Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Mar 1944

Vol. 93 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Local Authorities (Education Scholarships) Bill, 1944—Committee.

SECTION 1.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In line 26, page 2, to delete the words "sums of money payable annually or otherwise" and substitute the words "annual payments (payable either in one sum or in two or more instalments)".

I have found it necessary to introduce an amendment to Section 6— amendment No. 5—and arising out of that amendment it is necessary to amend the definition section. As the Bill stood before amendment No. 5 was put on the paper, the council would find it necessary to obtain the sanction of the Minister to the payment of instalments in the case of a renewal of a scholarship. While I consider that, in general, as the Minister would be the ultimate authority, his sanction should be necessary in the case of renewal of scholarships, that sanction could, of course, be given at the beginning of the year. It was not the intention that, if the instalments were paid monthly or quarterly, every such instalment should require the sanction of the Minister. The intention is that, as the schemes in general will have to be sanctioned by the Minister, so also the renewal of scholarships should be sanctioned by him. Amendment No. 5 which seeks to introduce this change has rendered it necessary to amend the definition section. The words "annual payments" are now introduced.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

The Minister shall consult with the corporation or council carrying such scheme into operation, before making any alteration in the scheme, as provided in the immediately preceding sub-section.

I have put down this amendment principally because of the power that the Minister is taking in Section 2. Under paragraph (a) of that section the Minister may approve of such a scheme; under paragraph (b) of it he may modify or alter such scheme in such a manner as he thinks proper and approve of such scheme as so modified or altered; and under paragraph (c) he may refuse to approve of such scheme. I think that when a local body approves of a scholarship scheme it would be desirable, before the Minister decides to make a change in it and certainly in the case where he refuses to approve of it, that he should consult with the corporation or the county council concerned. Under the Bill as it stands the Minister may refuse to approve of a scheme. In that case the county council or corporation has the right to resubmit a scheme.

I take it that, under the section, local authorities could continue submitting and resubmitting schemes according as the Minister rejected them, and that that could go on ad infinitum. If the Minister accepts my amendment the opportunity for consultation will be provided, and hence it is far more likely that agreement with regard to schemes will be reached between the local body and the Minister. Under the Bill as it stands, if you get a stubborn Minister and a stubborn local authority they may remain at loggerheads for a very considerable time. The net result of that will be that a scholarship scheme will not be put into operation or, at any rate, that it may be unduly delayed.

Mr. Derrig

As regards Deputy Cosgrave's amendment, I am not prepared to accept it. As the Bill now stands, the council first prepares a scheme and submits it to the Minister. After the Minister has given his approval, the council may then take the further step of determining to carry it into operation. Therefore, after the Minister has given his approval to a scheme the council is not bound, according to sub-section (3) of the Bill, lines 10 to 12, to carry it into operation. Deputies will see that a council is quite free to decide whether or not it will carry into execution a scheme that has been approved of.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

If the Minister does not approve of it?

Mr. Derrig

If he does not, there is nothing to prevent a council, under sub-section (5), from putting up an alternative scheme.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

And if he does not approve of that, the council cannot put another scheme into operation.

Mr. Derrig

I think I can assure the Deputy that, if schemes have not been put into operation, it has not been the fault of the Minister. It has been the fault of local authorities who, in some cases over a period of years, have refused, for reasons which may have seemed good to them, to put forward schemes. As a matter of fact, the Department of Education has done everything possible to try to meet councils. It is because there was a doubt as to whether, in the long run, the Minister had authority to see that in matters of detail his opinion should rule that it was found necessary to introduce this measure. There was also the question of the validation of existing schemes, as the position seems not to have been left very clear subsequent to the passing of legislation dealing with local authorities in 1940 and 1941.

The position is that a council sends in a scheme. Some of the councils are excellent in the way they deal with this matter. For instance, no fault is to be found with the Dublin Corporation, but those who represent Dublin here must not assume that every other council is equally faultless. I have to deal with the councils as a whole. Sometimes a scheme is not sent in until the month of November. The examination takes place in April. One of the things that I hope will result when this measure becomes law is that we will be able to get councils to see that if they are going to have schemes they ought to send them in at the earliest possible date. If the Deputy's amendment were accepted, apart from the fact that I do not see how it is going to solve the problem of the stubborn Minister and the stubborn council to which he referred, it would bind the Minister——

Mr. Cosgrave

The amendment does not bind the Minister, but gives him the opportunity for consultation.

