adopted the report of this remarkable committee and indicated that he was going to try and put some of it into operation. I am just coming to the point of asking the Minister what portion, if any, has been put into operation.

I allowed the Deputy to develop the point with reference to teachers who had to leave certain districts because of falling averages and other things, but now he is proceeding to advocate new legislation.

I am not doing that, because my case would be on a much more extended scale if I were contemplating that.

The Minister can, without legislation, raise the school-leaving age.

By administrative Act?

That is so.

I do not know what the Minister will say to that.

That is the law.

There is legislation at present by which it can be varied. I suggest to the Minister that we ought to know whether the Department is still hanging on to that remarkable report presented by the inter-Departmental Committee to the Minister. Is there to be no effort by the Government to raise the school-leaving age to 15, and, if necessary, to 16 years of age, so as to ensure that children are only allowed to leave school when they have, so far as the State can afford it, the maximum amount of education that it is possible to impart to them? Many are leaving school at 14 years, and are not educated or half-educated. Yet, we are letting them leave school and roam around the streets until they are 15 or 16 years of age, and nothing is being done to deal with the problem. It would well repay the nation to face up to the responsibility, and the cost of retaining children at school until they are 16 years of age, paying an allowance to the parents in respect of such sum as the family might possibly lose by the fact that the children were not going into industry. I think it would be money well spent.

Of course, there are all kinds of conservative-minded folk in this country to-day who think it is good to have their own children at school until 16, 18, or 21 years of age, but who raise up their hands in holy horror at the prospect of anybody dreaming of allowing the child of a worker to stay at school until 16 years of age. The Minister told us last year that he had adopted the report of the inter-Departmental Committee, and I think he indicated that it was intended to try out a very mild recommendation in the report as an experiment in certain places. I should like to know from the Minister if any experiment has been tried during the year in that connection and what has been the result; whether the Department intends to adopt a progressive policy in respect of raising the school-leaving age, or whether it merely intends to carry on the present method of producing half-educated children at 14 years of age and allowing them to roam the streets or to secure employment in industry for which, according to the inter-Departmental Committee, their bodies and minds are not too immature. We ought to have something from the Minister on that aspect of the matter.

There is another question which has a considerable bearing on education, and that is the question of school books. Many children, whose father is unemployed and who belong to a large family where the only income is unemployment assistance benefit, go to school in the morning with merely a cup of tea and a slice or two of dry bread. That is all they can get under the low scale of unemployment assistance benefit paid. Many of them trek two, three or four miles on that type of nourishment, going into a drab, cheerless school with famished bodies and without school books and they are expected to absorb education. The schools in some cases are over-crowded, and in a lot of cases they are structurally defective. The children arrive there without school books and have to try to absorb such education as is imparted through the medium of books by looking over the shoulder of the child next to them, or otherwise they have to depend upon the teacher to provide, out of his own pocket, the wherewithal to purchase the books. That is a most unsatisfactory method of imparting education. If you wanted to thwart the whole purpose of education I cannot imagine its being done in a more effective way than by not ensuring that the child gets school books when going to school.

We have in the Constitution which was enacted some time ago the declaration that every citizen is entitled to free education. You cannot have free education as long as a child is compelled to purchase books. Many of these children get bills for school books amounting to much more than the father gets in the week in unemployment assistance benefit. The children go home from school with a bill for books which is more than the father's income for the week. Who is expected to pay for these books is all economic and financial problem that the Department has never solved and never attempted to solve. The fact remains that large numbers of children go to school without school books, and so long as they are compelled to go to school without school books, they are not properly equipped for the absorption of education in the schools. I think that the Department ought to recognise that the provision of school books, free of charge, is as necessary a part of its educational system as the payment of the teachers. There is no purpose in providing teachers if you cannot provide the children with books to enable them to absorb the education which the teacher is seeking to impart to them. I think the Department ought to apply itself to finding a solution for that problem. A solution could be found if the State had some imagination and some courage, and if the people responsible for the control and direction of the educational policy of the country could be induced to get away from the belief that merely because a thing was done last year or ten years ago it is necessarily right, and should necessarily endure for all time.

The whole educational policy of the country seems to me to be based on the principle: "Well, we have been doing this for years; consequently, we ought not to change. We have never provided free school books before, and why should we provide them now?" That is the type of mind, I am afraid, which is allowed to control this whole question of providing school books. I think the Minister ought to break with that mentality and with that system. Assuredly, we can have no satisfactory system of education so long as we have dilapidated school buildings, on the one hand, children turned out of school half-educated at 14 years, on the other hand, with many children compelled to go to school hungry or half-hungry, and without the school books which are a necessary part of any proper educational system. The money spent on the provision of those buildings and requisites would be money very well spent, and I think the Department ought to apply itself to finding a remedy for a situation of that kind. Our people here are not so well educated that we can afford to economise in education. Yet we are, in fact, economising in education by not providing those additional items of education which are so necessary if we are to evolve a satisfactory system of education.

As I said at the outset, we are expending £3,500,000 on primary education in this country, and I am wondering whether in consequence of the methods adopted under the present system we are getting the best results. I am of the opinion myself that a good deal of the education which is imparted is of the mechanised kind; teaching a child the date of certain battles in Irish history, or, if we go into the domain of English history, probably teaching the child the time that William the Conqueror invaded England, telling the child who fought in the Battle of the Roses, and, if we take Continental history, teaching the child some of the dates on which military battles were fought and things of that sort. I am afraid that the whole tendency has been to impart to the child a mechanised form of education; merely teaching the child to recite events or dates, to think along standardised lines in a repetitive form. I do not I think that our educational system to-day is calculated to train the mind of the child to draw its own deductions from facts or from events. Certainly, the short period that a child spends at school, bearing in mind the age of the child, is not calculated to promote the policy of teaching the child to develop its own mental faculties so that it may be able with a trained mind to deduce facts from events.

These are problems associated with education which we must necessarily consider in this country particularly. Of course, at present the whole control of education is departmental. The Department has the last word in educational matters. The experience of the teacher is not made available to the nation so as to enable the country to get the benefit of the teacher's experience in directing the educational policy. Many people in this country have advocated the setting up of a council of education so that you might have a body brought together periodically for the purpose of examining the trend of education, the results of education, the benefits of other methods of education, and, generally speaking, the latest and most up-to-date methods of our educational system here. A council of education of that kind, representative of the Department on the one hand, and of teachers on the other, of parents from another standpoint and well-known educationists in the country, would, I think, help to give us the opportunity of ensuring that our educational system was free from the rigidity which must necessarily go with departmental control. Everybody who knows anything of the Civil Service is well aware that it is essentially a conservative machine, and that when a new problem arises the official heads are scratched. They will say: "What shall we do; this did not arise before; this is a new problem presented to the Department." The tendency always is to try and find some precedent, if not an exact precedent the nearest that can be found, no matter how old it may be, to solve this problem which has just presented itself to the Department. I think departmental control of education is inevitably a rigid type of control, and I think that a council of education designed to utilise the experience of teachers, parents, educationists and the Department would be able to make a very valuable contribution to the development of our educational system. It would be more calculated than the present type of rigid departmental control to give us a flexible type of education which could embrace the latest methods of teaching, and apply to our educational system the best possible conditions for the imparting of knowledge to the children.

There was one matter raised by Deputy Hurley on this Vote that I would like to add my voice to. Deputy Hurley said that the teachers' organisation had been asking the Minister for almost 12 months for a decision on the representations which they made to him on the question of salary cuts. Surely that period is sufficiently long to enable the Minister or the Government to make up their minds as to what they intend to do in the matter. It seems to me to be rank discourtesy for the Department not to tell the teachers' organisation, after that long period, what it intends to do. I hope that the Minister will avail of the discussion on this Vote to indicate the Government's decision on the claim which has been made by the teachers' organisation, a claim which has been widely supported throughout the country by all kinds of people, many of them friendly to the Minister politically, and a claim that has been endorsed by the Minister's other Parliament, the Ard-Fheis. It is a claim that has got widespread support from all sections of the people who want to see the teachers adequately remunerated so that they can give their undivided attention to their work of giving the children committed to their care the best possible standard of education. From an educational point of view, it is desirable that the Minister should communicate an early decision to the teachers in the matter, and a favourable decision as well.

I intervene in this debate merely because Deputy Heron asked for a clarification of this Party's attitude in reference to teachers' salaries. As regards the outstanding problems arising on the Estimate of the Department of Education, I have made my personal views abundantly clear in this House during the past two or three years, and as I had not intended to intervene in the debate to-day, I do not propose to repeat them. Deputy Norton, towards the close of his remarks, gave expression to a question that had been formulating itself in my mind when I read the speech of the Minister for Education delivered to-day. In fact, Deputy Norton has put the same question in his speech that I was putting to myself: Has the Minister, or the Department of Education, any broad policy on education at all, or are they just carrying on as they have carried on for years—before and since the Treaty? Is there any really broad policy on education, as such, or is it merely that the Department collects and gives expression, through the Ministerial speech on the Estimate each year, to a series of tabloid statistics? We are told in the speech how many pupils attended the primary and secondary schools, what the drop in the averages has been in the primary schools, and how far the number of pupils attending the secondary schools has increased. We are told how many pupils have receive instruction through the medium of Irish, and how that system is progressing. Taking the matter on a broad basis, is there any effort to get the views of really sound, cultured educationists on the question of educational policy and changes of educational policy? Since the establishment of this State—naturally, perhaps, on account of the circumstances existing—the educational policy of this Government and of the last Government has been impregnated with the necessity for the revival of Irish and the methods to be adopted to that end—an end which is desired by all Parties.

Sixteen years have elapsed since we took control of our own educational institutions. I think the time has come to sit back and take a calm, impartial review of the entire situation and of educational policy. Opinions differ, and differ strongly, on the methods adopted to revive the Irish language. Many epithets were hurled at the last Government in respect of different parts of their policy, but nobody has ever had the audacity to cast blame or odium upon them for their attitude or policy with regard to the revival of Irish. Deputy O'Rourke spoke on the attitude of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party with regard to the cuts in salaries. He threw an aspersion on the Cumann na nGaedheal Party regarding that matter. In the same way, I suppose, people who dislike the Irish language in any shape or form, when speaking with regard to the policy of reviving Irish, would say that one Government was as bad as another, that it was the Cumann na nGaedheal Government who started this policy of Irish in the schools and of teaching through the medium of Irish and forcing Irish down the necks of children. We have to consider this matter in a completely impartial way. We have to avoid, on one hand, the cranks who think that any criticism of the methods adopted for the revival of the Irish language implies criticism of the policy of reviving the Irish language. When I referred on this Estimate previously to the methods adopted for the revival of Irish, and pointed to the evils that might accrue from the adoption of certain methods, I was told by a Deputy on the opposite side that I could not open my mouth on this question without speaking sneeringly of Irish. It must be recognised that people who have very seriously at heart the revival of the Irish language are entitled to criticise the methods adopted to that end. We must avoid the crank and the over-enthusiastic, on one hand, and, on the other hand, we must avoid the people — and I think they are a very large number — who do not want to see the Irish language revived under any circumstances. We should look back and take a calm, judicial review of what has happened during the past 16 years, and we should see if the methods adopted are working as they were expected to work and as they should work. We should inquire whether these methods are, in the existing circumstances— apart from what people might desire the circumstances to be, and apart from what the wishes of enthusiasts may be — the proper methods to secure the revival of the Irish language.

I think that the time has come when an impartial commission of experts— persons with experience of education and who know the country — should examine this whole problem. If such a commission were set up, it would be fatal to the interests of the revival of the Irish language if it were to consist exclusively, or even mainly, of people who are over-enthusiastic in reference to the methods adopted for the revival of Irish. I should like to see on such a commission people of calm and impartial views, people who have studied Irish scientifically and know the language, but who are not biassed "through the medium of Irish," if I may put it that way. They should not be so violent in their views as to be incapable of facing facts, and they should not think that those who give expression to adverse views on the present methods of reviving Irish are antagonistic to the Irish language itself, or to the revival of Irish.

