Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Feb 1964

Vol. 207 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy P. O'Donnell.)

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is perhaps unfortunate that this debate began before the Commission's Report on the Irish Language became available to the public and to Deputies. It would have been a more useful debate if the Government, who apparently had already received the Report, could have circulated it and then had come to the House with clear proposals arising from the recommendations of the Report. It certainly appears strange that the Minister should have opened his Estimate knowing that the Report was available but not circulating it or giving any indication of the Government's views on this important matter.

In regard to the entire language revival problem, I suggest that there is considerable public disquiet and anxiety. It appears that in the last 40 years, instead of progress being made, there has been in fact a regression and where progress should have been achieved, there has been considerable slipping back. One view strongly expressed is that the language revival movement has tended to become the preserve of a few people who in many ways have antagonised the majority. Whether that is true or not, it certainly is a fact that there are more people in this country today who have conceived a dislike of the language and everything associated with it.

Fine Gael in the last election indicated their dissatisfaction with the methods used up to this. We felt that what is comprised in the term "compulsory Irish" has not been a satisfactory method and we have indicated that, in our view, a determined effort should be made to inspire again among the people generally, and particularly among younger people, a love of the language and some resurgence of the fine spirit which caused so many people 40 or 50 years ago to equip themselves with a working knowledge of Irish out of regard for the language. Our views have been criticised by different groups in the past two or three years. I should like to know if the Minister would indicate during this debate if the Government have any views now in relation to this important matter. Or, do they propose to continue with the same methods as have been adopted and which appear to have failed in relation to the language movement. Or, do they feel that a time for stocktaking has now come and that an effort should be made, as we suggest, to attract and encourage people rather than compel and force them into learning the language?

It does appear, in the view of a number of experts, that the fight for the revival of the language has been lost in the homes in the Gaeltacht, has been lost in the homes of those who have some knowledge of Irish, but it is not being passed on to the children. If that is the case, it means that the desire to pass it on is not there. If the desire is not there, it cannot be created by compulsion; it must be fostered by encouragement. It is the view of this Party that there should be new thinking along those lines and we would expect the Minister and the Government to recognise that the time has come for the Government also to speak.

Mr. Barron

Tá a lán rudaí tábhachtacha sa mhéid a dúirt an tAire nuair a thug sé an Meastachán isteach agus tá áthas orm mar gheall ar chuid des na rudaí a dúirt sé, bíodh go bhfuil a lán rudaí nár dhein sé tagairt dóibh. Pé scéal é, tá tosnú déanta aige agus caithimíd é a mholadh mar gheall ar an méid atá déanta agus an méid atá á dhéanamh aige maille le oideachas.

Chím go bhfuil níos mó airgid ar fáil le h-aghaidh oideachais. Chím go bhfuil níos mó scoláireachtaí le fáil ag buachaillí agus ag cailíní agus, chómh maith leis sin, chím go bhfuil sár-obair á déanamh ag an Aire maille le tithe scoile. Is cuimhin liom, agus mé fén dtuaith fadó, nach raibh againn in a lán áiteanna ach scioból. Tá obair mhaith á déanamh ag an Aire chun scoileanna oiriúnacha a sholáthair. Bhí a lán cainte le cloisint anseo mar gheall ar na ranganna a bheith ro-mhór. Níor tógadh an Róimh i lá amháin. Ní féidir leis an Aire ceist na ranganna móra a leigheas taobh istigh de bhliain nó dhó.

Tá a lán rudaí ar mhaith liom go ndéanfadh an tAire tagairt dóibh nár lua sé agus an Meastachán á thuirt isteach aige, ach, mar sin fhéin, tá a fhios agam go bhfuil sár-obair á déanamh aige. Tá a fhios agam nach bhfuil aige féin an chumhacht ar fad. An Roinn Airgeadais atá ciontach ina lán rudaí, ach, ag tagairt dóibh súd, ní mór dom a rá go bhfuil a lán á dhéanamh acu i mbliana agus rinne siad a lán rudaí anuraidh.