Mr. Derrig

It binds the Minister to have prior consultation. I have no intention of interfering arbitrarily with the councils. I may disagree with their schemes on certain points, but that does not mean that I refuse approval. If I think that councils are doing something inequitable or unfair —that they are making distinctions between candidates or potential applicants which do not seem reasonable— I think I am bound to advise that I am not of their opinion and that they ought to amend their scheme. It is only where some serious question of principle was at stake that the Minister would, I think, refuse approval. Normally, what would happen is that the Minister would advise the council that he felt that the scheme might be improved in certain directions. The council may or may not accept that advice. If it is a very serious matter involving, as I have said, a question of principle, the Minister may feel it necessary—although I am sure he would be at least as anxious as the members of a council to have a scheme in operation—to refuse his approval. That is why we have treated the councils with every leniency. In fact, our attitude has been not to give members of councils, who do not seem to be anxious to put schemes into operation, any pretext or excuse for deciding, through any grudge or pretext they may find in their consultations with us, not to have any scheme at all. We have been anxious to avoid that position.

Apart from the fact that this amendment would bind me to prior consultation and that there would be no finality, there is the question of time. Time is very limited, and I repeat that I am as anxious as the councils to have schemes in operation, but I fear that if I were bound to consult with them to the degree that the Deputy suggests in his amendment it would merely mean that we would not have the schemes ready in time.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is no finality in the Bill as it is.

Mr. Derrig

Even at present councils are often late in coming forward with their schemes. To give an example. Some councils have apparently been of opinion that it was equitable to put into the schemes that boys or girls attending secondary schools should be excluded from the benefits of secondary scholarships. I think that the mere fact that the child happens to be attending a secondary school is not a sufficient reason for excluding that child from being a candidate. We know that the Christian Brothers' schools, for example, prepare candidates, and I daresay that it is in the secondary schools which they manage in which the candidates are prepared very often, not necessarily in the national schools. If discrimination is to be made, one can understand a certain discrimination on the ground of means —perhaps not so much a discrimination as a setting aside of a certain number of places for smaller or rural schools. The former, however, is a condition which, I know, councils definitely have tried to insert in their schemes and with which I do not agree.

There are other similar matters which arise, and my only interest is to do what I consider best in the interests of education, and to see that the children who are specially marked out for advancement should get every possible opportunity, consistent with whatever reasonable conditions and limitations the council may put down. But I would not be frank with the House if I did not state that the object of this measure is to make it quite clear to all the councils that, from the legal point of view, the Minister will have the ultimate authority, not only in regard to the scheme in general but in regard to seeing that the details of the scheme are right and proper, and that the council carries out the scheme according to its published conditions. That is why I find it necessary to bring in the matter of renewals, because the council's scheme, as published, may be very excellent, but in the carrying out of it, it may be found it has not been adhered to, and that there is some inequity. Therefore I must ask the House to agree that I, or whoever may be the Minister, should have the ultimate authority.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister has referred to the undesirability of certain local authorities inserting certain areas. I agree that is undesirable, but I should like to call attention to one aspect of this problem, and I think the local authorities had this aspect in mind when they attempted to do that. There are many children living in remote districts where the facilities, even in the primary schools, are not the same as those in a modern town, where you have a better type of school, and may be a better type of teacher. If there is an examination, the student who comes from a remote district is definitely at a disadvantage compared with the child who lives up against a school in a town. We must take into consideration the children living a considerable distance from the school. Very often these remote schools are not as good as the schools in more populous centres. I suggest that the local authority very often acted in perfect good faith when trying to draw a distinction and give these children from the remote districts an opportunity to get a scholarship. The Minister should not overlook that. I think the House would be anxious to ensure that children in such circumstances would get a fair chance. We must consider the handicaps of such children, and I think the House will agree they should be given a reasonable opportunity to secure scholarships.