The Minister was responsible in his speech for some remarkable utterances and I rather thought he did not appreciate the real effect of his statements. This matter is relevant to the topic to which I am adverting at the moment. The Minister referred in his speech to the fact that the greatest danger to Irish arose from the lack of interest shown by the public in the matter. If as much interest were taken by the general public in the language as is taken by the school authorities, he said, and if facilities were provided by which the children would be enabled to speak Irish outside school hours and in post-school work, the position of the Irish language might be said to be removed from danger. That is a very significant observation but it is profoundly true. Does it not rather suggest that the engine is running away from the train? Does it not suggest that the policy regarding the revival of Irish, as represented either by teaching through the medium of Irish or any other method, is really going beyond public opinion? Does it not suggest that if there is public apathy, in so far as there is not public antipathy, there is something wrong with the policy being pursued by this Government and which was pursued by the last Government, and that it is outstripping public desire and public requirements? Is not that something that has to be looked to, a serious fact, an unpalatable fact, perhaps, that has to be faced? Is it not something that may possibly have arisen as a result of the methods which have been adopted? May not that be a dangerous signal, a symptom showing some disease, something that must be cured, if the policy of this Government or of any Government is going to achieve anything more than the rapid death of the Irish language, and the complete end of the movement which most people would desire to bring about for the revival of the Irish language? There is no use in over-enthusiastic utterances about the Irish language. Condemnations by people who are fanatical in their attitude towards the Irish language, and in their desire to have everybody speaking it, can do untold damage. I think the fact has to be faced that it is now quite clear — to use the metaphor I have already made use of — that the engine is perhaps running very rapidly away from its train. If something is not done other than mere over-driving of the unfortunate teachers and of the unfortunate pupils, something in the way of arousing public enthusiasm for the language, as distinct from methods depending on pure compulsion, then no matter what any Government may do, no matter what the inducements may be to people to learn the Irish language, in a very short space of time there will be rapid deterioration.

I have said that apart from this question of Irish in the schools and elsewhere, there is a need for revision of educational policy. I think we are inclined to "stay, put" in reference to those matters. I think it would require almost a revolution to bring about changes which are very desirable, particularly in the system of secondary education. Everybody knows that the system of secondary education as it is carried on here in this country at the present moment very largely tends to affect the health of the children. They are kept in school from 9 o'cock or 9.30 in the morning until 3.30 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. They then come home and have a hurried meal, and from that time until they go to bed late at night they are engaged in home work. The entire waking hours of the modern child are devoted to one consistent grind. I do not know whether it is possible to adopt the system which now obtains very largely throughout England, and in continental schools, of a break of one or two hours for a meal in the middle of the day, and as far as possible to have the work that is required to be done by the children completed during school hours. I think, as I say, it would require a revolution to get the existing system away out of the body corporate in this country, but in my view you will have no proper cultural development unless there is a radical change in the system of secondary education. The children receive instruction in a number of subjects— instruction largely consisting of cramming. Under the system as it stands at the moment, by which it is necessary to spend a very considerable amount of time in connection with Irish, the result is the crowding out of the teaching of other languages as French and German. To my own personal knowledge there is a number of pupils who are at present engaged at school in learning Irish, French, German, Latin, mathematics, history and geography—a pretty staggering list of subjects for any ordinary child to face in the course of a school day. But they are the exception; the ordinary average child cannot face such a programme. The Irish language undoubtedly crowds out the teaching of modern languages. I do think it is necessary that the people who are to be educated here, whether they are to make their living in Ireland or whether they are fitting themelves for export abroad, should have a broad cultural training, not strictly confined to Irish; in fact, not confined to Irish at all. I think their training, should be as broad as possible. I think that if possible it should comprise training in art and in painting and in various cultural subjects which will broaden their vision and tend to give them a very much less insular outlook on life as they grow older.

Another rather significant sentence which the Minister uttered in the course of his speech was one in which he referred to the fact that during the period since 1933 there has been a continuous decline in the average number of pupils on the rolls in national schools. He said it amounted to 25,000 in the triennial period to 30th June, 1937. I gathered from that statement of the Minister that there has been a drop of 25,000 in the number of pupils attending primary schools during a period of three years. Later on, he referred to the fact that during the year just ended there was an increase in the secondary schools of 779 over the number in the year 1935-6. Both those statements I think can be co-related, and they have rather a disquieting significance because they both point to the same cause, that cause being the flight from the land. The policy of the Government has resulted in driving people from the land. No longer are they prepared to make their livelihood to the same extent as before from the basic interest of this country. They either go away without getting their proper education in the primary schools here, or else if their parents are capable of affording the expense they go to secondary schools for the purpose of being trained for professions, largely for the profession of medicine, for export abroad. Those are some of the disquieting facts that arise in connection with the policy of the Department.

I agree very largely with what Deputy Norton has said, that departmental policy in education is largely and necessarily circumscribed and confined by departmental regulations and outlook. I do not know whether the Minister has any machinery for overhauling the existing system, for seeing that it is brought more up to date; that the interests of children who are receiving instruction both in the primary and secondary schools are quickened; that the pupils are brought to the point where they regard education as something not a nuisance, as something of a pleasurable character, something that will give them profit and pleasure at the same time. We know that there have been many experiments in the educational system of this country for the last 30 or 40 years. I think the system of education in England might possibly be looked to with a view to seeing if any part of it could be applied to existing conditions in this country. I do think that the time has come for a general review, not merely of the policy in regard to Irish but in the general educational policy. As a last remark, may I refer to the suggestion in the Minister's speech that it is intended to give more scholarships on the results of the intermediate examinations than have been given in past years? I think that policy is perhaps open to doubt. It is certainly open to criticism. It may be of use if it provides facilities for children of promise to get higher education, but it is open to the criticism that the State is rather subsidising mediocrity. Might not the Minister rather consider that it would be better to give scholarships of increased amounts, to give better facilities to children or young people of outstanding merit in various branches of learning and science, with a view to giving them, in the interests of the nation, the best possible opportunity for development of their talents?

Finally, I should like to make the position of this Party clear on the matter in regard to which Deputy Heron asked that it should be made clear. Something over 15 months ago, a deputation from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation saw certain representatives of the Party which I have the honour to represent. I happened to be one of the representatives who met the delegates from the National Teachers' Organisation. The policy of this Party in reference to the teachers and their cuts, and also on the question of averages, which had not then been solved, was made perfectly clear to them over the table. We made no announcement at the time of the fact that there had been any deputation received, nor was there any announcement made by the representatives of the teachers' organisation. So far as we know, they were satisfied with the assurance we gave them.

We did not wish then, nor do we wish now—and this is the reason why this matter was not mentioned in Deputy Dillon's speech—make any political capital out of this matter in connection with the payment of teachers or the cuts that have been made in their statistics. We have no concern, politically, in that matter at all. I, personally, have made my own attitude clear with regard to cutting anybody's salary or wages since I first came in here, and, personally, I will not stand for the cutting of salaries or wages so far as I have anything to do with it and so far as I have anything to do with this Party. I think that the policy of cutting wages or salaries is a bad policy and that, in the long run, it does not pay. I endorse the policy in regard to my own profession, as put forward by one solicitor, who suggested that cheap law is bad law. In the same way, I believe that cheap teaching is bad teaching, and that cheap Civil Service means bad Civil Service. When the point was made that the State could not afford to pay civil servants a certain amount, I made the point that the State could not afford to cut their salaries on the ground that cheap pay would mean cheap service. I have the same attitude with regard to the teachers and, quite impervious to any sneers as to whether or not the Fine Gael or the Cumann na nGaedheal were the first to cut these salaries, I state, as I have stated before, that I am opposed to the cutting of salaries. Criticism has been made with regard to certain assurances that we gave. The assurance that we gave to the representatives of the National Teachers' Organisation, in the first place, was that, if we were in a position to do so—that is, being the Government in power—we would restore the cuts that were made, if the economic conditions would allow it. We also gave assurances with regard to the question of averages, but apparently that does not arise how.

I do not think I can say anything more explicitly on the question of the salaries of teachers than I have said. If I have not made the case clear and explicit, then I do not know how it could be made more explicit. I think that it is perfectly clear what the policy of this Party is in this respect, and I have stated it irrespective of what results it may have. I am not sure what results it may have on the political fortunes of this Party; but whether the results may be beneficial or not, that is our policy. I have the greatest sympathy with the teachers on account of the work that has been imposed upon them during the last 15 years as a result of having to comply with the demands that have been made on their youth and energy, and on their spare time, in order to fit themselves to become teachers of Irish and of other subjects through the medium of Irish. It must have been a sufficiently great strain on many of the younger teachers in 1922 to have to start to equip themselves with the necessary training for this matter, but it must have been a still greater strain upon teachers who had passed the first bloom of youth to have to go and equip themselves in order to face a new situation and to shoulder a new burden, and also to face new and very unfounded and carping criticism from inspectors and from the public generally.

Gearóid Mac Partoláin

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá mar gheall ar cheist an deontais dhá phúint. Ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire agus ar Roinn an Oideachais an scéim sin do leathnú amach go dtí an Bhreac-Ghaeltacht agus congnamh do thabhairt do gach páiste ar na coinníollacha céanna a bhaineas leis an scéim sa bhfíor-Ghaeltacht. Samhluigheann sé dhom, cé go bhfuil go leor maitheasa á dhéanamh 'sa bhfíor-Ghaeltacht, go bhfuil fathcíos ann nach bhfuil obair go leor á dhéanamh 'sa bhreac-Ghaeltacht, go mór-mór ar son na bpáistí atá go measardha maith— páistí nach bhfuil á sárú le fáil, do réir na gcigirí. Cuirim sin fé bhráid an Aire agus na Roinne mar a chuireas é anuraidh. Tá súil agam go dtabharfaidh sé aire do'n impidhe seo agus go mbeidh toradh maith i mbliana air.

I want to add my voice to what has been said in connection with the cuts in teachers' salaries. As the Minister knows, there have been two cuts since 1923, and certain fees have also been taken away from the teachers since then. As Deputy Costello has pointed out since the cuts came into operation the teachers have been called upon to perform more duties than they had to perform hitherto. They came enthusiastically into the teaching of Irish, even though the teaching of Irish encroached upon their spare time. We all know that, a good number of teachers have spent their holidays in various schools and colleges in the Gaeltacht so as to equip themselves with a sufficient knowledge of Irish to enable them to teach their pupils. It is a peculiar thing that, notwithstanding the fact that this agitation has been going on for the last year and a half, the Minister has not yet dealt with this matter. Surely it is time that the Minister and the Government should be able to give a decision as to what their attitude would be in this connection. As a matter of fact, in face of all this delay, I think that the restraint of the teachers in this matter has been admirable, notwithstanding what some people seem to think. I hold that if there is one section of the community whom we ought to try to keep from being discontented, it is the teachers. They are people who should not be placed in such a position as to make them discontented, and I do hope that the Minister in the near future will give a decision on this matter.

When Deputy Norton was speaking, he referred to the very bad condition of schools in various parts of the country, and he criticised the Minister's attitude, or perhaps the attitude of the Department, in connection with the building of these schools. He complained that many of the schemes in connection with such schools were put on the long finger by the Department because of the fact that the manager of the school concerned was unable to secure the necessary sum to subsidise the new building. I think that the Minister is aware that, in various parts of the country now, because of the low economic level of the people generally, it is almost impossible to find the necessary amount of money to make it possible to qualify in order to get the grant from the Government. Accordingly, I think that some other arrangement should be made whereby this money should be forthcoming. Of course, when representations are made to the Minister to provide a new school in a particular area, the first thing the Minister does is to get in touch with the local manager with a view to finding out the proportion that should be put up and how it should be put up. When this is not forthcoming — and, as I have pointed out, in the present circumstances of the country it is not forthcoming very often — it means that both the children and the teacher suffer in consequence. I think there should be some other method whereby these matters could be speeded up, so that the old, dilapidated schools in various parts of the country may be taken down and new ones erected.

There is one important matter in connection with the erection of schools which I do not think anybody has mentioned. I refer to the provision of playing fields for football and hurling. In a great many cases new schools are erected in very congested areas, even in a rural district, and no provision is made for playing fields. As a matter of fact, in a great many cases the grounds immediately surrounding the schools, which are walled in, are too small. I think a Government such as we have now ought to try to do something to foster national games; they should provide playing fields in the immediate vicinity of the new schools that they are building. They might go further and provide playing fields for the schools already erected. I hope the Minister will pay attention to that important matter.

I should like to ask the Minister what is the position of the Christian Brothers' school at Enniscorthy. Representations have been made to his Department for the last two or three years to have a new school erected or more accommodation provided for the Enniscorthy Christian Brothers' school. The Minister knows that the existing school is not alone overcrowded but it is situated in a very congested area. My opinion is that it is very damp and altogether unsuited for a school. Various suggestions were made to the Minister and he, in turn, made other suggestions; but the position is still the same. The pupils in the Enniscorthy Christian Brothers' school are herded together like cattle, in a very bad environment. I urge the Minister to do something so that the Christian Brothers there will be provided with a decent school.