Ba mhaith liom leanúint i nGaeilge. Is ceart dúinn go léir gan ach an Ghaeilge a labhairt sa Tí seo ach ní thuigeann 80 faoin gcéad nó níos mó de thuismitheoirí focal Ghaeilge agus, dá bhrí sin, ní mór dúinn labhairt sa teangan a thuigeann siad mar is acu san ba cheart fios a bheith maidir le cúrsaí oideachais sa tír.

As I have said, there are some very important matters that have not been touched upon by the Minister in introducing the Estimate. In our system of education, there are three water-tight compartments—primary education, vocational education and secondary education. In my view, we should have a fully integrated system with easy access from one branch of education to the other.

At present there are a number of teachers in primary schools who would be more suited to either vocational or secondary schools. Therefore it would appear to me that there is great waste, that better results could be obtained for the money expended, to the benefit of pupils generally.

There is a certain amount of integration in schools run by religious orders. Some of the religious commence teaching in the primary school and then proceed to the university and, having got a degree, can transfer to the secondary school. That does not apply in the case of lay teachers. A lay primary teacher who transfers to a secondary school cannot have service in the primary school reckoned for salary and pension purposes. I would ask the Minister to consider that suggestion. It would be of advantage to education generally.

I cannot understand why there is an objection, or who objects, to the primary teacher having university training. I understand that in the case of non-Catholics, the primary teachers receive part of their training in Trinity College, Dublin. I do not know why the same system should not apply in the case of Catholics. It would be of great advantage to the pupils. A person does get something at university that he can bring back to the children he teaches. There was a time when people of high authority would suggest that there was no necessity to have graduates engaged in primary schools in order to teach children their tables. In my view, it is very necessary that attendance at a university should form some part of the training of primary teachers, even if it means extending the period of training by a year so that instead of a two-year course, it would be a three-year course, at the end of which the teacher would have a degree. Such a system would facilitate the integration of the branches of education which is so very necessary. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider that suggestion.

In my view, the school-leaving age should be raised within the next couple of years to at least 15 years. I suppose 30 per cent or 40 per cent of Irish children do not go beyond the primary school. I do not think there is any comparison between the standard that was achieved in the primary school prior to 1922 and the standard achieved now. One would not expect that the standards would be comparable. A new subject was introduced into the schools—our national language—and children are taught that for such a length of time every day. How could it be expected that, with the introduction of that new subject, the standard could or would reach the standard of the primary school pre-1922? People who state that the standard today is as high as ever it was really do not understand the position. They must have looked at some of the big city schools where the brighter children are selected for scholarships, and so on.

The larger percentage of our primary schools are one-teacher and two-teacher schools. Children leaving a great number of our schools at the age of 14 have nowadays a sufficient knowledge of neither English nor Irish to go out into the world. Things have changed very much in this country in the past 40 or 50 years. Today, education must be of a higher standard than ever before. Therefore, that section of our children who do not go beyond the primary school are not suited for the world today and we realise that fact only too well when they leave this country because they are not fitted to take up positions which they might otherwise be able to hold.

I would ask the Minister to bring the school-leaving age up to 15 years. There is the difficulty of school buildings and of getting trained teachers but I know what the Minister is doing and what he has done. The success of the international competitions was due entirely to him. If he takes the matter in hand, I know he will do something to the advantage of the children I have been speaking for and I appeal to him to do something about raising the school-leaving age. Across the water, I understand the school-leaving age is 15 years and that by 1970 it will be raised for all to 16 years. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, if at all possible within the next few years, to insist that every child must attend school up to the age of 15 years.

I was very pleased to note the improvement in our school buildings. I have seen grand schools built which were beautiful-looking structures for the first year or so. Then, after a few years they were a disgrace for want of paint. When Deputy Corish asked a question about these matters, somebody asked him if it was an attack on the managerial system. There is no teacher in Ireland—and I was one of them all my life—who wants any system other than the managerial system but wanting it and having it is one thing. Take the expense and the upkeep of the primary school, whether heating, cleaning, and the rest of it. That should not devolve altogether on the management. There are poor parishes where managers find it difficult enough to keep their parishes going. Further money by way of grants should be given to the managers. I note it is being done for the painting and interior decoration of schools. The amount of money for heating and cleaning is very small and it is not sufficient for the heating.