Mr. Allen

I should like to support Deputy Hughes. Following the statement made by the Minister with regard to the small schools, where councils discriminate in favour of primary schools as against secondary schools— in favour of the children in the country who have not an opportunity of getting secondary education under any conditions—I hope that in future the Department will not object to councils providing for scholarships for the smaller schools as against the larger schools in urban areas. All the councils who provide these scholarships feel they should do something for the primary schools as against the secondary school pupils. It is not that they have the slightest objection to giving the Christian Brothers' pupils scholarships—they realise that such pupils receive a first-class education— but children living in remote rural areas have no means of getting secondary education and, if the county council so desires, these children should have an opportunity of getting some of these scholarships and should not be compelled to complete against the secondary school pupils.

I believe the Minister will find, if he insists on what he has now stated— that there should be no discrimination or nothing in favour of small schools and primary school pupils— that very few schemes will be put up by the county councils in the future. It is not mandatory in this legislation and the councils are quite entitled to adopt that attitude, and they will do it. It will be found in any county council area, although it is a county-at-large charge, that probably seven-tenths or eight-tenths of the funds put up for scholarships are contributed by the rural dwellers. There is no reason why their children, the pupils of primary schools, should not have some advantage over the pupils attending the secondary schools, if the council of that area, in their scheme, so desires.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

I move amendment No. 3:—

At the end of the section, in page 3, to add a new-subsection as follows:—

(6) The preparation of a scheme shall be a reserved function both in the case of the corporation of a county borough and in the case of the council of a county.

During the discussion on the Second Reading there appeared to be a misunderstanding as between the Minister and Deputies as to what functions the members of local authorities had in connection with the preparation of schemes. I think it is quite clear from Section 7 that the raising of the money is to be a function of the elected councils. I should like to draw the Minister's special attention to columns 1945 and 1946 of the Parliamentary Debates of March 1st, in which he read extracts from a circular, and introduced it in the following words:—

"... as regards committees the appointment of permissive committees by county councils has also given rise to some misunderstanding."

I submit that the Minister's statement has given rise to more misunderstanding, because it is not clear now whether elected councils in the case of the county boroughs of Dublin or Cork have that power—that is, to appoint committees to prepare a scholarship scheme. If the Minister states definitely that they have such power under the circular referred to, then the amendment I am now moving can be altered to provide for this, but in the absence of that assurance I feel that I am interpreting the general feelings of Deputies as expressed on the last occasion, that is, that the conditions to appear in the scheme to be submitted for the Minister's approval should be drawn up by or have the approval of the elected representatives, acting on the advice of the scholarship committee. When the scheme has been so approved, it will be for the manager to award the scholarship, strictly in accordance with the terms of the scheme. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Derrig

I have no objection to accepting the principle of the amendment, but I think that the form in which the Deputy has drafted it is not, perhaps, quite satisfactory from my point of view. The question as between the manager and the council, of course, will depend very largely, as the Local Government circular says, on the relations between them, but in order that it should be made quite clear in the Bill what the legal position is, I think it would be better if we refer the question to the draftsman and ask him to redraft it in such a way as to make it clear that the preparation of a scheme, and the necessary procedure in connection with it, should be a matter for the council: that is, that it should be a reserved function. If we are going to adopt that principle, I should like to have it put in the clearest possible language and I think that the draftsman may be able to make it copper-fast.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (1), line 43, after the word "prescribe" to insert the following words: "after consultation with the corporation of a county borough or council of a county".

This amendment is more or less similar to the previous one, except that it refers particularly to the clause where the Minister may prescribe, either generally or in regard to any particular scheme or class of schemes, under the Act, examinations, tests and age limits for scholarships, and so on. I consider, somewhat like Deputies Allen and Hughes, that if a Minister has full power to prescribe any scheme he likes, he may prescribe a scholarship scheme for a rural area or outlying areas that would be wholly unsuited to the needs of the rural community.