Deputy Costello referred to home work and the length of time pupils are kept at school. I am in entire agreement with him. That applies particularly to secondary pupils. We all know that at this time of the year when pupils are studying for the Intermediate examination, which takes place in June, the children start at 9 o'clock in the morning; they have a break for half an hour at 12.30; they resume at 1 o'clock, and then they go on until 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening. Then when they come home they have to do their home work. I suggest that is too much of a tax on the pupil's strength and energy and it will not achieve the object which the Department has in view. I think some general order should be made in so far as home work and the duration of school hours are concerned. If there were a longer break in the middle of the day perhaps it would remedy the situation to some extent. I presume we are also entitled to discuss technical education on this Vote?

There is one thing I would like to refer to and that is the salaries of chief executive officers. I would like the Minister to do something in order to create a standard salary for chief executive officers all over the country. There may be a case made, perhaps, for larger salaries in respect of Dublin and Cork, but in the other provincial centres I think the Minister knows there are no two salaries the same.

Will the Deputy say whether the Minister has responsibility in the matter?

He has, very definitely. I know a case where representations were made to him about having a chief executive officer's salary increased and his Department turned it down. I suggest that in all provincial towns the same salary should be paid. There, again, discontent prevails in consequence of the differentiation made by the Department in the salaries of chief executive officers in different parts of the country.

Perhaps the Minister will extend further the system of scholarships which we have had from time to time in the case of technical education. I think the Minister knows it is very difficult to get certain teachers for technical institutes all over the country. In engineering, manual work and in domestic economy there is a scarcity of teachers and I suggest that if the Minister were to extend the system of scholarships now in operation, to a limited degree, it would mean ultimately that young people who are pupils in technical institutes would endeavour to become teachers in their particular sphere. A couple of years ago, to a larger extent than now, we had this system of scholarships. They were withdrawn and were reintroduced this year to a limited extent. I suggest they should be extended and that the system should not be withdrawn as it was within the last two or three years.

With regard to the system of education, I do not agree with all that has been said against the Irish language. I will say this, that to my mind English and mathematics are being neglected and children coming out of schools to-day are not as proficient in English and mathematics as were the children of ten or 15 years ago. I do not think that can be denied. I would also suggest that there should be some provision made for the teaching of English in technical institutes. The Minister may say that that is a matter for the primary and secondary schools, but there is also a need in technical schools so far as that subject is concerned. In my opinion the Minister should permit an elocution class in the different technical institutes. That is a long-felt want and I am sure it would be taken advantage of in various parts of the country, especially in the urban areas.

I believe in the policy of giving credit where credit is due, and I think the Minister and the Department deserve every credit for raising the standard of our education and for the saving of our country's language. They deserve credit also for the improved schools we have throughout the country. We all remember when the British left this country in 1921 or early in 1922. We know they left behind them a large number of dilapidated buildings known as national schools. Some of these had been drawn to the attention of the Board of Education for years, with a request to have them replaced by more modern buildings. Some of the buildings had been reported even 30 years before that time and yet it was only within the past two or three years that some of the buildings that I know of were replaced.

Deputy Norton suggested that the building of new schools was not being proceeded with quickly enough. He was not satisfied with the progress made in the replacement of the bad buildings. I do not hold with that view. From my experience going through the country I can say that the rate of progress in the building of national schools has been increased very much within the past three or four years.

I would like to suggest a few matters that I think are essential to the health of children attending schools. Number one is that, together with a good schoolhouse, there should be a decent water supply provided in the case of every national school, whether in the towns or the rural areas. Number two is that water-flushed sanitary arrangements should also be provided for each school. The sanitary arrangements in the primary schools, as long as we can remember, have been anything but up to date, anything but perfect. Now that the Department has set about erecting new schools, sound buildings, I suggest that they should complete the job by providing these two essentials, good drinking water and modern sanitation. Before I sit down I wish to pay a tribute to the Department and also to pay a tribute to the primary teachers for their work in helping to save our national language as well as in helping to keep the standard of education of our young people at a high pitch.

I am very glad to hear from Deputy Meaney that the Irish language is being saved. From my own experience, extending back to over 40 years' work in the Gaelic League, I am sorry to say that my view is that, not only is the Irish language not saved, or near being saved, but that we seem to be arriving at the time when we have to cast away all hope of seeing the language restored as the language of the country. I say this because every element operating at the present time is against the policy of restoring what has been the language of our people. On this side of the House we have been accused by some people of being against the Irish language. Let these critics say what they will. I would like to point out that I have put in long years of voluntary work in the Irish language movement and in the Gaelic League. I have always been imbued with the hope that this country was to be saved from anglicisation. To-day the great enemy of our people is not anglicisation. We are suffering from waves of what I might call Hollywood paganism, which is threatening to subvert everything for which the people of this country stand.

If we criticise matters here it is only because of our desire to combat these evils. We know that the restoration of the Irish language and its revival as a spoken tongue would be our greatest bulwark against pagan inroads. It is because the efforts of the people have been misdirected that I dare to criticise the present tendency and over-zeal in the wrong methods of teaching Irish. Perhaps I can go back longer in the political field than any Deputy in this House. I regret to say that there is less Irish spoken in the country to-day than ever before, and daily less and less Irish is being spoken. In saying this, I do not in any way want to decry the wonderful work that is being done in the schools and the great results that have been achieved there in the last 14 or 15 years. But when the children leave school and when they go out in the world, what are they up against? They are faced with all the elements of wireless. What does that bring home to the minds of the children? They find themselves brought face to face with the whole pagan world, certainly with the English-speaking world, whether America or England. Take the pictures, for instance. What influence are they exerting on the minds of the children? The young child to-day is wondering more about Greta Garbo than about Caitlin Ni Houlihan. Then consider the influence of the public libraries throughout the country. They are doing great and solid work, but it is all through the medium of English. How many of our people, after leaving school, ever take up an Irish book? We have volumes published by An Gúm. The publications are good, but the output is very small compared with the output of works in English. That is why I say that every element seems to be against the revival of the Irish.

What we are doing to-day in the schools is carrying out the policy that in other days the Gaelic League tried to combat. Over 40 years ago the Gaelic League was engaged in combating the Wheatley ideas then being carried out in the school. At that time, and for nearly 100 years previously, the English language was being stuffed down the throats of the people of the Gaeltacht — a language that they never heard spoken in their homes. What are we doing to-day? The very thing that we complained of in those days. We are stuffing down the throats of our little children a language that they never heard in their homes, a language that is not their home tongue. That is one of the reasons why I say the psychology of our children is being adversely affected. They are suffering from this policy of stuffing down their throats a language of which they are ignorant and which is not spoken in their homes. I speak in this way not in antagonism to the Irish language, because I regard that as one of the shields standing for our national salvation, but because it must be restored by other means or other methods than the methods employed in our schools to-day. We are ourselves doing to-day what former generations, down to our own time, complained of.

In the early days of the Gaelic League we aimed at making this country bilingual. We thought that was the most ideal policy to set before the people. We aimed at being like some of the smaller countries in Europe, such as Belgium, where Flemish and French are spoken side by side. We wanted a national language, a language that we would be proud of. At the same time, we wanted our people to have such a knowledge of English as would carry them through the world and stand to them in their dealings with the English-speaking world. It is with those ideas in mind that I criticise the present methods of reviving the language. Personally I have myself, through disuse, lost the use, I am afraid to a large extent, of my Irish. Travelling up and down the country, I find very few who will speak it to me. It is the same with other members of my family, who find that from the want of an opportunity of speaking the language they are losing their facility in speaking it.

Look at ourselves, members of the Dáil here. This is the National Assembly of the people of Ireland. How much Irish is spoken here? How much in the Government Departments? How much even in the Department of Education itself? The staff of the Department complain that they get very few communications in Irish from the teachers scattered through the country. We, Dáil Deputies, who come up here, are not ourselves doing our part. I confess that I am one of the sinners in that respect. I know all the associations are against Irish here. This is an English-speaking Parliament, and I am afraid it will continue to be an English-speaking Parliament.

There is one other matter upon which stress has not been laid. Incidentally, complaints are being made that the parents of the children in this country have very little voice in primary education. The suggestion has been put forward that there should be a council of education. It has been suggested to set up a council of education that would have the support of the teachers, and there would be provided some sort of outlet by which we might arrive at the views of the parents of the children whose education is entrusted to the Department of Education.

This Vote deals altogether with primary education. Primary education affects us very largely in this country, because 90 per cent. of our young people will never go beyond the primary school. The aggregate amount of this Vote is very large, a sum running into £3,500,000. The views of the people interested in primary education should be heard in some way, and it should not be left altogether to a ministerial department or to the inspectors to direct the education of the country. I appeal to the Minister to consider seriously the formation of some sort of council that would direct the policy of primary education in this country. That council would have an important bearing on our educational system now and in the future.

Reference has been made to the condition of the schools. I think that is one thing upon which the Department cannot be congratulated, even though progress his been made. Like Deputy Meaney, I have seen improvements, but they are nothing like what we should expect. There was an article in a Dublin journal some time ago headed "Our Rotten Schools". I think anybody who read that article must have been impressed with the truth of it. Our young people are going into schools with a very fetid atmosphere. The schools should be made attractive for the children in the physical sense as well as having mental attractions. The physical surroundings of the school have an important influence on the child, because the environment in which it is brought up will affect its character hereafter just as much as what it learns out of books. We ought, therefore, aim at brightening the surroundings of these schools. We have heard a lot about clearing the slums, but there are schools in the country that would be a disgrace to any slum in Dublin or Cork. They are a disgrace, and they tend to degrade the mind alike of the children and the teacher. I think the physical surroundings of the school have not got the attention which they should get.

There is another thing that could be easily done without great effort. That is, we should institute a closer co-ordination between primary and technical education. Technical education has made a good deal of progress in the country, particularly in the towns. It has also been developed in some of the rural districts and very good work is being done. We have recruited a very good class of person as teachers in these schools, but there must be more co-ordination. I am afraid that the primary teachers look with a certain amount of suspicion on the technical schools. They feel that they are taking away from the primary schools their boys and girls at a very promising time. Instead of there being any antagonism between these two classes of schools, every effort should be made to fill the gap that arises in the education of children between the ages of 14 to 16 or 17 years of age. They should be assisted to get over what we call the dangerous age, when children's minds are apt to become warped by wrong ideas if they are left idle. They should be brought up to habits of industry and with some sort of application to a technical subject that would equip them for some useful occupation in after life. I make that appeal to the Minister. Whatever can be brought about, I know from my association with both technical and primary education that such a gap is there, and that gap should be closed as quickly as possible. The technical schools have done a lot in a voluntary way. They have been a great help to boys and girls in some of the smaller towns. My friend, Deputy Corish, referred to the necessity for elocution classes. I think the students themselves have done a lot through their efforts in producing dramas and small plays to bring about that very important consciousness in speaking, in deportment, and in everything else, which is the outcome of a successfully produced amateur drama.

There is nothing else that I want to say which has not already been touched upon. I do believe that the teachers' grievances in regard to the cuts are matters that should be attended to and that some effort should be made to find employment for some of the teachers who are at a loose end. Some of these teachers left the training colleges three or four years ago and have not yet been absorbed into any sort of employment. I think the Minister has promised to do something in that regard and he is doing it, but that effort has not been followed up to the extent it should. With regard to the restoration of the cuts, the teachers have a very reasonable case, one that is founded upon a principle that is very often enunciated in this House, Christian social justice. I think that these great principles of Christian social justice should not be absent from the minds of our present Government when they are considering this matter.

Another matter that occurs to me is that sometimes there is great trouble in getting children into preparatory colleges. In my opinion too many places are reserved for children from the Fior-Ghaeltacht. I think that a child brought up in a place that is not in the Fior-Ghaeltacht and who acquires a very adequate, comprehensive knowledge of Irish, deserves more consideration in getting into these preparatory colleges than a child who has been reared in the Fior-Ghaeltacht. After all, there is no merit in the fact that the child from the Fior-Ghaeltacht has a knowledge of Irish. It comes naturally to them because they have been brought up to speak the language. I know parts of County Cork where teachers have worked very hard preparing children for these schools. They have had them beautifully equipped but when the time came to present these children for examination, they were told that there were no places for them as all the places had been reserved for children from the Fior-Ghaeltacht. The claims of these children could not be considered and the result was that they had to take up some other livelihood

The whole question arising on this Vote has been gone into very clearly and very closely. I think the debate that has taken place has been on very practical lines. There may have been some hard things said, but anything said with regard to Irish was not meant in any spirit of antagonism to the progress of the language, but was simply due to the consciousness that the real progress we should like to see made in the advancement of Irish as a spoken tongue amongst the people of the country is not taking place. We want to see greater efforts, and I do believe that, in many respects, the present efforts are wrong and that there ought to be a revision of the whole procedure and policy with regard to it.