I understand that in some parts of the country the children sweep out the school. If the Minister knows of any place where that happens, I would ask him to issue a direct order that it cease immediately. As in the vocational schools, there should be a person to clean the schools at stated times and to light the fires and have everything in order when the children go into the school.

The Minister has done a great job as far as vocational schools are concerned. It is very urgent that there should be more of them. Quite a number have been established in different areas but we badly need more. If a boy or girl does not go any farther than the primary school, the education he receives is not sufficient for the world of today. It is essential that our boys and girls in the vocational schools obtain the group certificate so that they may become apprentices and learn a trade. Consider the position of our people down through the years who have had to emigrate. For the want of a trade, they had to carry the hod for every foreigner. I am glad something is being done in that matter.

There are just a few minor matters to which I should like to refer. In regard to school texts, I understand that it very often happens that one or two chapters are added to a textbook and the book is issued as a new text, which imposes a further expense on the parents. Both in the primary and secondary schools, the cost of books is very high and where a large family is going to school, it is very important that such expenses should be kept as low as possible. I would ask the Minister to have his Department look into that matter.

Another point is that I cannot understand why in our college of commerce, boys and girls may go for their Leaving Certificate but cannot take Latin for a subject. If they want Latin, they must go outside to study it. I would ask the Minister to rectify that position as soon as possible because these boys and girls being educated for the Leaving Certificate should be in a position to have Latin taught to them there. I mentioned this matter a year ago on this Estimate but there does not seem to have been any improvement in the position.

I also maintain that the rudiments of civics should be taught in every primary school and that in the vocational school and in the secondary school, there should be a proper course of civics, a subject which is very necessary at present. I hope something can be done in this regard. Deputy O'Donnell referred to a matter about which I have thought for many years, having taught in a two-teacher school for years. It is not possible for a teacher in a two-teacher school, no matter how excellent, to give the pupils the same advantages as the pupils in a larger school receive, say, a city school where there is one teacher to one class. If you take the ordinary two-teacher school, the assistant has infants, first and second class, and the principal has third class, fourth class, fifth class, sixth class and often the seventh class. He cannot give those children the same high standard as can be given in the larger city schools.

Therefore I would ask the Minister if it would be possible to have parish lay schools in which one school in a parish might have five, six or seven teachers and where there would be one teacher to one class. This would be to the advantage of the children in rural parts and we must consider these children as well as the children in the city schools. There might be some objections to this but my interest is to see that the children will get the benefit of it.

At present secondary schools are, if you like, in private hands, but nevertheless some moneys should be given to the people in charge of them in the matter of building schools. Side by side with that, we should have a number of lay secondary schools. That is very important because up to the present our secondary schools have been found wanting in mathematics, modern languages and science. The Minister has made some impovement in this matter.

I do not propose to discuss the Irish language because I expect that in due course a day or two will be devoted in the Dáil to discussing the report of the Commission on the language. It is very necessary that irrespective of our political affiliations, we should have an opportunity to discuss our language, how best it can be revived and how best to get the people speaking it as they spoke it in years gone by. I am looking forward to the day when this will be discussed.

I congratulate the Minister sincerely on what he has done and what he is doing. It was a pleasure for some of us connected with vocational education in this city to have been present at the international competition for apprentices at which we had boys from places as distant as Japan. It was grand to see children of our own schools being able to compete. I should like to say that it would not have been possible to have had such a success if it had not been for the Minister and it is only fair that he should be thanked.

Mr. Colley

Tá níos mó ná bliain ann ó bhí Meastachán na Roinne Oideachais ós comhair na Dála cheana. Ar an ócáid sin labhair mé go gairid—bhuel, cuíosach gairid ar aon nós. Tá mé chun cuid de na rudaí a dúirt mé an t-am sin a rá arís. Níl leithscéal dhá gabháil agam faoi sin mar ceapaim gur fiú na rudaí seo a rá.

