Judging by the remarks of some of the speakers, towards the conclusion of the debate, one would imagine that they were entirely unfamiliar with the fact that there has been a national policy in progress the object of which is to make Irish the spoken language of the people, and that, as a concomitant of that policy, there has been for many years past a programme in operation in the national schools, and in the other schools, which aims at making our young people Irish speakers. This programme has not been devised by me. It is the outcome of a conference representing, as far as primary education is concerned, the managers and teachers as well as the Government of the day. The conference sat in 1925, and the programme which it then brought in is still in operation. I have already referred to this programme, but it seems necessary again to quote from it. Page 27 of the Report and Programme presented by the National Programme Conference to the Minister for Education says:—
"Where a teacher is competent to teach through Irish, and where the children can assimilate the instruction so given, the teacher should endeavour to extend the use of Irish as a medium of instruction as far as possible.
When these conditions do not exist, such teaching through Irish is not obligatory.
Teachers who hold bilingual or higher certificates will, unless there be evidence to the contrary, be regarded as competent; but the possession of these certificates is not an essential condition for such teaching.
When the full use of Irish as a medium of instruction is not possible any or all of the following transitional courses are suggested:—
(1) The use of both languages in teaching certain subjects;
(2) A gradual extension through the standards, beginning at the lowest, of instruction through Irish;
(3) The gradual extension through the subjects of the use of Irish as a medium of instruction."
On page 10 of the Report of the Conference it is stated:—
"One of the leading characteristics of that programme is its insistence on the principle of teaching the infant classes through the medium of Irish. The members of our Conference agreed on the supreme importance of giving effect as far as possible to this principle; and in confirmation of their belief they received authoritative evidence. It was argued with much weight that a `direct' method of teaching Irish, continued during the length of an ordinary school day for a few years between the ages of four and eight, would be quite sufficient—given trained and fluent teachers—to impart to children a vernacular power over the language; while, in the case of older children, it was shown that such a result would be more difficult of attainment. The members of the Conference were, therefore, at one in holding that the true and only method of establishing Irish as a vernacular is the effective teaching of it to the infants."
Irish, therefore, is not, as Deputy Dillon would have us believe, a language of instruction in infant classes, as there is no instruction in infant classes in any modern educational system. There is only language teaching on the direct method, which excludes the use of any language but the language taught, which was Irish in this case.
In spite of the attacks which have been made on the direct method in infant schools and classes I believe that it has justified itself where the teaching is done by skilful teachers. I ought to know what is going on in the schools better than the critics, as I am in constant touch with the inspectors. Quite recently I discussed this whole question with them, and I am satisfied that the conditions laid down in the 1931 Circular, from which I quoted on a former occasion in this House in reply to Deputy Dillon, are being carried out. I find the attitude of the chief Opposition Party in this matter difficult to understand. Are we to take it that the ex-Ministers, who are far more responsible than I am for the policy of teaching through Irish in the primary schools, in the secondary schools, and in University College, Galway, are no longer in favour of it? If they are, how can Deputy Mulcahy who, I think, is largely responsible for the experiment of compelling an institution of university status to give instruction through Irish remain silent, while Deputy Dillon attacks the policy which he himself sponsored?
If the Government of which Deputy Mulcahy was a member instituted a scheme for higher education through Irish in University College, Galway, did they really believe in it at the time, or, if they did believe in it, have they now changed their minds? In that particular case the Government deliberately interfered in university education to encourage and subsidise instruction through Irish. If this policy was feasible and sound so far as university education is concerned, it surely should be, at least, equally feasible and sound where secondary or even primary education is concerned. I do not claim credit or responsibility for the introduction of teaching through Irish in either national schools or secondary schools; it had been introduced and firmly established by the previous Government, and since I became Minister, it has been carried on according to the principles laid down by my predecessor. These principles have been stated here so frequently by him and by me, that it is not necessary to repeat them. As evidence that my predecessor, and the Government at that time, considered that teaching through Irish in secondary schools was educationally sound, and should be encouraged, I might refer to the action taken in 1931 to establish an Irish-speaking secondary school for boys in Dublin. It was considered that sufficient progress was not being made in providing teaching through Irish in the existing boys' schools, and instead of putting pressure on these schools to increase the amount of such teaching, as one would expect to be done, if one paid any heed to the allegations of Deputy Dillon, the Christian Brothers were approached and asked to open a boys' school in which all subjects, except English, would be taught through the medium of Irish. This was an interesting experiment.