The Minister mentioned earlier in his remarks that his only desire was to assist education. I can assure him that, of course, is our desire also. Nevertheless, a scheme in which children from a rural area are entitled to the benefits does not provide for some of the necessary requirements which their life afterwards in a rural area will make imperative. I think that the Minister should, at any rate, consult the councils concerned. I would respectfully draw attention to the fact that the word "consultation" here does not make it imperative on the Minister to take into consideration either the direction or the wishes of the county council or corporation, as the case may be, but at any rate it gives him an opportunity to get their opinions as to what are the requirements which they believe are necessary for their own areas. I think it is not too much to expect that the Minister should have some consideration for local applicants, such as Deputies Hughes and Allen mentioned, because the result of this section, if not amended, may be that local bodies will not bother to send in any scheme.

Mr. Derrig

If local authorities take such a superficial view of their responsibilities, it is extraordinary that members of the House should clamour that the preparation of a scholarship scheme should be made a reserved function. The councils ought to be as anxious as I am to have these schemes, and to do more, if that is reasonably possible, than is being done at present. Unfortunately, experience has shown that the "bureaucrats" in this matter, very often, are more enlightened than the public representatives. As I have said already, the Dublin Corporation and other local authorities have at all times carried out their duties excellently, but we have other councils which have not carried out their duties so well. However, I really do not wish to go into that question. I simply wish to say, with regard to the two counties, about which the two Deputies asked me——

Mr. L. Cosgrave

I am not a Dublin City representative.

Mr. Derrig

——to see that the rural areas get fair play, that there was no question in that regard in the case of one of these counties—that is, Deputy Hughes's county—from 1930 up to last year. Now, I do not think the Deputy will argue that there was any difference of opinion between the Department of Education and the Carlow County Council which could not have been got over by consultation; or does he argue that it was some obstinacy or stupidity on the part of my Department which prevented the Carlow County Council during that period from having that scheme put into effect? In the case of County Wexford, also, there is no scheme this year.

Mr. Allen

They have a scheme this year.

Mr. Derrig

Well, they had not a scheme last year.

Mr. Allen

They had a scheme last year.

Mr. Derrig

I do not think so.

Mr. Allen

They had a scheme in operation, and they gave 30 agricultural scholarships last year.

Mr. Derrig

My information is that they had no scheme last year. Counties like Mayo and Monaghan—counties consisting of small farmers—have schemes under which, not alone is a certain proportion of the scholarships set aside for rural schools—in County Mayo, at any rate—but there is even a reservation for schools, according to the number of teachers in the schools, and there is also a further reservation for vocational schools. So that, if councils have the idea that they must persist in the purpose of distributing the money, as they consider it, over the county, I think that if they make a reasonable proposal to allocate a certain number of scholarships to rural schools there will be no objection. But why on earth, if there are brilliant children in town schools, should they be deprived of scholarships because the representatives of the rural community want to see that the scholarship money is distributed over the county? The position is that if we have brilliant children we ought to give them every opportunity, once they conform to the basic conditions which may be necessary as regards means and residence, and I think we ought to be extremely careful not to attempt to impose anything in the way of discrimination against these children.

Now, the fact that you have counties such as I have mentioned, and others also, such as Dublin, for instance, to which Deputy Cosgrave referred, in which a certain number of scholarships go to the rural areas, shows that the Department is quite anxious to go as far as possible to secure that local councils will have their wishes acceded to, but I think that Deputies and councillors from rural areas ought not to be unreasonable and that they ought to have regard to the ultimate purpose of these schemes, which is to give an opportunity to children, who have the intellectual equipment, to go forward; and, probably, now and again, it may happen that a student of that kind might come along, whose future work for the country would be of far greater value than the entire value of all the scholarship money that had been granted by the local authority concerned.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

I would not like the Minister to misinterpret me. So far as my own area is concerned, I know that the position is quite all right, because we have a certain number of scholarships for agricultural students, and in the portion of the county which is an urban area there are scholarships suitable for their requirements. I think it advisable, however, that in cases like this, where the Minister is prescribing regulations, he should try to take the county council or the corporation, as the case may be, into his confidence. That is the reason I put down the amendment—so that there would not be any dispute or any pique as between local bodies and the Department of Education.