At this late stage I am not going to delay the House in repeating the arguments which have been put before the House, but there are a few remarks which I wish to make. The first matter must of necessity be the salaries paid to the school teachers. We have all seen some very attractive posters, particularly during the last election. One of them was: "Speed the plough." A very effective answer to that is: "By all means speed the plough, but you have to pay the ploughman." In other words, if you want people to do work decently you have to pay them for it, and pay them sufficiently. The individual known as a national school teacher has in many cases been subject to a great lot of adverse criticism. Apart from the services which a teacher renders during school hours—and this applies particularly in small country towns — the teacher performs a lot of other services to the State for which he is not compensated, and which are not taken into consideration at all.

We all know that in a small town the school teacher is generally the friend, philosopher, and guide to the poor people. He certainly saves a great many Government Departments and officials a lot of time, as he spends a great portion of his leisure hours in filling up many of these buff forms issued from Government Departments with which we are all familiar. He generally does a great deal of work outside his school hours and for that he receives no recognition. If any person in receipt of a salary from the State should be considered, I think it is the national school teacher.

He has a certain position to keep up, and he has to go here, there and everywhere. Perhaps the best way of illustrating it is this. Several people were charged with having no lights on their bicycles, and the learned gentleman officiating asked what the first man was. He was told he was an unemployed labourer, and he said: "Dismissed, probation." The next man was an employed labourer, and in his case he said, "Fined 1/-." The next man was a shopkeeper, and he was fined 2/6. The next man was termed a national school teacher, and the justice said: "I will fine him 10/-; he should know better, and he is well able to pay." I think that conveys the position that a teacher has to keep up, and I think that his salary should be commensurate to the service he renders inside the school and outside the school

With reference to the conditions of the schools, Deputy Meaney said that he was glad to see that great progress had been made. I know there is a school in his own constituency in which the local teacher has to bring his umbrella on a rainy day to keep the rain off. I had occasion some time ago to do a little research work, and I looked up the reports of the medical officers of health for the Counties Kerry, Waterford and Kilkenny, for last year, I think. The fund of information I got from these reports was amazing. It transpired that a great many of the schools in these counties were absolutely unsanitary and unfit for habitation, and that a great many of them were built on graveyards. Some people said that was to add to the sepulchral appearance of the teachers and some of the officials of the Department of Education. I do not know whether that is correct or not. A good many of the schools also are rat-infested. These are the actual reports of the medical officers of health in these counties. If the people in charge look into these reports, they will find that statement is absolutely correct.

It has also been stated that a lot of the teachers have broken down in health recently and they are suffering from different diseases. From what I heard, I think one of the worst diseases they suffer from is that curse inflicted on this country —"inspectoritis." The teachers' lot is bad enough without having this modern inquisition going around from school to school, terrorising the teachers with a lot of tomfoolery, from "Who made the world?" to "What colour wallpaper have you in the school?" I think the power given to inspectors should definitely be inquired into, and that they should not be allowed to run riot through the country making the teachers' lot harder than it is.

My last point, and the principal one which I intend to make is that the question of school inquiries should be seriously considered by the Minister and his Department. Inquiries are directed to be held on numerous occasions for different purposes. For instance, an inquiry is held if a complaint of any substance is made against any teacher that he beat a child excessively. The inspector who is sent down is all right according to his lights but he is still an inspector of schools and in a great many instances has no knowledge of arbitration. In all instances I believe he is the actual inspector operating in the area. My point is that if you are going to have inquiries the person who conducts them should have a knowledge of arbitration, and he should not be the actual inspector operating in the area of the teacher whose conduct is in question.

If he is the inspector operating in the area, he may be prejudiced either for or against the teacher, and he is certainly under some little local influence, particularly, I say without fear or favour the influence of a lot of the managers of the schools. He has his duty to perform, but when he is the local inspector, he is subject to the influence of managers and others in the conduct of the inquiry. I think the inspector should be brought from another district and he should certainly have a knowledge of arbitration. Then, and I happen to have a knowledge of this myself, when a particular complaint is being investigated by an inspector against a teacher word is sent that "on such-and-such a day an inspector will attend to investigate the complaint of Mrs. So-and-so into your beating of her child on such-and-such a day". The inspector arrives and starts the inquiry, and it finishes up by the inspector's engaging in a roving commission into the unfortunate teacher's conduct from the time he was appointed or the time he started teaching until the actual day of the inquiry.

If there is an inquiry and a teacher is told to prepare to meet a certain complaint, I suggest that it is not fair or just, and certainly not equitable; that the teacher should have to undergo a harassing inquisition over his whole school career in which the gentleman conducting the inquiry, owing to the position in which he is put, has to be judge, jury, prosecuting attorney, and everything else all in one. I suggest that that is not fair and that there is certainly room for adjustment. As a matter of fact, some school inquiries have been compared with incidents in old Roman history when Christians were thrown to the lions and torn from limb to limb for the gratification of the onlookers. It is said that some of these inquiries consist of the teachers being thrown to the lions for the gratification on some occasions of school managers. The net result of all this is that when you are having an inquiry the person conducting it should have a knowledge of arbitration; secondly, he should not be the inspector operating in the teacher's area; thirdly, the inquiry should be definitely confined to the specific charge, and the inspector should not be given a roving commission to go into the teacher's conduct from the time he entered the service. If that matter is remedied the great burden which the teachers have at present to bear might to some extent be removed. That is not, I can assure the House, a wild statement. I happen to have a knowledge of this, and it is not done for the sake of uttering a lot of destructive criticism. I am endeavouring to be constructive, and perhaps my remarks may have some effect and this sort of inquisition may be somewhat modified.

I was rather surprised by the speech we have just listened to, and I must take exception to some of the charges made. I do not think there is any justification for saying that the managers take a delight in having the teachers thrown to the gladiators. I do not think that charge is fair. I think exception should be taken to it immediately. It would be all right even if one case was cited where this thing took place. It is not fair to the managers who have nobody here to speak for them. I take exception to it. With regard to general treatment of teachers and the parents who make charges against them, I think if all those parents were given Deputy McGowan's address a solution would be found. I notice that, at the present time, if a teacher looks across the nose of a child, and the child complains, the parent is off to an attorney, and the next thing is a civil bill.

That is where they should go, and that is my complaint.

I am not going to support that. I remember, when I was at school, we used to get plenty of biffing, and nobody ever heard a word about it.

The Deputy probably deserved it all.

I probably did, but I think that those who get it now deserve it more. On this Vote the question of Irish has been thrashed up and down, some of the speakers maintaining that progress is being made and others expressing the contrary view. I cannot speak from a general knowledge of the country, but I can say this from what I know — that the national teachers are doing an enormous and a great work for Irish in the schools. They are certainly doing their part. I think, however, that a great deal of the good work done in the schools is nullified when the children go outside. The most practical speech that, I think, we had on this Vote was made by Deputy O'Neill. I want to repeat what I have said on this Vote for years— that all the factors that the children are up against when they leave school, so far as Irish is concerned, are adverse factors. Deputy Dillon said many hard things this evening, but there was a lot of truth in what he said. I would not like to say so many hard things myself. I would like to say them, but I have not the courage to say them in the blunt way that he did. I do agree with Deputy Dillon that we have got a lot of noisy cranks in this country. They are doing nothing but criticising those who are not prepared to stand in their petticoats — I mean men and women. I agree that there are a lot of men in this country who should have petticoats on them. But what are these cranks doing. For a number of years on this Vote I have made an appeal for something practical to be done to meet the adverse factors that I have referred to. These cranks spend their time criticising everybody who differs from them, instead of doing something practical to meet these adverse factors which are operating against the revival of the Irish language. I submit that all the work of the schools and the great efforts of the teachers are, to a great extent, nullified because of the fact that nothing is being done to counteract the influence to which Deputy O'Neill has referred. You have a daily newspaper publishing an Irish phrase a day. Is that going to make the country Irish speaking? When I see that paraded in the Irish Press it almost gives me jaundice.

That is because it is in the Irish Press.

I have seen it in the Independent, too. You must do something more than that if you are really serious in trying to save the Irish language. This thing of a phrase a day is not going to save it. If the child has been doing its work in school all day through Irish, what result can you expect if, when it comes out from school, it takes up an Irish daily newspaper printed in English. Something should be done to cater for the children when they leave school. Children's papers of the type of Crackers printed in Irish should be made available. That is the type of paper children go daft about. Give them papers of that type and other picture papers with the letterpress printed in Irish. That is the work that should be undertaken, instead of men in this House and outside it assailing and attacking one another over this question of Irish, and all done for political purposes — of trying to catch a few votes. I have never done so from a public platform in my life, and never will. I think it is a disgraceful thing to do and that it is mean and contemptible — to speak one word for or against a man in a particular party because of his attitude to the Irish language. I think I would have more right to be a crank, to criticise people and attack them for being anti-Irish, than most of those who engage in that class of thing.

Although I have not consulted or got the authority of the Party I belong to, still I think that if the Minister were to ask the House to give him a reasonable sum for the publication of juvenile papers of the kind that I have been referring to, our Party would give him every support. If something on that line is not done, then, in my opinion, the work and the sacrifices made by the teachers in the schools during the last ten or 15 years will be completely nullified. We are all aware that children of seven and eight years of age can tell you offhand the names of all the prominent artistes appearing on the screen in our picture houses to-day. They know all about Shirley Temple, Greta Garbo and all the other nonentities from Hollywood. These names are household words with the children. That is the kind of atmosphere that has to be counteracted, and the way to do that is to provide for the children simple but attractive Irish picture papers similar to those published in English. It may prove an expensive thing as the papers will only circulate in this country — perhaps only in a part of it — but if we are serious about the Irish language, then, instead of criticising one another, we will have to get down and do some solid work to save it.

Deputy Meaney congratulated the Minister on the advance that was being made in the provision of school buildings. Nothing would please me more than to be able to join with the Deputy in what he said if it were true. I do not know anything about the conditions that obtain in the constituency he represents, but I have heard it said since the Deputy spoke that there are schools in that constituency that would be a disgrace in the slums of Dublin.

I do not know if that is true or untrue and I am not concerned with it. I do know that there are schools in my constituency and in my county which are not fit for dogs. I make no apology for saying that. The atrocious aspect of this question is that the House passes an Act to compel parents to send their children to school but will not put up the money to provide suitable school buildings for the accommodation of the children. Under the name of "schools," there are hovels in Donegal. In buildings which would accommodate only from 20 to 40 children, there are 60 or 70 children shepherded, the parents being compelled to send them there. I am not a law-breaker but the line must be drawn somewhere. As the late Lord Balfour said, there is a limit to human endurance. If I were living in one of these places, I should refuse to send my children to these schools. I should feel a moral obligation as a parent to refuse to send them there. Why should I sacrifice myself to earn money to buy the best food possible for my children and to bring them up physically fit when, immediately after their breakfast, they pass into a school of that type? On the other hand, we have an expensive public health service, with doctors paid big salaries to look after tonsils, dentition and tuberculosis. The Minister asks for a sum of approximately £4,000,000. Would the Minister segregate the figures relating to schools in his jurisdiction and give us the number of schools absolutely unfit for human habitation, the number overcrowded and the extent to which they are overcrowded? The Minister will probably excuse himself by saying that he has trouble with the managers. It is the policy of the Government — I do not refer particularly to the Government in office at present — to compel parents to send their children to school. There is, therefore, I suggest, an imperative moral obligation on the Government to provide suitable and healthy accommodation for these children while at school. If that accommodation is not provided, there should be no conviction against a parent who declines to send his children to school and who can prove in court that the school was not a fit one. I go further and say that there should be no summons. It is not fair that parents should have to employ a solicitor or to go to court at all in these cases.