Dúbhras cheana—agus táim dhá rá arís—go bhfuil an post is tábhachtaí sa Rialtas ag an Aire Oideachais, ní amháin de bhárr na tábhachta a bhaineann leis don am atá le teacht ach de bhárr an méid is féidir a dhéanamh anois.

Anois, ba mhaith liom gearán a dhéanamh arís mar a rinne mé cheana faoi thuarascáil na Roinne. Ní thuigim cén fá go gcaithfidh sí bheith chomh déanach san. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil sí as dáta tuairim is trí bliana agus go bhfuil leagadh amach leamh air. Táim ag iarraidh ar an Aire arís rud a dhéanamh chun tuarascáil trí no cheithre bliana a thabhairt le chéile agus a thabhairt amach ag an am gcéanna. As sin amach d'fhéadfaí an rud a choimeád in ord agus b'fhéidir go bhféadfaí an tuarascáil a dhéanamh níos tarraingtí agus níos éascaí a léamh ná mar atá sí anois. Ba cheart go mbeadh na fíricí agus na figiúirí le fáil go lua, go díreach nuair atá siad fáite amach ag an Roinn mar tá tábhacht ag baint leo.

Bhíos ag éisteacht le cainteóirí ón Phartaí Fine Gael agus ón Lucht Oibreachais agus iad araon ag rá go dteastaíonn uathu go mbeadh caoi ag gach páiste a fhéadfadh buntáiste a bhaint as, árd-oideachas a bheith aige agus iolscolaíocht cuimsithe annsin. Dár ndóigh, táimíd ar an dtaobh seo den tuairim chéanna faoin rud sin ach tuigim ón méid a chloisim ó Fhine Gael agus ón Lucht Oibreachais go gceapann siad go bhféadfaí é sin a chur i bhfeidhm ar an bpointe. Nuair a chloisim sin, measaim go mbhféidir nach bhfuil mórán smaoineamh déanta ag na cainteoirí seo ar an gceist.

Ní chloisim riamh aon trácht ón na cainteoirí seo ar conus is féidir líon na múinteóirí a mhéadú i gcionn bliana agus líon na scoileanna a mhéadú. Do bheadh i bhfad níos mó múinteoirí agus scoileanna ag teastáil chun an scéim sin a chur i bhfeidhm.

Tá rud eile níos tábhachtaí ná sin. Dá mbeadh an córas i bhfeidhm go mbeadh sé de cheart ag páiste ar bith árd-oideachas a fháil a bhféadfadh buntáiste a bhaint as, tá sé soiléir go mbeadh sé riachtanach líne a tharrac agus ar thaobh amháin bheadh na daoine a gheobhadh árd-oideachas ar chostas an Stáit agus ar an dtaobh eile, na daoine nach raibh sáthach maith le dul ar aghaidh chun árdoideachas a fháil. Cá h-áit a cuirfear an líne sin? An mbeidh scrúdú 11 plus againn? Tá cuid againn nach bhfuil sásta leis sin. Níl me féin sásta in a thaobh. Tá droch-cháil air agus sílim go bhfuil an droch-cháil tuillte ag an 11 plus. Conus a déanfar an deighilt seo?

Tá ceist eile ann. An bhfuilimíd chun bac a chur ar dhuine dul ar aghaidh i gcóir árd-oideachais gí nár éirigh leis san scrúdú a shocrófar chun fháil amach cé hiad na daoine is dócha a bhainfeadh buntáiste as árdoideachas? Cad mar gheall ar na daoine a theipeann orthu san scrúdú san agus go dteastaíonn ón a dtuismitheoirí go rachaidís ar aghaidh agus atá sásta íoc as mar a deintear i láthair na huaire? An ligfear dóibh siúd dul ar aghaidh chun árdoideachas a fháil? Ceapann a lán daoine gur cóir go ligfí ach má deirimid sin an bhfuilimid sásta go leor airgid a chur ar fáil chun na háiteacha a bheith ann, chun na múinteoirí agus na scoileanna breise a chur ar fáil? An bhfuilimid chun na daoine gur theip orthu sa scrúdú a fhagáil amach nó má ligtear isteach iad an mbeidh ar a dtuismitheoirí ní amháin an gnáchostas atá ann anois a íoc ach costas an méid a tugtar anois mar deontaisí de gach saghas ón Stát?