Mr. Hughes

I think the argument which the Minister has used against Deputy Allen and myself is rather poor. It is, in fact, no answer at all to suggest that, because there was no scholarship scheme in Wexford or Carlow, we had made no case. We are not legislating here for Wexford or Carlow in particular and, so far as I am concerned, I have always tried to influence the local authority in favour of spending money on scholarships. If the Minister were in my position, he could do no more than that. With regard to what the Minister says about discrimination, I agree, and I qualified what I said by stating that I did not want any exceptions made. The Minister stressed the argument as to the possibility of there being a brilliant child in a particular area. That is true, but it may also happen that that child may have an advantage because it is favourably circumstanced with regard to a good school. That is merely what we are stressing—that you can not overlook the possibility that there might be a brilliant child in a rural area, and because the facilities are not there in the shape of a secondary school, it is unfair to put him into competition with others. He has only a primary education and he is put into competition with a child who has all the advantages of the facilities of an urban area. We are merely drawing the Minister's attention to that aspect, that while it would be invidious and undesirable to draw distinctions, we feel that we should ensure that the child in a remote area is given an opportunity, having regard to his circumstances.

Mr. Allen

I did not know that we had no scholarship scheme last year in Wexford, but I believe that what happened was that all the money formerly devoted to these scholarships was devoted to agricultural scholarships. There are 30 agricultural scholarships in operation in the county, so that the Minister is not correct in saying there was no scheme there. There is a secondary school scheme in operation, although no money was devoted to it last year. There are, however, a number of pupils from previous years and there is a scheme operating. I admit that in the past there was no difficulty with the Department of Education with regard to framing such a scheme and giving a preference to the small schools but if it is the Minister's point of view that there should be no discrimination in favour of the small schools of the primary schools, I disagree with him. The council should, and I hope always will, be allowed to discriminate in favour of the primary school child, even though I agree that scholarships for secondary school pupils should also be provided.

If a council wishes to discriminate in favour of a primary school, it should be allowed to do so, because the primary school children can never have the opportunity of getting secondary education. Their parents may never be able to give it to them, whereas in the case of the boy or girl attending the town school, the opportunity is at his or her door all the time. Most county councils provide university scholarships and a boy or girl attending a secondary school can go straight to the university without any scholarship to a secondary school. That is the argument of the local council, and I hope the policy of the Department will be left as it has been up to now.

Mr. Derrig

I do not know what scholarships Deputy Allen refers to. I have no official knowledge of any scheme in Wexford. I do not even know whether the scheme is under the agricultural committee or not. There is no scheme as is generally contemplated for scholarships to secondary or vocational schools. The Wexford Council apparently has not thought fit to consult the Department on the matter, and we will leave it at that. I should like to say to Deputy L. Cosgrave that I hope he will not take my remarks as being intended to suggest that he wished to have any discrimination in this matter, but I omitted to explain to him, in connection with Section 5, that the section deals with specific matters of educational importance, first, the question of the tests to be applied, and secondly, the question of the age limits.

This section has been put in so that it will be made clear that, while, under Section 4, certain conditions and so on may be laid down in regard to schemes, under Section 5 there are two specific matters in regard to which I think the Minister, by virtue of his position, ought not alone to be the final authority in regard to the schemes generally but ought to be in a position to advise the councils in advance as to what his requirements are.

With regard to the tests, it has always been the procedure that the examination tests were carried out by either officers of the Department of Education or persons appointed by the Department. With regard to the age limits, it seems to me that this is a matter in respect of which the Minister for Education can fairly claim to say in advance what he thinks they ought to be, having regard to the general age at which children enter secondary and vocational schools and so on, so that if I were to accept Deputy L. Cosgrave's amendment, it would be in regard to consultation on these two matters, which I think he will admit, having heard what I have said, are of a specifically educational nature.