As I said, the Minister's excuse will be that he has trouble with the managers, that they will not put up the amount of money they are supposed to put up under the regulations. The same thing applies to the reconstruction of schools. In both cases, the Department of Finance demands a contribution. Steps should have been taken long ago so that there would be no conflict of that kind and so that there would be no overlapping. I ask the Minister to see that steps are taken immediately to avoid these conflicts. I know that the Department of Finance stands over the Minister and demands its pound of flesh. The result is that, if the school is an old one it is left tottering, and children must go there periodically every day and teachers must live a great part of their time in these schools. That is a crime against the teacher as well as against the children. If the Department of Finance and the Department of Education jointly consider that the managers should make a money contribution in order to justify the responsibility imposed upon them, that contribution should be reduced to a nominal sum forthwith — say, a token payment of £1. The position is aggravated in poor districts. In very poor parishes, the parish priest has great difficulty in getting any substantial sum as a contribution. The children in these poor areas go out badly fed and badly clad, and they have to travel over mountain roads to reach these horrible dens. There they must remain until the school hours are over. For ten or 15 years, this battle has been going on between the Department of Education and the managers about this paltry sum of £50. I am sure the Minister has considered this question. I am sure he appreciates the absurdity of it but, because it is an old monument, he is afraid to throw a hand-grenade at it and blow it out of the road. I do not want to mince words. I know a parish where the third parish priest is dead since the negotiations to reconstruct the school began. Now the matter is finally settled and the parish priest is asked to contribute the enormous sum of £50. What is the amount of depreciation of the building in the meantime?

I do not know what is the average life of a parish priest, but I assume that 15 or 20 years have passed since the thing originated. What has been the depreciation of the building since? Now the Department takes £50 and starts the work. What is the increased amount that the Department of Finance has to shovel out now as a result of the enormous depreciation that has taken place in all those years? From the point of view of the State, this is a very costly thing. Year after year this enormous depreciation is going on as a result of the conflict about the contributions from the manager. This might not be such a vital thing were it not for the Compulsory Education Act. It is a serious thing; it is bad business. There should be a sum of money spent on a school each year. Every five years there should be a complete overhauling of the outside of the building, and every six or seven years there should be a complete overhauling of the inside of the building. Otherwise there is going to be very rapid deterioration of the woodwork, plaster, and perhaps of the roof. I do speak with all the earnestness I can command in asking the Minister to take the necessary steps to wipe out that antiquated rule. I will support the Minister in that, and get support for him. That rule is useless, farcical and highly expensive.

I congratulate the Minister on the new schools that have been built. They are excellent buildings. I have just one word to say about them, but it is not in connection with the schools themselves. Reference has been made here to the water supply and sanitary arrangements. Apparently, when sanction for a work is transmitted to the Board of Works, they have certain responsibility under the Public Health Acts. In a case where a school is built adjoining a stream, the question of the efficient disposal of sewage is a very simple matter, but lest the possibility of an action for contamination or pollution might arise they will not build anything but dry closets. I think that, where a proper water supply and sewerage system cannot be secured, septic tanks should be provided. It takes a large sum of money to provide those excellent buildings, which are an enormous advance on the schools built in the past, and I do not think that in this matter of sanitary accommodation the cost should be allowed to stand in the way. This is a vitally important matter from the point of view of the health of the children, and I think the obligation is upon this House to make it compulsory that once the children are sent to school we will fully discharge our duty, including the public health aspect of it. It must be remembered that we are now under a native Government. There is now none of this matter of blaming the Chief Secretary in England or something like that. Deputy O'Neill spoke about the surroundings of the schools. In my opinion it is a shocking thing that we have those beautiful school buildings, beautifully built both as to masonry and woodwork, and then you go outside and find those stink pools. I think the Minister will agree with me that that should not be so. Although this country is not generally supposed to be a law abiding country, I think we have as law abiding a community as can be found anywhere in the world, and I think we should have enforcement of the Public Health Acts. I think it is amazing that the people are so law abiding; I think it is a very adverse factor in the education of a child that he should be allowed to get accustomed to surroundings of that kind. If there is one thing a child should be taught it is cleanliness. That is a very important factor. I would ask the Minister to ensure that, when estimates for the construction of new schools are being considered in future, provision should be made for septic tanks where a direct water supply cannot be secured. I have inspected the new schools that were built in Donegal, and they are beautiful buildings — some people perhaps do not like them, but you cannot please everyone — but I think it is a shocking thing that the surroundings should be spoiled in this way.

Last year I raised the question of the school leaving age. I did that for two reasons. The first is the problem of the employment of a large number of teachers whose parents have invested money in educating them and who are now walking about doing nothing. I think that is a shocking thing. It may be said that it could not have been foreseen that the decline in population, and the resulting fall in averages, would have been so rapid. I do not agree. We have a statistical department here, and we have an office for the registration of births in this country. There should be co-ordination between those departments to watch all those figures with a view to seeing what the future effects will be. If that had been done of course this problem would not have arisen. It has arisen, and I believe the one way of solving it is to raise the school leaving age. I am rather surprised that the teachers' organisations are not more keen on that and do not make a bigger hubbub about it. The second reason why I raised the matter, and the really grave and important reason, is in regard to the human needs of the unemployed teachers. Why have the school leaving age at 14 years in a country like this? Is there any justification for it? On what principle or policy is it based? Is it because this country is intensively industrialised, and those children are to go into factories? Is that the reason? The thing is absurd. Even if this country were highly industrialised, the children should not be allowed into the factories at 14 years of age. We hear a lot of talk about the world labour market, and we know the state in which our own labour market is, but in connection with our own labour market some figures might be given. I have not the figures with me at the moment—I have them at home some-where — but I understand from these figures that, within the last three years, 57,000 young men and women have left this country. In addition to that, the children in this State are leaving school at 14 years of age, and they are leaving it in a condition of education that can be best ascertained by referring to the report supplied to the Minister by his inspectors. I am not going to make any comment upon that report beyond referring to it. Apparently, the report of the inspectors is that the pupils in the secondary schools are bad at geography. Do not forget, however, that those boys and girls are only a year or two out of the primary school, and I think we have also got to face the fact in this connection that certain subjects, if not all subjects, are bound to suffer owing to the crammed condition of the curriculum. When I glance at the curriculum, I am amazed how the teachers could be expected to get anything into children's heads about any one subject. For instance, you see a little boy or girl of 11, 12, 13 or 14 years of age carrying a bag of books about three times the size of the dispatch bag that a university professor would carry.

We presume that the professor would not have to carry a bag; he would carry it all in his head.

Perhaps the Deputy is right, but we are not speaking about the university professors or such people. I am speaking of the average child, and, after all, we must deal with the average person in this House. How is the average child to get any real grasp——

Of the bag?

No — of the contents of the bag. Oh, yes, we know that certain people are above the average, but the Deputy must remember that these are the ordinary children of the country, the future citizens of this State. What do you find as a result of this condition? We heard a lot here this evening about spelling and grammar—I do not know much about either as, unfortunately, I was not very long at school — but I think I can spell fairly well at any rate. What is the reason for the condition of things shown in this report? When I was at school, and when senior members of this House were at school, the day was spent in reading, writing from dictation, arithmetic, spelling and geography. The master came down to see that you had written at least a page of dictation. In the first place, you had to write it well, and, in the second place, you had to do the spelling well; and if you did not do it properly, you got it across the knuckles from the master — and, of course, there were no civil bills against the teachers in those days for giving it to you across the knuckles. How would the boys and girls of the present day deal with a page of dictation, or what provision is being made for it? They cannot talk properly now. They cannot enunciate one word correctly because, as far as I can make out, that subject is not properly provided for in the schools. I hold that people will not be able or fit to talk or write or read properly unless they get a good foundation in that way. You must give them dictation every day if they are to be good spellers. I am not saying that I could give you a cut-and-dried solution of all this, but I do suggest that the number of subjects ought to be cut down and that certain essential subjects should be taught to the youngsters and that plenty of time should be given for the teaching of these essential subjects, because the teachers can and will teach them effectively if they have the time to do so.

Now, there are one or two items in the Estimates to which I should like to refer, since I think I have said enough on the matter of the education of children. As I have said before, I do not believe in repeating things or in whipping a dead horse, as I say. Perhaps it is because I should like to see some signs of life in him. However, in page 173 of the book of Estimates there is a summary of the various items, and under sub-head A I notice that there is a decrease in that item from last year of £3,630. Am I to assume from that that the number of teachers has been restricted or the number of those going into training? Then, under sub-head C — National Schools—I see that there is a decrease of £2,009. I wonder does that refer to the building and reconstructing of national schools? Then, I notice under the heading Preparatory Colleges that provision is made in two or three of the colleges for a steward, an assistant steward, a gardener and farm workers. Their wages are aggregated here. They are not segregated. I wonder how are these people being paid, or are they being paid reasonable wages? Are they being paid the wages that are due to men in that employment?

There is another item here to which I should like to call attention. It was referred to in another way here by Deputy O'Neill. Of course, I know that, at the moment, the Minister practically has no option in the matter. What I am referring to now is a grant, under two heads, to Gaeltacht children. I make no complaint at all about their getting the grant, but I join with Deputy O'Neill in saying that, in the first place, where a child of the non-Fior-Ghaeltacht area or from the Breac-Ghaeltacht area — of the Galltacht area, if you like — takes equally high marks in the entrance examination for preparatory colleges, the rules should be amended so as to enable boys and girls to equip themselves for that examination. I have a particular case in mind that proves the absurdity of the rule in some cases. I refer to the case of a girl, the boundary fence of whose father's farm separates the Fior-Ghaeltacht from the Breac-Ghaeltacht, and that girl is prohibited thereby from entering for the examination for the preparatory colleges.

I take it that it is mandatory on the Minister, but I think it would be a wise thing for the sake of the language that some alteration would be considered. It is very bad in this case. When we are doing things in this House, making regulations and so on, we should reflect on the result of what we are doing. Just picture this case. The boundary fence between the Fior-Gaeltacht and the Breac-Gaeltacht is the boundary fence of this man's land and, because of that fence, his daughter was refused permission to sit for the examination for the preparatory college.

What is going to be the effect of that on all the families in that and neighbouring townlands? If we are going to Gaelicise this country we must proceed from the Gaeltacht to the Galltacht, and just on the very boundary of the Fior-Gaeltacht there is partition. Will these people be enthusiastic about the Irish language? Does anybody expect it? That is the sort of regulation that this House has laid down, and the Minister will not point out the fatal results of that from the point of view of the language. I think from the point of view of spreading the language the regulation that imposes that type of thing is positively bad. We have been talking about influences. There is here an adverse factor imposed by this House. If anyone speaks on this subject he is dubbed as a crank and a critic. Even if I meant the very best and sought to correct an evil of the kind I have mentioned, that is how I would be described.

I should like to suggest to the Minister that, owing to the operations of the Land Commission, a number of very fine mansions are now semi-derelict in County Donegal and perhaps he would consider taking over one of them for the purpose of establishing a domestic economy training school. I travelled in a train from my constituency around last Easter, after the holiday season, and at the station where I entrained there was a group of girls, obviously students. They told me they were in a domestic economy school for training purposes, and they said that there were 18 girls who had got into the training college and 11 of the 18 came from Donegal. I suggest the Minister should take over one of these very excellent mansions and have it reconstructed so as to make a suitable training college for domestic economy purposes. I know that the surroundings would be beautiful. There are two mansions there that would be ideal, one at Letterkenny and one outside Raphoe. Either building would make an excellent place for a training school.

Apparently when you are dealing with an Estimate in this House, if you are in opposition, people expect you to condemn everything out of hand, and if you are on the Government Benches you are expected to congratulate. I do not believe in doing either. I do not believe in falling over myself, so to say, congratulating the Minister on the great work that is being done by the Department in putting up new schools. I admit new schools are being put up, but that is what the Department and the Minister are there for; that is what we are asking the taxpayers of this country to provide £3,583,825 for. I think that if we regarded Government administration and Government Departments in the same light as we regard an employee of our own we would be doing the correct thing. We should regard them from this aspect — that they would have to do the job well if we are going to keep paying them.

I do not want to go very deeply into the matters arising out of the Estimate, but there is one thing that I am very glad to see and that is the very substantial increase under the heading of national schools. I am glad to see the increase of £15,600 in the grant towards the heating and cleaning of schools. That is an increase that was very badly wanted. For a number of years — I am not quite certain about the actual position now — I always thought it was a shocking scandal, particularly in country schools, to have children coming long distances and then to find that the schools were often inadequately heated during the winter-time, simply because there was no proper provision made by the Department for heating. It is not so long ago, to my own knowledge — I will not say it is still the case — that parents of children were expected to contribute towards the heating of the schools, and in the country areas you could see the children bringing turf with them. I always had a decided objection to having children, who would be in school from 9.30 until 3.30, brushing and cleaning the school when the day's work was over. In so far as this Estimate will help to remedy these two matters, I am in agreement with it.