Ceist an-dhoimhin agus an-dheacair í sin. Níl m'aigne féin déanta suas uirthí ach is grán liom éisteacht le daoine ag cur na rudaí seo faoinár mbráid agus gan tagairt ar bith a dhéanamh dos na ceisteanna seo, gan trácht ar réiteach na gceisteanna sin a bheith ar fáil.

Táimse i bhfábhar árd-oideachas a bheith ar fáil do pháiste ar bith gur féidir leis buntáiste a bhaint as ach níl mé sásta go bhfuil na fadhbanna a bhaineann le sin réitithe fós agus, fiú amháin, níl siad scrúdaithe againn.

One of the difficulties——

Mr. Coogan

Cad a thárla?

Mr. Colley

An rud a thárla ná go bhfuil daoine áirithe sa Teach nach dtuigeann Gaeilge. B'fhéidir go mba mhaith leis an Teachta thall go labharfainn as Gaeilge. Déanfaidh me socrú leis. An chéad uair a dheineann seisean óráid iomlán as Gaeilge sa Teach, déanfaidh me é sin ar aon ábhar is mian leis.

Mr. Coogan

An mbeidh an blas ag an Teachta?

Mr. Colley

Tá blas Bhaile Átha Cliath agam agus táim mórdhálach as. Labharfadh mé ar sin ar ball.

As I was saying, in regard to the debate in the Department of Education, we have come by force of circumstance, convention, tradition and administrative arrangement to regard the Minister for Education as having another portfolio which is never mentioned officially, that is, Minister for Irish. That is unfortunate because the Minister, purely as Minister for Education, has his hands full and indeed any Minister for Irish would have his hands full, too. However, for the various reasons I have mentioned, it so happens that the question of the Irish language and the Irish revival comes up for discussion every year on the Estimate for the Department of Education.

I do not propose to go into the details of the language revival in this debate. We shall get an opportunity in the relatively near future of discussing the whole matter arising out of the Report of the Commission and the Government White Paper which will be issued in due course. However, there are certain things I feel I should say. I said before, and I want to repeat, that I accept without question that the Fine Gael Party as a Party are genuinely concerned to see that the Irish language is revived but I do not understand the attitude they adopt towards the revival. I can well understand that they would be dissatisfied with the progress or the lack of progress, and would endeavour to produce some new approach. The approach they have produced is, in my opinion weak on almost every count and shows a lack of logic which, if not surprising, is certainly significant.

As I understand the attitude of the Fine Gael Party, they say that the whole idea of compulsion is retarding the progress of the Irish language. They want to do away with this and they believe that doing away with compulsion will help the language. That is, of course, a tenable point of view. It has been very ably argued on many occasions. The question is, however, as to how they propose to implement this: by insisting that Irish not alone be taught in all the schools but be compulsory in all the examinations except the Leaving Certificate; by insisting that Irish be compulsory in all Civil Service examinations other than those for technical positions.

I may have misunderstood the Fine Gael Party policy, but I do not think I have. As I understand it, that is what their proposal amounts to in essence. It seems to me quite illogical to talk about the dreadful effects of compulsion and, at the same time, provide as a remedy something that takes a very small degree of the compulsion out, leaving the bulk of it there. Either you believe in compulsion or you do not. If you believe in it then surely you should go the whole way. If you do not believe in it, then surely you should go the whole way, take it all away, and leave it entirely to voluntary effort. This business of being half one way and half the other is doing no good, in my opinion, to Irish, and, if I may respectfully suggest so to the members opposite, it is doing no good to the Fine Gael Party.

There is another line taken by many Fine Gael speakers in discussing Irish and the new Fine Gael approach to the subject. We had it from Deputy P. O'Donnell here when he led off for the Opposition. The speakers refer to the voluntary bodies working for the revival of Irish and they mention Comhaltas Uladh, Gael Linn and others. They say how much they admire the work being done by these people. They suggest that, if all the efforts of the Government were directed along these lines, the language position today would be much more favourable than it is. The strange thing is that they admit that these people whom they admire are really familiar with what the problem is. They suggest the Government might have something to learn from them. But not one of these groups has ever indicated that they agree with the Fine Gael approach to the revival of Irish. In fact, a number have indicated that they disagree with that approach.