You will forgive me, Sir, for going back on it, but I should have mentioned, in reply to Deputy Larkin, that under paragraph (e) of Section 4, with regard to the point raised by Deputy A. Byrne, as to parents who are slightly over the limit of means, an exception may be made. Supposing the limit is £200 and a parent with an income of £200 has a child who gets a scholarship. It might be considered by a council that that brought the income of the family up to £240, and that it was unfair in these circumstances that a child of a parent with an income, say, of £210—although technically outside the limit laid down in the conditions of the scheme, but having perhaps a fairly large family—might not be entitled to enter for a scholarship. That is a matter upon which I would hesitate to lay down any principle. It was raised by Deputy A. Byrne, who had in mind certain cases in Dublin. The object is to enable councils like the Dublin Corporation, if they so wish, owing to some special circumstances which we cannot foresee, even though a parent might be slightly outside the limit, to go outside their own published conditions. The matter could then be considered when it came up in a formal way, but obviously it would be a very serious thing, and only in very exceptional circumstances would one care to contemplate departure from the published conditions. I should like to assure Deputy Larkin and Deputy A. Byrne that there is provision by which a council might submit a special proposal of that nature if it wished.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Derrig

I move amendment No. 5:—

SECTION 6.

To delete lines 4 to 7 in page 5, and substitute the following:—

shall—

(a)award a scholarship under this Act to any person without the previous approval of the Minister, or

(b)make, during any year (other than the first year), any payment on foot of a continuing scholarship under this Act, unless the Minister has previously approved of the making, during that year, of payments on foot of that continuing scholarship.

I explained in connection with the first amendment that, in order to clarify the position under Section 6, it was found necessary to introduce this amendment. As the section stood it provided that the award of a scholarship should be subject to the sanction of the Minister. In addition the amendment provides that if a scholarship is being renewed that would also be subject to the Minister's sanction.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would it facilitate this discussion if Deputy P. S. Doyle moved amendment No. 6 now?

Mr. Derrig

It would.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

I move amendment No. 6:—

To delete paragraph (b) of the proposed amendment and substitute the following paragraph:—

(b) renew a scholarship except in accordance with the conditions of a scheme previously approved by the Minister.

I appreciate the manner in which the Minister met representations made to him under this section on the Second Reading. The Minister said he wanted power to prevent a local authority from awarding a scholarship to people to whom it should not be awarded. I am not objecting to giving the Minister that power, but I am objecting to the Minister interfering with local authorities who comply fully with schemes drawn up by the committees and which are approved by the Minister. I suggest that if the Minister has in mind local authorities who are not complying with the regulations it would be unfair to penalise others who are doing so. There ought to be some other method of dealing with such matters. I think managers would be in a position to rectify any noncompliance with the regulations by councils. I do not know if the Minister has lost confidence in the managers. I think they have power to prevent any breach of the regulations.

Mr. Derrig

Deputy Doyle for some reason seems to consider that exception ought to be taken to the general powers of the Minister in regard to the sanctioning of schemes. I know that Dublin Corporation has always insisted that it was within its rights to regulate its scholarships, and that that was a matter upon which the sanction of the Minister did not properly arise.

I stated several times that I have no quarrel with the Dublin Corporation. In one case an important council found itself in a position to award an additional scholarship. Instead of awarding it to the next candidate on the list in the order of merit the scholarship was awarded to one lower down. If a council at this stage in our history seeks to circumvent the published regulations, and to depart from the rule that scholarships must be awarded in strict order of merit, it is perhaps not beyond possibility that in case of a renewal of a scholarship some similar situation might arise. A candidate more worthy than another might be refused a renewal, and the scholarship might be awarded to a less worthy candidate.

I think the Deputy ought not to press the amendment. It is unfortunately the case that by correspondence and consultation we have tried up to the present to get the councils to meet our view or they tried to get us to accept their views. There must be some finality and, if the Minister is to have general powers to be the final authority in regard to scholarship schemes, I do not see how it would be reasonable or consistent not to place upon him the responsibility of having to sanction the renewal of scholarships. Otherwise it would simply mean that we would have an anomaly for which I do not see any necessity.

Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7 to 12, inclusive, and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, March 28th.