On the question of Irish, I am afraid that when the present system of the development of the Irish language through the primary schools was instituted, a bad word was introduced, and it has had a most terrible effect on the position as far as the improvement of the Irish language is concerned. It got a very bad name, and that name has not helped it. The very title, "compulsory" Irish, is about the worst thing that could have happened to the scheme instituted 15 or 16 years ago. I believe the scheme is not a success, and I will give my reasons for that belief. I know a number of schools where the children are being taught practically exclusively through the medium of Irish in the very low classes. I heard these children in some schools singing songs and hymns in Irish, and I would be prepared to bet a substantial amount with the Minister or anybody else that not one child in ten knew what he was singing. They knew the words and how to pronounce them, but they did not know what they were singing about. I do not think that is any great help to the Irish language.

I understood the Minister to say that one of the great drawbacks about the teaching of Irish in the primary schools was the lack of interest on the part of the public. I am afraid there is a great lack of interest on the part of the public, and I do not think the Minister will find that fathers and mothers are going to co-operate very much in talking Irish to their children after school hours. I do not think in the ordinary country areas you will find very much Irish spoken at home. Even in a district like my own, on the verge of the Gaeltacht, you will find very little Irish spoken in any house there, and I am sorry to say that the position is that the older people who are native speakers will not talk Irish to the children who are now learning it because the native speakers regard the Irish that the children use as not Irish at all or as a totally different language. I do not think there is any assistance given by the fathers and mothers to induce the children to study Irish after leaving school. Deputy McMenamin made the point that if we had Irish publications for the children it would be helpful in the spreading of the Irish language. To a certain extent I agree with that, but there would be little use in printing these books and trying to sell them unless the children understood what they were reading. Putting a publication of that kind, with fresh material in it every week, in the hands of the children would be a very different thing from what they are doing at present in the schools where the text books are read without any attempt at translating——

Why translate them?

The point I am making is that the children do not know the meaning of the words they are saying.

They know the sound of them, and that is all.

They know more.

I tell you you are entirely wrong. They know the sounds and they know no more.

That is what you say.

I know it, and if the Deputy is prepared to test it he will agree with what I am saying.

I have tested it a thousand times.

Quite possibly the Deputy is such an efficient teacher of Irish that he has been exceptionally well able to impart it to the children, but I am speaking of what I know, and I say the children do not know the meaning of what they are saying in Irish.

Deputy Linehan is saying that, but he has no proof of it.

Well, I have repeatedly asked the children what was the meaning of what they were saying, and I was told they did not know.

The Deputy wanted them to tell it in English.

Is it seriously suggested that when a child comes along and he is singing a number of songs in Irish, that these songs convey something to him?

The child can be taught through the medium of Irish. I know it.

I freely admit that the child could be taught Irish, but if he is being taught school subjects through Irish he should understand Irish. What I am now saying is that children are speaking Irish words, giving Irish recitations, singing Irish songs, and they have not the faintest idea of what they are saying, either in Irish or in English. I am perfectly satisfied about that.

There is one very serious item that would need to be considered by the Minister. I do not know whether his attention has already been called to it. I know there is a terrible lack of playing fields in connection with the primary schools in this country. There is no provision for decent-sized playing yards in the national schools. I am not saying that it would be possible to provide a football pitch for each of the schools, but at least the State should be expected to provide some place where the children could play during the mid-day recess. I would like to point out to the Minister that in a number of national schools a peculiar system has developed whereby the little plot which the children had for a playing ground has been planted with shrubs. These may beautify the appearance of the school, and it may look a more perfect plot because of the shrubs. But I do not think it is at all fair that where there is a playing plot that that should be planted with shrubs and the children forced to go out on the road to play. I know of instances where playing yards have been planted with shrubs. They look very nice, but I would much prefer to see these playing plots without any shrubs and to see the children playing in them rather than see the plots planted with nice shrubs and the children sent out on the roads during the midday recess. I would like to see a large playing field attached to every national school in Ireland. They are badly needed. In the cities, possibly, there is far more accommodation in that respect than in country districts.

In the cities you have good public parks. I have seen hundreds of times young fellows playing football in the Phoenix Park and there are numberless other parks throughout this city where the children play. Then large playgrounds are attached to the larger schools. There is nothing of that kind in the country. If the youngsters want to play football they have to run the risk of being hunted off the farm. That applies particularly to small country towns. The Minister should carefully consider spending more money or, if necessary, getting more money voted to provide good-sized playing fields for the children attending national schools. It would possibly be a good national investment if these playing fields were provided where the children could play their games, and not, as Deputy McMenamin said, be forced to spend their time in the streets or roads or in the local cinema. I do say, however, that as long as these picture-houses are in existence, even Deputy O'Rourke would find it hard to compete against the English language. When the day comes that the State is prepared to go the whole hog and spend a great deal of money to give people something different and when we have cinemas producing Irish pictures and racing tips are given in Irish, we will have started doing something to promote the revival of Irish. When we start doing something like that, then the position will be changed and the children leaving school at 14 years of age will not completely drop their Irish afterwards.

I wish again to stress the point about the playing fields and the necessity for them. They must be provided for the young people in this country. Despite the work done by the Gaelic Athletic Association and all the other athletic associations in this country, there are at present less young people actively playing games in the rural areas than ever before. If you take any part of the country you will find that 75 per cent. of the young people never play any games. Of these 75 per cent. you will find 50 per cent. in the local dance halls and 25 per cent. in the cinemas. It is quite possible that 25 per cent. may be keen enough to play hurley. I am afraid, however, that a spirit is growing up in the country that is not calculated to make the young people athleticminded. Until we have places throughout the country where the children are taught to play games properly, athletics will be on the down grade. I am afraid also that until these playing fields are provided, not only athletics but the health of the people will suffer. I appeal to the Minister, even though it means more money, to provide for playing fields being attached to the national schools in the country.

I do not intend to detain the House very long. What I intended to say has already been covered by other Deputies. I would like again to put before the Minister the burning question of the provision of good schools instead of the ruinous buildings we have in so many parts of the country, schools of the class of which Deputy McMenamin has spoken. I would say that these are not confined to any particular part of the country. If there is any question as to the paucity of funds, I would prefer to see the question of playing fields postponed until such time as well-built schools are provided in those areas, the schools of which are at present in a very bad way. I join in the congratulations that have been offered to the Minister for the work done in the schools. I would ask the Minister to earn those congratulations in their entirety by removing those eyesores that are at present disgracing the country from one end to the other. In my constituency there are schools the condition of which has been again and again brought to the attention of the Department of Education. Yet these scandalous eyesores still exist. There is a crying need for their replacement by suitable buildings. The reasons are various, because of the system obtaining for the removal of these eyesores.

There is, first of all, the question of the provision of sites by the local managers. The site must be free from any entailment. A certain amount must also be provided out of the funds of local authorities but, whatever be the reasons, I consider that the eventual responsibility is vested in the Department and in the Minister, and these regulations should not be allowed to stand any longer in the way of the removal of these kennels in which our children are being condemned to huddle themselves during the hours in which they are supposed to be getting education.

I have in mind at the moment three particularly bad cases, and the strong language used by Deputy McMenamin is not a bit too strong to describe the condition of these buildings. They would not be used for the housing of dogs. They cannot be said to have been of recent growth; their existence has been made known to the Department. The Department is well aware of its responsibility but still there seems to be something which prevents their being wiped out and new schools provided. I am not saying that the blame lies directly on the Department's officials or on the managers, but it lies on someone. The children are being shepherded into these kennels where they are alleged to get an education. Until the last of these hovels have been removed, I think it is premature to talk about beautifying the surroundings or about having playing pitches or gardens. Obviously the first essential is to have a school building of a modern type in which the children can absorb a healthy education.

I mark with pleasure the increase in the Estimate for the heating and the cleaning of schools. It is a matter of congratulation for the Minister and his Department. It is a step in the right direction, but it only makes all the more clamant the urgent need for proper school buildings, and to have these defective structures removed as soon as possible. Whatever regulations are standing in the way, such regulations should certainly not be allowed to prevent their immediate removal. We have heard Deputy Linehan speak of the necessity for playing pitches. I know one school which is erected on the top of a quarry and there is a constant danger of the children breaking their necks. The surroundings of that school provide a nice opportunity for recreation. The school wall stands at the edge of a quarry. Plans have been prepared, I understand, by the Board of Works in connection with that particular school. There are virgin fields all round but yet it seems that a sufficient site cannot be provided for the building of an additional school. As far as playing pitches are concerned, they have the whole County Limerick for a playground if they had only a decent school to get into. The Education Department cannot be unaware of these things but I do not think they are inclined to give the matter the serious attention it deserves.

I find in another part of the country, not very far removed from there, an instance where a splendid building had been placed at the disposal of the Department absolutely rent free. The lease has recently expired, and when the successor to the original leaseholder came to look for something to which he felt he was entitled, the school was closed down. No overtures have been made to have that school reopened. There were no complaints as to the suitability of the building. It is a building standing in its own grounds, in a first-class condition, but yet the children have been scattered over three adjoining schools. I say "adjoining" advisedly, because some of the children have to travel three and a half miles in all kinds of weather. The positions of two teachers have been wiped out as a result of the closing of that school. Two other teachers happened to go out on pension in the district and their positions were filled by the teachers displaced from the school which was closed. The children, as I have said, have been scattered over three districts notwithstanding the protests of the parents. I think that should not be allowed to continue by the Department. The number of children attending was around 70, so that it cannot be alleged that there was a sufficient diminution in the attendance to justify the closing down of the school. It was not a question of amalgamation; if it were, I could understand the action of the Department. In matters of this kind I say there should be some consideration for the convenience of the children concerned. I trust the matter, which is before the Department, will receive serious consideration, as the closing of this school is a source of great hardship to the children of the district.

I did not intend to delay the House, but I do not think that I could reasonably sit down without referring to one of the greatest evils arising out of a matter that has been repeatedly referred to in public — the question of the disaffection amongst teachers themselves owing to the treatment they have received from the Government. Their case has been blazoned forth from platforms all over the country. When congratulations are being offered to the Ministry of Education upon the conduct of their Department, I think that it would be unfitting if expression were not given in this House to opinions that have been expressed throughout the country by people of all shades of political opinion, that the teachers have not got a square deal, that they have not got sufficient remuneration to justify or warrant the Department expecting from them the accurate and enthusiastic teaching that we look to them to give to our children. When they are being filched of their rights, no reasonable man could expect that contentment should reign amongst them. It is no use in telling the people that they have not been badly treated, that they are too well off, that they are motor car owners.

All these arguments have become obsolete. The fact stands out that they are probably the only section of the community whose salaries have been cut since 1920 to the tune of 22 or 23 per cent. It was clearly understood when the settlement was made in 1920, and when no cost-of-living bonus was granted to the teachers, that that settlement was to be a permanent thing. The teachers might reasonably have expected a higher figure if they had regard to the methods pursued by trade unionists and other sections of the community in seeking increases to meet the increased cost of living. They accepted the settlement then arrived at because of the permanency supposed to be attached to it. That permanency proved to be a complete figment. The settlement has been violated by this Government and the last Government.

However beneficent the Government may consider themselves in facing the pensions question, the fact that in doing so they reduced the teachers' salaries by 9 per cent. and collared £2,250,000 subscribed by the teachers to their side of the fund, is scarcely calculated to allay the unrest that is rankling in the mind of the teachers. Their organisation continues, and rightly so, to look for a redress of these grievances. Apart from the fact of being a trade unionist, if I were just a parent expecting the best education for my children from the teachers, I could not reasonably hope that the children would receive that education so long as the minds of the teachers were diverted into other channels and preoccupied by their efforts to obtain justice from their employers, the Government.

I think the matter has gone on far too long, has been left too long without redress, and that the Minister and the Government ought to turn their attention definitely to it now and remove this rankling sore which is causing such disaffection amongst the general body of teachers. Laudations have poured in upon them for the wonderful work they have done, for their uplifting influence amongst their pupils, and for their efforts in restoring the native language, but all these fine words fall very flat and seem to have a hollow ring when one remembers the cold reality of the treatment of which they are the victims. No other section in the community would have tolerated such treatment for so long without taking drastic action to obtain redress. A strike is not a step that anybody would recommend to the teachers. Mindful of their responsibility, the teachers have been slow to take such drastic action, but because of that it is scarcely fair to have them exploited and to have that exploitation continued. I would appeal to the Minister, even now, to consider seriously their claim for fair treatment and for having a reasonable settlement made so as to restore to them the amounts which are rightly theirs and which were definitely filched from them after the solemn guarantee given to them as far back as 1920.