I should like to quote now a leaflet issued by Gael Linn just before the last general election. They issued leaflets with a statement from the Fianna Fáil Party, a statement from the Fine Gael Party, and a statement from the Labour Party with regard to their attitude towards Irish. They quoted a speech made by Deputy Dillon on 3rd October, 1961, and they added this note:

In view of the fact that in the foregoing, and in other Fine Gael preelection speeches, reference was made to Gael Linn, we had to clarify our position in the following statement issued on October 3rd.

Gael Linn does not wish to be involved in Party political controversy, especially at election-time, and, therefore, we did not so far comment on Mr. J.M. Dillon's recent Party statement in relation to Irish, although Mr. Dillon in that statement expressed the hope that we would approve of his proposals. It has now come to our information that certain people believe that Fine Gael have our support seeing that Mr. Dillon has again, in a broadcast and elsewhere, referred to us. This is not so. Gael Linn has consistently advocated a more enlightened and progressive policy towards Irish. Unfortunately Mr. Dillon's proposals cannot be regarded as such.

The Fine Gael Party would, I believe, serve a much more useful purpose from their own point of view, and particularly from the point of view of the language revival, if they would concentrate their dissatisfaction with the present position on constructive remedies.

While there are many points on which one can make suggestions, there are two basic problems to which we require solutions. One is the undoubted and appalling fact that, having spent so many years at school learning Irish, many of our children emerge, even from the Leaving Certicate with honours, unable to speak the language. That clearly is something about which something must be done, and quickly. The other major problem is that, even when children have learned to speak Irish, when they leave school the majority of them do not speak it and do not get any opportunity to speak it. These are two major problems retarding the revival of Irish. If the Fine Gael Party have constructive proposals to make in these matters, the country will be very grateful to them.

I want to criticise now something Deputy P. O'Donnell said in this debate. I have heard him make the same statement on other occasions. From something Deputy Coogan said, I think Deputy Coogan agrees with Deputy O'Donnell. Deputy O'Donnell objects to what he describes as Civil Service Irish. He seems to be of the opinion that Irish which is not used every day in the Gaeltacht is not Irish at all: it is made up and no one should listen to it.

Mr. Coogan

The people in the Gaeltacht would not understand the Deputy.

Mr. Colley

They do understand me. I am understood in every Gaeltacht in the country. Now as I have said, Deputy O'Donnell objects to this Irish. That type of objection betrays an appalling lack of confidence in the revival of the language. It also conveys to me the idea that Deputy O'Donnell is not in touch with the problem. Surely, if one wants to revive Irish, one cannot expect that the language will simply be that used in a remote rural area. Such a language is necessarily limited to the needs of the people living in the area. A modern, living language must be capable of dealing with every aspect of the twentieth century in an urban environment. To accept Deputy O'Donnell's contention would be to condemn Irish to being confined for evermore to a language used in a remote rural area. One is entitled, I suppose, to take that view but one is not entitled, on that view, to expect to see Irish revived. It is perfectly obvious that the revival must come from Dublin, not from the Gaeltacht, or anywhere else. This idea may be new to Deputy Coogan. I advise him to start thinking about it.

There is, of course, a danger. It has been a danger for a considerable time. You have people coming from the Gaeltacht to Dublin behaving as if Irish were their own personal property. The Irish language is the heritage of all the Irish people, including my constituents in Dublin North-East, and I will not concede to anybody from any Gaeltacht area that he has any greater right to the language than the people in Dublin have. Anybody thinking logically about the matter must see that, if Irish is to be revived, it can be revived only if Irish is spoken in the larger centres of population, and particularly in Dublin. I am not saying that the Gaeltacht is not important. It is of the greatest importance. If it dies before we can get Irish to take on in the rest of the country, we are in grave danger of losing the language entirely. But to imagine Irish can be revived as long as the Gaeltacht is kept alive is just chasing rainbows.