The City of Dublin was well supplied with boys' secondary schools, and the opening of a new school, in which Irish was the ordinary medium of instruction, would afford a fair test as to what demand existed for a school of that type, or whether parents were so much opposed to instruction through Irish as is sometimes alleged. The new Irish-speaking school opened with 26 boys in 'October, 1931; the following year the numbers increased to 73, and the year after to 137. Since then, there has been a steady annual increase, and the present attendance is 176. As I have already mentioned, this new school had to compete with existing old-established secondary schools, and its success is evidence that there is a genuine demand among parents for a thorough Irish education for their children. I might add that the number of boys' secondary schools in Dublin in which Irish is the ordinary medium of instruction has now increased to four. There are still six Catholic boys' schools in the city in which no instruction is given through Irish, so that if parents object to their children being taught through Irish, they have a remedy at hand. The fact that the number of Irish-speaking schools and the attendance at these schools goes on increasing, year after year, should provide a convincing answer for any honest inquirer to the unfounded allegations put forward by people like Deputy Dillon regarding the objections by schools and teachers and parents to teaching through Irish.
The instruction through Irish in the secondary schools has been proceeding over a long period of years. It started in 1925 with two schools in the Class A category, which were doing all their work through Irish. In 1925-6, the number of secondary schools in Class A increased to five, and, in the following years, it increased to 11, 13, 18, 21, 24, 34, 47, 61, 67, 77, 87, 97 and, during the present year, the estimated figure is 106. Concurrently, in the other two classes, B 1 and B 2, in which portion, though not all, of the instruction is being given through Irish, there has been a similar increase. In B 1, the number of schools in the year 1925-6 was 17 and, in the present year, it is estimated to be 50. In B 2, the number of schools in 1925-6 was 19 and, in the present year, it is estimated to be 57. There were 41 schools in which Irish was the medium of instruction, either wholly or partly, in 1925-6 and, in the present year, the estimated number is 213.
If further evidence on this matter were necessary, I might point to the fact that many of the secondary schools are boarding schools. There are boarding schools for boys and for girls in which Irish is the ordinary language of instruction, and schools in which no instruction is given through Irish, so that parents are free to select Irish-speaking or English-speaking schools for their children. Moreover, an arrangement was made a few years ago under which a large secondary school is empowered, if it wishes to do so, to establish a separate Irish-speaking section or school in which all the teaching would be given through Irish to those pupils who are fit to profit fully by such instruction. This arrangement has been availed of by a number of schools, about ten, which desired to provide instruction through Irish to some of their pupils but had other pupils in attendance who had not a sufficient knowledge of Irish to follow instruction through that language. I think this explanation should prove conclusively how groundless are the allegations made by people like Deputy Dillon about our policy of teaching through Irish in the secondary schools.
I do not know what the actual experience of Deputies Morrissey and some of the other Deputies who have spoken with regard to the work that is being done through Irish in the national schools may be, but the figures which I have do not confirm the view that Deputy Morrissey and those who accept his point of view need have the slightest anxiety about this policy of driving Irish down the throats of the children. The total number of schools classed as national schools with which I have to deal is in the neighbourhood of 5,400. There are 171 schools in the Fior-Ghaeltacht in which all subjects are taught through the medium of Irish; there are 72 such schools in the Gaeltacht; there are 114 such schools in the Breac-Ghaelteacht; and there are 284 schools in the Galltacht: making a total of 641 schools. If we omit the Fior-Ghaeltacht schools and take the remaining 470 schools as a proportion of the total number of schools outside the Fior-Ghaeltacht area, we find that about 9 per cent. of the schools are schools in which the medium of instruction is Irish.