I rise to appeal to the Minister on behalf of one section of teachers who, I was rather surprised to notice, were neglected in the appeals made in this House this evening even by representatives of the teachers' organisation. I refer to some retired female teachers, former teachers in convent schools, who rendered great national service to the rising generation of this country during their teaching career. Many of these people find themselves to-day in the unhappy position of not being able to provide for themselves. They are in many cases depending upon charity. That is a lamentable state of affairs and one which reflects no credit on the Department of Education. As the House knows, convent schools did not provide a pension scheme for their female teachers, and as a result some of these old ladies to-day are trying to eke out an existence and in many cases are living in old attics. In my opinion, the Government should come to the rescue of these people, and relieve them from their present plight at the end of their days. I hope it is only necessary to make an appeal to the Minister. The amount involved is very small as the number of persons concerned is not large, therefore their case should be considered sympathetically.

Another matter to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention is that some of our technical schools are not able to get domestic economy teachers when the necessity arises. I have a certain amount of responsibility for a very important technical institution, and recently, when the domestic economy instructress fell ill, we were unable to replace her. That is something that should not occur in this country. We find many of our young girls emigrating in search of employment, and I see no reason why the Department of Education should not provide some special facilities for the education of these young women and thus give them an opportunity of filling such vacancies when they occur. This is a very important matter, because the domestic economy classes in the particular school to which I refer had to close down for the want of a teacher.

With regard to the school curriculum itself, I suppose we are all pretty well satisfied with it, but I, as the father of a family, think that it is not right that we should have what I have no hesitation in describing as a home curriculum. We have children going to school at nine o'clock in the morning and getting home at 3.30 p.m. Then what do we find? They have a home exercise to do in Irish, a home exercise in arithmetic, and on top of that, what are known as home stories, which we all approve of. In addition to these three lessons the child is compelled to learn its catechism. That often means that as much as three hours of the child's time in the evening is taken up with home lessons. There is very little consideration given in the schools, I am sorry to say, to children who are delicate, and if they have not done their home lessons they are punished the following morning. These are matters which I think it is the duty of the Minister to look into and see that they are remedied.

I was very glad to hear Opposition Deputies complaining about the condition of the school buildings, but I am rather surprised that it is only now they have begun to discover that the schools are in a very unhealthy and dilapidated condition. I suppose we will be told very soon that it is the Fianna Fáil administration which has deteriorated these schools in the last five years. I know schools which have been in a bad state for the past 20 years and nothing was done by the previous Government to deal with the matter. That responsibility is a joint responsibility. I was rather pleased at the constructive contribution of one Opposition Deputy — Deputy O'Neill. It was a heartening one and characteristic of the good old Gaelic League voluntary worker, and I hope we will have more like it in such debates in future.

The main issue raised by the motion of Deputy Hurley is whether the Government are now prepared to face up to the demand for the restoration of the amount of the cuts in teachers' salaries. That is the issue upon which the members of this Party are going to make up their minds if a division is challenged. I therefore invite the Minister to take the House, the teaching profession, and the people of the country, who are supporting this demand, into his confidence and to say now, after a period of six years in office, whether the issue is a live one with the Cabinet, or whether the Cabinet have made up their minds, irrespective of conditions in future, not to restore the amount of the cuts in teachers' salaries. That is a plain question which demands a very plain and straightforward answer, and I hope the Minister will make the position of the Government on this matter plain to the House before the division is taken on the motion, if a division is to be taken.

The parents of the children attending the schools of the country to-day irrespective of political or religious considerations, are behind the agitation for restoring teachers' salaries to their former level. They are supporting that justifiable agitation because they are aware that this matter is having an effect on the education of their children because, so long as this agitation is a live issue with the people of the country, the school-children are bound to suffer under the system of education carried on. If the Minister is not prepared to give an assurance that the amount of the deductions will be restored, can the Minister say whether the refusal to do that is due to the fact that they have not the money at their disposal to enable them to do so? If that is the position, I should like respectfully to direct the attention of the House and the people of the country to the fact that there is an increased sum of about £300,000 in the Estimate for the current year to provide pensions for able-bodied people who have other means of livelihood, whereas our demand is that the Government should provide a decent livelihood for the teachers, who have the responsibility of moulding the minds of the children. I think it is a reasonable proposal to make to the Government, that they should provide a decent livelihood for those who have no other means of livelihood before providing hundreds of thousands of pounds by way of pensions for those who have already other means of livelihood. However, if the money can be found for providing pensions for able-bodied persons who have other means of livelihood, in addition to restoring to the teachers what they have been deprived of, I have no objection, and I think my colleagues will have no objection, to such a policy.

We have in the Estimates this year, as we had for the last few years, a couple of million pounds for the provision of bounties for middlemen because of the circumstances arising out of the economic or uneconomic war. We could provide £2,250,000 for bounties, but we cannot provide £100,000 or so for the purpose of restoring the cuts in the teachers' salaries unjustly imposed by the previous Government and added to by the present Government.

I want to hear from the Minister what is his own attitude, and the attitude of his colleagues, regarding the reasonable demand, supported, I think, by all people who have given consideration to the matter, for the establishment of a council of education. Personally, I am of the opinion that the school programme to-day is heavily overloaded. I thoroughly agree with Deputy McMenamin when he expresses that point of view. It is a point of view that can only get the consideration it deserves from a body such as a council of education, a body on which all sections of the community would be represented. It is not right that the policy in matters of this kind should be left in the hands of civil servants who have not, and cannot be expected to have because of their calling, that close contact with the parents of the children that a body such as a council of education would be certain to have. I am not making any allegations against the present Minister in this matter out I think that any well-disposed Minister should welcome a proposal for the establishment of a council of education unless the Minister wants matters of this kind decided on a purely party basis. If the Minister wants to take into consideration the views of the people of the country as a whole, and of the parents of children, the only way in which he can get those views, after careful consideration, is from a body such as a council of education. On that matter the members of this Party want a definite answer from the Minister when he is replying.

I gladly recognise the fact that this Government, since it came into office, has made much better provision for the erection of new school buildings than its predecessors, and I only hope that more money wherever it is necessary, and it is necessary in many parts of the country, will be made available in the coming years until every school building in the country is a habitable home for the children of to-day, the children of the future, and the teachers. I would like to know whether the Minister, or any of his colleagues, have any information in their possession from the county medical officers of health as to the requirements in that respect — I mean the further provision of suitable school buildings. Like every other progressive-minded member of the House, I supported the demand for the appointment of county medical officers of health. These officers have been doing very valuable work. I think they are now in almost every county in the State, and should have furnished either the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Education with an up-to-date review or survey of the requirements so far as better school accommodation is concerned. If they have done so, I should be glad if the Minister would deal with the matter when replying, and tell the House what is the estimated cost of the provision of the further and better school accommodation that is undoubtedly required in the different parts of the country.

To sum up, we want and are entitled to demand here and now from a Party that has been six years in office a straightforward reply from the Minister for Education as to what is the present position of himself and his colleagues on the question of the demand for the restoration of the cuts in teachers' salaries, and what is the view of the Government — if they have given it any consideration — with regard to the proposal for the establishment of a council of education.

The Minister to conclude.

Deputy Keyes asked me whether I had been in consultation, and said that I ought to go into consultation, with the teachers with reference to the matter which seems to be the burden of the speeches of the Labour Party on the motion by Deputy Hurley that the Estimate should be referred back for reconsideration.

I have been in correspondence with the teachers on the matter. I have met them, and, possibly, may meet them again, but I am not in a position to say to the House that the Government have come to a decision to restore the cuts in the teachers' salaries which were imposed in connection with the settlement of the Pension Fund of 1934. I informed the teachers that I was going into the matter, and, at a subsequent stage, I told them that I was not in a position to give them a definite reply. That is still the position.

No one is more conscious than I am of the excellence of the work that is being done by a large proportion of our teachers for the restoration of our native language as well as for education generally. I am also aware that the teachers in the Six Counties and in Great Britain receive higher salaries than our teachers. If this were the case of the teachers alone, I admit that they would have a serious grievance, but, as everyone listening to me knows, this consideration does not apply merely to the teachers. All grades of public officers in Northern Ireland and Great Britain have higher salary scales than the corresponding grades here. We have not the resources of Great Britain behind us, and we have to bear in mind that it is our duty, therefore, to cut our coat according to our cloth in the case of the national teachers as well as in the case of all public officers.

It has been suggested that the teachers have been singled out for special victimisation by the Government. I do not agree with that. I am not going to go into the history of the settlement of the Pension Fund. I simply wish to say that, at that particular stage, in 1934, we were compelled to take certain action in default of agreement with the representatives of the teachers to put the teachers' pensions on a proper basis for the future, and that has been done. I said last year that the Government did not intend to reopen that question.

I would like to point out to those who say that the teachers should be paid the same salaries as those in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain that we have not, unfortunately, the same wealthy community; we have not the same wealthy body of taxpayers to draw upon as, say, the Government of Great Britain, and there is no use asking us to ignore the fact that this is so. We cannot afford to raise the salaries of public officers generally to the level of those under the control of the neighbouring Governments. I cannot, therefore, say anything in reply to Deputy Davin's request except this, that I am not in a position to say that the cuts will be restored. I am not in a position to say that the Government have made a decision in the matter, and, as I have explained, I have informed the teachers that the matter is under consideration.

Deputy Hurley in his speech, as well as dealing with the Northern Ireland position, which, in my opinion, is defective by reason of the fact that, as I have pointed out, Northern Ireland is in an entirely different position financially from what we are in down here, forgot to take into consideration that the Civil Service in this part of the country has, apart from the fall in the cost-of-living bonus, been heavily down-graded in all Civil Service classes since 1920. I think that no grade now has the salary of the corresponding grade in 1920, so that the Deputy is mistaken in saying that the national teachers' scales of 1920 are the only scales which have been lowered. If there are civil servants whose salaries have not been lowered, it is by reason of the fact that they are in the same grade in which they were before 1920. In any case in which a civil servant has received promotion, he has been put on a scale substantially down-graded since the advent of the Irish Government.

Although there is a slight decrease in the Estimate this year for teachers' superannuation, that does not indicate that the actuarial forecast — that the annual expenditure for teachers' superannuation would continue to increase until it ultimately reached a figure of about £500,000 annually — has been falsified. In the year 1936-7, the Estimate proved excessive because the number of new pensioners was abnormally small, and, secondly, because the mortality amongst pensioners was abnormally high. The actual expenditure this year was higher than it was last year, and it will be higher again next year.

Deputy Norton seems to think that it is a grievance in connection with the panel arrangement that teachers are compelled to change their residence when a vacancy is offered to them under the new arrangement for providing continuous employment. He should bear in mind that all public officers have to change their residence from time to time. Had it been possible to secure an arrangement by which teachers would not have to change from their old residences, I should have been delighted, but that was quite impossible. All those earnestly interested in the matter— teachers and managers as well as representatives of the Department of Education — feel that the panel arrangement has been very satisfactory indeed.

A number of Deputies have referred to the secondary school programme. The question all depends on what is the ultimate object. If the object were, as Deputy Dillon suggests, to create a position in which the Irish language would be spoken as a second language by a small aristocratic or academic body, criticism might be justified. But that is not the policy of this Government and I do not think that the representatives of the last Government would agree that it was their policy either. We are out to make the Irish language the spoken language of the country. We are not out to have Irish as an academic subject, forgotten, as the Taoiseach said last night, like Latin and Greek when the boys and girls leave school. The object is to teach Irish as the vernacular, and not merely to teach our young people to read and write it. The object is to teach them to speak it. It is extraordinary that Deputies like Deputy O'Neill should come along and tell us we are doing what the British Government were doing— forcing Irish down the throats of the people. The big fact which Deputy O'Neill should remember is that the British Government, by adopting that policy, made this country an English-speaking country. The fact is that we have not such a substantial proportion of our population native Irish-speaking that we can afford to take any risks in the matter. I feel that every act the Department of Education has taken to carry its policy into operation in this connection since the native Government came into power has been fully justified having regard to the desperate straits to which the Irish language was reduced. The Deputy tells us that we are driving Irish down the throats of the people, and he also tells us that we are failing completely to make Irish a living language outside. What is his policy? Why was the Deputy, and why were those who now attack this policy, silent for ten years while the same policy was in operation under the last Government? Do they think that by merely pretending to ourselves that we are in favour of Irish, Irish can be made the spoken language? Do they not know what sacrifices must be made if we are to gain that objective? We are no longer in the position in which the Deputy and his friends were when they joined the Gaelic League forty years ago, when they had a bilingual policy and were not even sure that they would succeed in getting more than a few thousand people to speak the language. The position now is that 50,000 or 60,000 children are leaving the schools every year with a good and substantial knowledge of Irish. It would pay Deputies and many of the critics outside if they would go and do something to provide means by which our young people would be encouraged to speak Irish after leaving school and leave the Department of Education to look after its work.

It is also suggested that the Department of Education is responsible for the programme. We are not responsible for the programme. We are responsible for carrying the programme into operation. We have not devised the programme which is at present in operation in either the primary or the secondary schools. These programmes were devised when the Irish Government came into office and our function is simply to put them into operation. The assumption that the Department has drawn up the school programmes and formulated the policy embodied in them is entirely wrong. The direct opposite is the fact. The part of the Department in relation to this matter is merely to put into operation, with very slight modifications, the programmes formulated by commissions representative of every educational body in the country. Let us remember that the present programmes were not designed by the Office of Education or officials of that office, but by bodies representative of educational interests outside. The programmes represent and express the policy, but they have not been framed by the Department.

The first commission was that set up in 1921, in relation to secondary education, by the First Dáil. On that commission there were representatives of secondary schools, universities and, in fact, every educational body except the Department of Education. That commission formulated the secondary programme at present in operation. That is how that programme came into operation. There were two commissions on primary education. The first was set up by the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, and it included all bodies interested in education. That commission formulated the primary programme. In 1925 the then Minister for Education called a similar commission together which included representatives of all the educational bodies and it confirmed the primary programme already in operation, with a few modifications.

I have no objection whatever to representations on this matter. In fact, I welcome representations. I am constantly in touch with representatives of the different teaching bodies associated with primary, secondary and technical education. I meet them frequently, but it has not been my policy to have a council which would remain permanently in session to deal with educational problems. I do not quite see how such a council could work in practice. Whenever it is considered necessary to examine problems in connection with a particular branch of education, a commission can, if necessary, be set up, or an interdepartmental committee can be set to work. What I think would be more useful is that the Department of Education should discuss the questions which they think should come up for decision with representatives of the teaching bodies outside.

So far as the suggestions made for revision of the secondary school programme are concerned, it has frequently been represented to me in recent years that the present programme is too extensive, and that the attempts made by some schools to cover it led to over-pressure on the students, and to produce a tendency to vagueness and inaccuracy in their work. In connection with this over-pressure on the students, I might refer to the complaints made here some years ago regarding the excessive amount of home work imposed on pupils of these schools. When I took steps to remedy this grievance, which I was satisfied was genuine, I was met by the objection from some schools that the present rate of work was necessary in order to complete the programme in the prescribed time. I think it will be generally admitted also that our secondary schools should give their pupils a good training in accuracy and thoroughness, and, if the present courses do not provide this but tend to produce vagueness and inaccuracy by endeavouring to cover too wide a field, some reform is necessary. As regards the position of the Irish language in secondary schools, and how it may be affected by any amendments that may be made, it should hardly be necessary for me to indicate my views. I see no reason whatever why the position of the language in these schools should not be improved by such reforms as have been suggested. It is true that many of the schools are doing excellent work for Irish, and I give them full credit for their efforts, but some of the schools and teachers take the view that even better and more thorough work might be done if the programme generally was made more definite. Before the proposed amendments are introduced, my Department will consult the various organised bodies of managers and teachers of secondary schools, and ascertain their views. From their experience in the work of the schools, these bodies are in a position to give the most valuable advice regarding the suitability of the programme and the desirability of amending it.

A number of Deputies have referred to the question of school buildings. I stated last year, in concluding the debate on the Education Vote, that if Deputies have definite cases in mind in which they are interested, where there seems to be unusual delay in dealing with school buildings, I should be glad if they would write to me and call my attention to the matter. I do not recollect, A Leas Chinn Comhairle, that there was any great response to that invitation, and certainly I cannot at this stage refer to individual cases. I think it would be much easier and more convenient if Deputies would write to me personally about cases of school buildings in which there has been neglect. It has been stated here that there are cases in which there has been neglect over a period of years. Deputy Corish has said — I do not know what foundation he has for the statement — that the Education Office has been shelving this matter, as I understood him, in certain cases. He says that we have been putting the matter on the long finger. That is not so. The position is that last year, on account of the building strike, we were held up, of course, in all our building operations in Dublin. Owing to certain difficulties that arose in connection with administration, which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will be able to explain to the House if it is necessary, not alone were we held up in our building operations in Dublin and Cork but in fact we were held up throughout the country as well. We are now trying to make up for that, and we have the disadvantage that we are six months late with our programme. Six months have been lost, quite unnecessarily in my opinion, in which very valuable work of the greatest importance to the community might have been done, and it now has to be done at a much higher price. In fact, up to about a month or two ago it was simply impossible to get a firm estimate from contractors in the City of Dublin for school building, because the building trade had not yet settled down. I hope, therefore, that those Labour Deputies who criticised the Minister and the Education Office and the Board of Works will bear those facts in mind.

A great deal of propaganda has been made out of the reports of the school medical officers. I have been constantly in touch with the Department of Local Government, and have asked them to urge the medical officers of health in all the counties to call attention especially to the condition of school buildings, and to condemn school buildings which were unsuitable. In some of the counties I think that possibly the estimate of the number of unsuitable schoolhouses was somewhat exaggerated, as for example in the County Kilkenny. In any case, whether it was exaggerated or not, I happen to know in that particular instance that practically all the schools referred to by the local medical officer of health—three-fourths of them at any rate — were then actually the subject of attention by the Department concerned. Deputy McGowan will see, therefore, that if he had taken the trouble, at the same time as he was collecting statistics out of the reports of the county medical officer of health, to communicate with me or to get the Labour News to communicate with me, I would have been able to show both himself and the Editor of that excellent journal that a very substantial number of those cases condemned by the medical officers of health were actually in train for the provision of new schoolhouses.

I am not in a position — and I do not know when there will be a Minister for Education in this House who will be in a position — to say: "I do not want any contribution from the manager. I am going to go ahead and build whatever schools are necessary." The fact is that I do the very best I can to meet the managers. If the managers make a case to me to show that they have done a great deal of work in their parishes, or that the parish is exceptionally poor, consideration is always given to those matters. We are not going to refuse to build a school simply because there is a difference of £50 or £100, to put it quite frankly, between what the manager thinks should be the local contribution and our estimate of it. In County Donegal, which Deputy McMenamin should know fairly well, a vast number of schools have been built during the past ten years with practically no assistance from the local people. The same is true of course all along the Western seaboard, but the people in the other rural areas seem to think that they also should not make any contribution. Unfortunately it is my duty — unfortunately for the work perhaps and unfortunately for the local people — to see that a local contribution appropriate to the circumstances of the parish is put up. If the parish priest can show me that his case is a genuinely necessitous one, he can then get special assistance over and above the usual two-thirds grant.

Deputy Norton covered the whole ground with reference to school buildings, school books and the school-leaving age, and I have only to repeat in connection with these matters what I think I have said here frequently before — that the school-leaving age is very largely a financial question. It would take about £1,000,000 annually to make a substantial contribution to the problem of the school-leaving age. If you are thinking of having a general raising of the school-leaving age to 16 years, we may assume that it is going to cost £1,000,000 annually at the very least. I think Deputies must recognise that in the rural areas there is a special problem in connection with the school-leaving age. In the larger urban areas we hope to have a good deal of information as a result of the experiment which has been taken in Cork, which will possibly enable the Department to see whether we can raise the school-leaving age in the county boroughs and in the larger urban centres. When we have the Cork experiment under way, we intend to carry out two further experiments, one in a smaller urban centre and one in a rural area. We shall then be in a position to judge of the effect of raising the school-leaving age in typical larger and smaller urban areas and in some rural areas as well.

The question of school books is one that we have dealt with to some extent in a circular we issued last September. We informed the school managers and teachers that the provision in our regulations which decreed that the school books should be changed annually was no longer necessary, and we definitely recommended them not to change the school books except when it was absolutely necessary and after a period of years. As a result of this circular we think that, if it is carefully implemented, the average annually recurring charge for school books will be considerably reduced — possibly by £30,000 or £35,000. We are examining the question further with a view to ascertaining whether any further measures may be taken — other than those contained in the circular to which I have referred — to reduce the cost of books for the parents of poor children.

May I ask the Minister is the consideration directed towards a subsidy from the State for the purchase of school books?

No. We have not definitely come to a decision.

Thank you.

I am merely informing the House that we are examining the question further. I think, Sir, I informed Deputy Hurley yesterday that the question of unemployment among the teachers is receiving the most careful consideration of my Department, and I hope to be able, in due course, to announce measures which will remedy the evil and lead to its complete disappearance in a few years.

Hear, hear!

A number of statements were made here this evening which illustrate my contention that senseless statements, without any foundation or any evidence brought forward to support them, are made here in an endeavour to prove that, educationally, our standard is very low in this country, that there should be a certain amount of anxiety in the public mind with regard to the position, and that the Government should take steps to have the whole question examined by some form of commission. One of the statements made by Deputy Costello, in the speech which he made, was that French and German were being driven out of the schools, and he suggested that it was as a result of the efforts that were being made to strengthen the position of Irish and give it its proper place in the programme that this result had been achieved. I mentioned in my opening statement that there was a substantial increase, and the Deputies will see from the figures in the Official Reports that there was a substantial increase in the number of schools in which Latin, Greek, French and German were being taught.

In fact, since 1931-32 — the earliest year for which I have figures available to enable me to make a proper comparison — the number studying French has grown from 15,173 to 19,310, being an increase of 4,137, or 27.2 per cent. During this period the total number of pupils has grown from 30,004 to 36,092, an increase of 6,088, or 20 per cent. The increase in the number of students studying French has grown by a larger proportion. The proportion of the number studying French to the total number of pupils in 1937-38 is 53.5, as compared with 50.5 in 1931-32; and the number of examination candidates in French has grown from 2,655 in 1932 to 4,169 in 1937, an increase of 1,514, or 57 per cent. That shows that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that French is suffering, and, as has been pointed out to the representatives of certain schools here who are complaining that modern languages are suffering under the present programme, there is a substantial number of schools in this country who are not alone doing Irish and English well, but also are doing Greek and Latin, French and German, while some of the schools that are not doing Greek at all have been asked why they cannot do French if they wish to do it. In some cases these schools are not doing even Latin, and so they should have an advantage over the other schools that are doing four languages and doing them successfully. The Deputy seemed to be perturbed by the reflection that, by increasing the number of scholarships we were perhaps giving opportunities to mediocre students—a rather peculiar argument to advance from an educational point of view—but if be were acquainted with the facts of the situation he would know, or at least he should guess, that the competition for secondary scholarships is so keen and the standard so high that there are usually only a few marks between the successful candidates and the best of the runners-up; so that there is no danger of subsidising mediocrity by increasing the number of scholarships.

I think these are the main points that have been dealt with. I should like to say, in reply to Deputy Dillon's travesties — if they are worthy of reply — that he is entirely wrong in suggesting that the vast majority of our schools are doing their work, or the majority of their work, through the medium of Irish. In the Gaeltacht only 10 per cent. of the schools have any subjects taught through the medium of Irish, that is, leaving out the infant classes in which, of course, no subjects are taught. Deputy Dillon tells us that we ought to give Irish the same position as French held, say, in Russia, when there was an effete Russian aristocracy. Like some people in this country, Deputy Dillon thinks it absurd that the direct method, which is accepted in many of the most famous schools in every country in Europe and probably practised entirely by that school to which he refers in order to teach both children and adults, is the method that has been introduced and practised for many years in our schools. Incidentally, the direct method is the same system that is followed by all those wealthy folk who get German or French people, or some other Continental people, to talk their respective languages to their children and who take good care to see that no other language is spoken to the children.

Might I ask the Minister what is the position so far as the provision of a new school for Enniscorthy is concerned?

I cannot say, Sir.

Would the Minister say whether or not the absence of free school requisites or free school books is in conflict with the clause in the Constitution which says that primary education is free?

I do not think so.

Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."
The Committee divided. Tá, 31; Níl, 49.

Tá.

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hurley, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGowan, Gerrard L.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Davin, William.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Heron, Archie.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.

Níl.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Davis, Matt.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Munnelly, John.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Ward, Conn.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Keyes and Heron; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Question declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share