The programme in operation in the schools, whether secondary or primary, is not, I repeat, the fruit of any ukase from my Department, but the fruit of the labours of conferences on secondary and primary education set up by a native Government as one of its earliest tasks. That policy has been successful, both in the secondary and primary schools, in spite of the enormous difficulties involved.
My Department is not, as Deputy Dillon suggests, so blind or so prejudiced as to ignore these difficulties. On the contrary, it is because we are fully alive to them that the whole question of the progress of Irish and of instruction through Irish in the schools, as a matter of fact, is constantly under review. Our officers realise, as nobody else can, how much teachers need all the assistance they can get in the heavy task that has been laid upon them. As I have often said, in no other country in the world has such a task been laid upon the schools. Our teachers have not alone to teach the children to speak their national language, a huge task in itself, but, in the course of their work, they have to contend with the indifference of the general public in the matter, as well as with the open and veiled hostility of certain sections. I assure the House that there are plenty of difficulties in the way of teaching successfully through Irish and no one is more aware of it than I am. Anybody entrusted as I am with the responsibility of making this policy effective and who does his duty conscientiously, will have due regard to these difficulties, whether they be within or without the schools. I have always been cognisant of the difficulties. I have had them under constant consideration and observation and it is this close and detailed knowledge which makes me regret all the more deeply the criticisms of people whose knowledge of the actual work done is either nil or derived from baseless hearsay.
It would be taking up the time of the House to deal in detail with all the humbug for which Deputy Dillon has been responsible. One of his pontifical statements was that children could not add or write as they did 15 years ago. In columns 2142 and 2143, he says:
"Look at the children coming out of the primary schools to-day. They cannot read; they cannot spell; they cannot add; and they cannot write."
He goes on to say:—
"Nobody here will argue that the children coming out of the primary schools to-day can add or write as they did 15 years ago. It is common knowledge that the average child coming out of school to-day cannot read, or write a legible hand."
One wonders exactly what knowledge Deputy Dillon has of the situation in our schools 15 years ago. He must have a good idea surely of the amount of knowledge which the children of that day had. In case anybody in the Dáil or in the country may be deceived by this kind of nonsense, I would simply call his attention to the figures showing the enrolments in the higher standards since the School Attendance Act came into force. What was the position before the School Attendance Act of 1926? The majority of pupils of the national schools attended school in a casual and intermittent manner and they often left school at the end of the third or fourth standard.
Giving evidence before the Technical Education Commission in 1930, Mr. W.P. Ward, Ballinasloe, a well-known teacher, referred to this. He pointed out that up to a year or two before that, the average age at which children left the primary schools in the country was between 11½ and 12 years. Many of the children only attended anyway regularly during the slack periods in agriculture. The result was that it was extremely hard to do anything with them. What is the position now? For many years the higher standards have been steadily filling up. There are no figures, unfortunately, available for the years prior to 1926, but in 1926 there were 45,499 pupils in the fifth standard. In 1937-38 there were 52,872, an increase of, roughly, 16 per cent. In 1926 there were 24,502 pupils in the sixth standard, and in 1937-38 there were 38,751, an increase of approximately 58 per cent. In the seventh standard in 1926 there were 10,237 children, and in the same standard in 1937-38 there were 17,773, an increase of 73 per cent. In the eighth standard in 1926 there were 3,415, and in the same standard in 1937-38 there were 6,342, an increase of 86 per cent.
The total increase in enrolment in the higher standards between 1927-28 and 1937-38 was from 89,455 to 115,738, or an increase of 29 per cent. The percentage of the total numbers of children on the rolls in the higher standards in 1937-38 was 24.4 per cent. as against 17.5 per cent. in 1927-28. Whereas we formerly had the position that many of the children, after very irregular attendance during their school lives, left school at the age of 12 or before it, every child now has to attend at least until he or she is 14, and a fair proportion of children continue to attend until they are 15 or more. The figures of enrolment of pupils between 14 and 16 at secondary and vocational schools are in the neighbourhood of 14,500 and 17,500, respectively, while there are some 13,000 pupils attending primary schools. Yet, year after year we are told that the standard of education is going down when, in fact, it is steadily improving. There is a wide extension of post-primary activities and the extraordinarily keen competition for appointments in the Civil Service, coupled with the increase in entrants to the universities, shows we are on the upgrade educationally all the time.
It would be too much to ask Deputy Dillon to give some proof or evidence that there is any substance in his statements. Time after time his charges have been shown to be completely baseless, but still he persists in repeating them. There is one statement of his, however, which I cannot let pass without a strong protest, namely, that papers worked through Irish for the intermediate examinations receive different treatment from others. I find he raised this question two years ago at the Committee of Public Accounts, and he received information then which showed that these allegations were completely without foundation. As, however, he seems to have forgotten this, I shall take the liberty of quoting the answers given to him on that occasion. Here are some extracts from page 54 of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of Public Accounts on the 12th May, 1937. I may mention that the chairman on the occasion was Deputy Dillon:—
Chairman: I take it that there is continual surveillance to see that in Class A schools the education imparted is satisfactory?—Yes. The students sit for the same examination, and the same standard of instruction is required in the subjects taught, whether they are taught through Irish or English.
Is the same standard required in the examination?—Yes. The same paper is set.
I know that the same paper is set, but is the same standard required, or how is it arrived at?— The examiners who mark the papers would be the same for marking, whether through Irish or English. The only advantage in the case of Irish is that a small increased percentage may be awarded. It is comparatively small—not more than 10 per cent. of the marks actually deserved on the merits of the answering. Not more than 10 per cent. may be awarded in the case of subjects taught through the medium of Irish, such as history and geography, and not more than 5 per cent. in the case of mathematics.
When the examiners are arriving at the standard which shall be fixed as the pass standard in a given examination, am I correct in saying that the objective is to fix such standard as will permit 70 per cent. of the candidates to pass and 30 per cent. to fail?—No. I do not think that could be done. At any rate, it is not attempted. When the examination has been set, before the papers are corrected, the examiner who sets the paper meets his correcting or marking examiners and instructs them as to what marks should be awarded for a certain kind of answer, and what marks should be deducted for a certain kind of error. That was further expanded by the standardising committee. At present, I think, science is being taken in that connection. The teachers appoint representatives who meet the examiner and discuss the paper, and they decide that a certain marking should be awarded for answering a certain question, and so on. Once that is done, there could be no possible adjustment to ensure that 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. should pass.
The same papers are set in the case of students using Irish?—Yes.
They are translated and given to them?—Yes.
Is there a separate standardising committee to deal with papers given through the medium of Irish?—No.
In the event of an undue proportion of pupils—let us say, 30 per cent. —failing, can there be any revision of the standard?—Well, it occurred only once in my experience, about ten or 12 years ago, when a certain standard was introduced, there seemed to be dissatisfaction about the standard of mathematics. It was felt that the standard was rather strange and difficult, and it was considered whether it would be possible then to go over all the marked answer books with a view to adjusting the marking, but there were so many thousands of these that it was found not to be possible. As things stand now, however, if it is found that more than 30 per cent. fail in a certain subject, the marks must stand.
With regard to the general question of Irish in the schools, I think it will be appreciated that it would be very difficult, indeed, to insist upon exact standards which could be everywhere enforced. We have to depend on our teachers and inspectors to use their commonsense, intelligence and initiative in dealing with the problems which arise. We are in a transition period with regard to Irish. Some schools are far in advance of others; some teachers are more highly qualified or more skilful than others. Even if we were not in the painful position that, generally speaking, the schools receive very little support from the people outside, either individually or collectively, in their uphill task of making the children Irish speakers, we would have to recognise that in any national system of education there must be differences of standards of attainment, of qualifications, of skill, of opportunities, which render comparisons between one school and another, one area and another area, one period and another, fallacious, apart from success in written examinations, which not everyone will agree is an entirely sound and universal test of educational efficiency.
There is no easy rule or formula which enables us to say with regard to Irish or any other subject, that progress is everywhere satisfactory or unsatisfactory. There are the extremes of highly meritorious work and inefficient work, and in between these we have a great range of effort. Teachers must satisfy the inspectors in the individual subjects and on the general results of their work. I am satisfied that the great majority of the teachers are doing their work honestly and conscientiously, and that the inspectors, with whom I am in constant touch, are closely acquainted with the work of the schools, and that both are using their best endeavours to improve the standard of education where improvement is necessary. I am hopeful that in the future we shall have closer co-operation between the teaching body and the Department of Education, and that through the medium of discussion and consultation teachers and inspectors will work in harmony, each seeing the other's point of view and trying to meet it as far as possible, and neither having any interest other than to improve the efficiency of the schools, and to do their utmost to advance the children's education. It would be extraordinary if, in this country, under a native Government both these important sections in the educational administration, the teachers and the inspectors, could not be got to co-operate to the fullest possible extent in the common interest.
I would like to assure Deputy Hurley, and the other representatives of the teachers whom I meet from time to time, that I am anxious that the Department of Education should work in close co-operation with the teachers, and that the most friendly relations should exist between our officers and the teaching profession. In fact, I would like the teachers to take the inspectors into their confidence more than they do: to acquaint them of their troubles and to ask their advice. I have tried to foster a friendly spirit on the departmental side, and I would be greatly surprised if the inspectors do not manifest a helpful and a friendly interest in the difficulties of the teachers whom they visit.
Emphasis has been laid, and quite rightly, on the development of the qualities of helpfulness, direction and guidance on the inspectors' side. Just as the success of the work in the schools depends very largely upon the personal influence of the teachers, so the fostering of harmonious relations, and a mutual spirit of trust as between teachers and inspectors, depends very largely on the personality of the individual. I agree that full co-operation between the teachers and the Department is essential to the welfare of education in this country. The routine of inspection has its place and I am not going to underrate its importance, but the general aim and purpose of the system, which should be reflected in the spirit which animates it, are in my opinion the elements which count most. Most of the inspectors were teachers themselves, and nobody can understand better than they do the difficulties with which teachers have to contend. As far as I am concerned I have always counselled the inspectors to take due cognisance of these difficulties and to make allowance for them. That has always been the policy which the Department has laid down. If the teachers would only look on the inspectors as friendly guides, who are anxious to assist them, rather than as officials who merely find fault, I believe we would achieve far greater progress in securing that the friendly relations which we all desire would obtain in all cases.
The Deputy referred to the success of the Cork experiment for the raising of the school-leaving age there. I am glad that there has been such general satisfaction with the result of the experiment. One of the most gratifying features of the scheme is the support it received from the Cork City employees. Each young employee, I am informed, is provided with a school attendance card which his employer requires him to produce weekly as a certificate of his attendance at the school. The new courses are also being utilised as recruiting centres for employment, employers seeking the advice of the teachers in the choice of suitable applicants. Moreover, the chance of finding good employment obviously constitutes a strong incentive to a young person to work steadily at his course. Finally, the local vocational committee who deserve the greatest credit for the success of the experiment which they have initiated are taking steps to ensure, even after it is no longer compulsory for a student to attend the course—that is when he has reached the age of 16—that contact with them will, nevertheless, be maintained, and efforts will be made to see that they still participate in the activities of the technical school in Cork.
With regard to a general extension of continuation education, I am, of course, interested in the matter, and recently I have been examining a proposal which has been made from various quarters, and that is the feasibility of providing, within the ambit of the national school system, a training for the senior pupils in practical subjects: for example, a training in woodwork and allied subjects for boys, and in domestic economy for girls, as such training would be of great value to the senior pupils attending rural national schools in areas in which it has not been found possible to organise schemes of vocational education. For such practical training it would be necessary to have two extra rooms, suitably equipped. added to selected national schools, one for instruction and practical training in domestic economy, and the other for instruction and practical training in woodwork and allied subjects. A preliminary survey of the school population in typical counties has shown that there are serious problems to be solved, leaving out of consideration the overriding problem of the attitude of parents to the extension of the compulsory school age and also the problems of management and control which arise in any such experiment. There are other extremely difficult administrative problems which may be classified as follows:—
(a) The very large number of small national schools, consisting of 1, 2, or 3 rooms, scattered throughout the country, at considerable distances apart. There are 4,600 schools of this kind out of a total of 5,200 national schools in the whole country.
(b) The impracticability of adding rooms to a good many of these schools on account of the restricted nature of the present sites and the age of the existing school buildings.
(c) The fall in the school population in rural areas, which makes it difficult to select a centre which would give hope that there would be a steady attendance of a reasonable size supplied from among the senior pupils in the selected school, and of the senior pupils from schools within accessible distance of the selected school.
(d) The difficulty of combining in one national school general education with education that is partly general and partly vocational.
(e) The necessity for devising a scheme, or schemes, to ensure that the benefit to the pupils would be commensurate with the cost involved.
With regard to the cost, if we take a typical rural area which has been surveyed in connection with the examination of this proposal and one which has very few facilities for post-primary education, where there are 81 primary schools and roughly 6,000 pupils in attendance, three secondary schools, one technical school and two technical day centres, we find that the estimated number of young persons in the county is, roughly, 1,600, and the estimated number without post-primary instruction 900 or probably more. To provide accommodation for instruction in woodwork, rural science and domestic economy at the 81 primary schools in that particular county would cost approximately £100,000. Some schools might manage with a room that could be used for the purpose of all their subjects at a cost of say £1,000, but others would require two separate rooms. The attendance of special subject teachers at 81 centres would be difficult to arrange and the cost of travelling would be high. The arrangement of the work in a school would be presumably in charge of the headmaster. Many of the existing headmasters are unaccustomed to post-primary work and would not be able to control it effectively. I am not very hopeful, therefore, that it will be possible to put such a scheme into general operation in the country. Apart from the tremendous financial cost, the details which I have read out will show the House that there are very serious difficulties besides.
With regard to the question of book equipment for necessitous children, I should perhaps state that under the proposed scheme for the administration of this a grant will be made to the manager for the purpose. The normal grant will be at the rate of 1/- per pupil per annum on all pupils enrolled in second and higher standards. This grant may, of course, be refused or reduced where we are satisfied that such official action is justified. The grant may, on the other hand, be increased where schools are situated in very poor localities in the Gaeltacht or the poorer parts of boroughs or towns. The maximum grant may not exceed 2/- per pupil per annum on the number of pupils in the standards to which I have alluded. For the second and subsequent years the grant will be at the rate of two-thirds of the grant for the first year, subject to official sanction. The regulations and directions with regard to the official manner in which application may be made for the grant, and the returns which it will be necessary to furnish to the Department or keep for reference will be issued when the details of the scheme have been completed after consultation with the managers. This is a matter in which there should be community of interest. I shall urge, therefore, upon managers that a local contribution should be made towards the cost of supplying the books for the children concerned. I consider it to be of great importance also that self-effort on the part of the parents should be maintained and encouraged, and for that reason the parents of the children affected will be expected to contribute something, however small, towards the cost of their children's books. I am convinced that, with the local interest and effort which should be forthcoming to secure the best results from the present scheme, and with the effective working of the arrangement officially communicated to the managers and teachers in September, 1937, under which readers and text books in national schools are only to be changed when it is necessary, the aid which the State is now providing should be quite sufficient to enable reasonable book equipment to be provided for necessitous children.
Deputy Dillon has raised a question as to the proper carrying out of the panel scheme. This is a scheme of the greatest importance since it has revolutionised the conditions of service of national teachers by giving them security of tenure for the first time. Since its inception it has saved over 200 teachers from either completely losing their posts, or being reduced in rank or pay as a result of falling averages. It is, therefore, essential that it should be retained and operated properly. It has, however, cost the taxpayer a considerable amount, and the Government accepted the heavy additional cost which it involves on the understanding that all the managers would co-operate to the fullest extent to keep down the expenditure by appointing only teachers who were on the panel to fill vacancies in their schools. It was the managers themselves who, in conference with the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, initiated the scheme, and I am glad to say that the majority of them are loyally carrying out their part of the contract. There is, however, a minority which has quite definitely tried to evade it and to snatch at any excuse to appoint teachers who are not on the panel. This is not fair to the taxpayer, to the majority of the managers who are carrying out their share of the contract, or to the teachers. If my Department allowed such managers to evade their obligation under the panel scheme, the scheme would be killed and with it all the invaluable guarantees of security and contentment which it gives to the teachers. A scheme of that sort has to be carried out with loyal exactness on both sides if it is to be a success, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we shall expect managers to keep to the terms of their bonds as faithfully as we are keeping ours.
Reference has been made to the question of giving an agricultural bias to primary education. It should be noted that no educationists of any modern country accept the thesis that agriculture should be taught as a subject in primary schools. The most that should be done in this direction is to base the teaching of the subjects as far as possible on examples and illustrations from rural life. This is done by the supply of rural readers, rural arithmetics, and similar methods of making contacts between the school and the life of the country. This aspect of education has been emphasised in the national programme which was drawn up by the conference in 1925 and the methods which it suggested should be adopted in order to secure a rural bias are being followed and are being carried out as far as possible.
I do not intend to waste the time of the Dáil in replying to Deputy Dillon's statements on the subject of the place of detention for boys at Summerhill, Dublin; but I find it necessary to challenge in a definite and categorical manner one of his references, and to make the strongest possible protest against the suggestion which it conveys. In his speech on the Vote for Prisons, the Deputy is reported (column 2112) as saying:—
"... it is in every sense a thoroughly undesirable Oliver Twist kind of establishment."
Does the Deputy wish to suggest that boys are not properly fed or are otherwise ill-treated in this institution? If so, I wish to say in the most definite terms that the suggestion is a scandalous falsehood, and I think it comes very badly from a person in the responsible position of a Deputy of the Dáil to avail of his position here to make such a slanderous statement regarding the superintendent and staff of that institution. I am aware that the Deputy did not say definitely that the superintendent and his staff ill-treated the boys committed to their care: he did a much meaner and more cowardly thing. He carefully and elaborately insinuated it, by describing the institution as "a thoroughly undesirable Oliver Twist kind of establishment." It is nothing of the kind, and the Deputy knows quite well that the statement is a most unfair slander on the officials in charge of it.
This institution is not intended as a place for the reform of boys charged with offences: it is a place where a few boys are housed and cared for for short periods, usually less than a week, when they have no homes in which they can be safely left. Boys are not sent there because they are children of the poor, but because their removal from the home conditions is considered necessary. As showing the detentions there during the past year, I should perhaps read a note on the institution, with your permission, Sir. The ages of the boys, with a few exceptions, vary from 12 to 16 years, the period of detention being about seven days. The majority are charged with offences such as house-breaking and larceny, and are remanded to facilitate inquiries by the Gárdaí and probation officers, or when parents decline to hold themselves responsible for the good conduct of their boys, pending the disposal of the charges. During the period of 12 months ended 28th February, 1939, the largest number under detention on any one day was five. The following shows how the numbers were distributed in the period:—
|
No. under detention.
|
No. of days.
|
|
Nil
|
110
|
|
1
|
102
|
|
2
|
94
|
|
2
|
34
|
|
4
|
18
|
|
5
|
7
|
So that for a considerable portion of the year, namely, 212 days, you had either one boy or no boy at all in that institution. There are a certain number of industrial schools throughout the country which have agreed to accept children on remand. Owing to circumstances over which they or the Government of the day had no control, it was found necessary to set up this public institution for the purpose of accommodating young persons on remand.
Young children are, of course, not remanded. Unfortunately, I have not the report of Deputy Dillon's speech on prisons here. He devoted a considerable portion of his time to recommending to the House that clinics should be set up to deal with these young boys who are confined in this institution. The period of time—less than a week—in which boys are in this institution and the fact that the average number of boys for the past 12 months—that is to say, the daily number in detention during the whole of 1938—was 1.4 shows that it would be quite impossible to set up such a clinic as Deputy Dillon has in mind. It would not have sufficient time to train or improve the children and, in any case, other people seem to be more in need of being locked up in clinics than some of these people. I should like to know if it will be satisfactory for me now to deal with the point which Deputy Mulcahy raised in connection with mathematics.