To finish on the subject of Irish, on which I have spent more time than I intended, we all realise the problem is that our children are coming out of school unable to speak Irish, although they can write and read it. The Minister took an important step by introducing the oral Irish test in the Leaving Certificate some years ago. I know the administrative problems involved, but I want to urge on him the absolute priority of bringing in oral Irish tests for the Intermediate Certificate and Primary Certificate so long as that examination is held.

We must concentrate on teaching our children to speak the language. The rest can follow. We are not doing that at the moment. It is true to say that the standard of oral Irish among many of our children—and, I think, it follows, the standard of teaching—is absolutely appalling. When you can find children who have been learning Irish for years but are unable to put a sentence together, there is something wrong somewhere. I want to urge the Minister to take every step possible to deal with that, even to the extent of considering in the Leaving Certificate for a certain number of years making the passing of the oral Irish examination compulsory and the passing of the written part of the examination not compulsory. I would go so far in an effort to ensure we teach the children to speak Irish, which is the most important and first step in reviving the language.

To leave that subject, I want to say a word about the comprehensive schools the Minister announced some time ago. I regard the Minister's proposals on comprehensive schools as representing a vital break-through in our efforts to modernise and improve our educational system. Many people imagine the Minister has produced something absolutely revolutionary. Indeed, certain aspects of this show a most refreshing approach to the whole problem of education and a complete change from what we have been used to.

I want to make a point which may not be generally realised. What the Minister is doing is extending a natural growth. I know of cases in certain areas where the secondary and vocational schools have been cooperating in the provision of classes. The comprehensive school is simply extending and putting on an official and regular basis a process naturally occurring at present. Apart from the intrinsic educational merits of the comprehensive schools, one of the great virtues I see in them is that they constitute a considerable weapon in the effort to break down the snob value of the secondary schools which undoubtedly exists. No matter how good a vocational school is, an adjoining secondary school has a social value far in excess of it.

For this reason, and because I hope the comprehensive schools will help to break down this barrier, I want to ask the Minister to reconsider part of his proposal. He proposes that as a result of the comprehensive schools, some of the students would obtain a technical Leaving Certificate. I want to urge him to take a different approach to this and to ensure that the ordinary Leaving Certificate available at present will be the one obtained by any student from the comprehensive school, whether he takes the technological subjects or not. There is no reason why the Leaving Certificate should not be a general certificate available to any student. One student might major in the Humanities, another in science and another in business and commerce. But when a student finishes, he should have the same certificate as any other student. Where the subjects are common—for instance, in the case of the basic subjects like Irish, English, and, perhaps, mathematics — the actual examination papers should be the same for all classes of these students. The certificate issued should be the same, so that somebody who goes to a comprehensive school will finish up with a Leaving Certificate that is of exactly the same standard as somebody who goes to a secondary school and finishes up with a Leaving Certificate. This is of great psychological and social importance. Indeed, it may have certain educational merits, and I am not aware of any demerits educationally. Therefore, I would urge the Minister to consider this aspect.

I think the reason for the Minister's proposal is that he has in mind a certain amount of screening at Intermediate Certificate level. Insofar as there is to be screening, has the Minister considered what standards will be laid down and whether they will be made public—the standards by which it will be decided that a particular student is more suited to one branch than another? It is important to know what test will be applied. Having laid down the test, it is also important that it is not imposed on anybody, that it is simply made available, that people are told they are fitted for this or that but that nobody can force somebody to take a particular course.

One of the revolutionary aspects of the statement by the Minister on comprehensive schools was in regard to the psychological tests that would be involved. This is an excellent idea, very badly needed. I wonder are there sufficient qualified people in the country to conduct these tests? I should like to be sure that the tests to be applied will be based on standardised tests related to the children of this country and not tests related to other countries. I know it has been found that when such tests were applied here, they did not suit our children. By certain tests prepared in Britain and America, all our children would appear to be sub-normal. That is obviously not so. The reason is that the tests used were not related to the standards in this country. There is a good deal of technical and scientific work to be done in this regard. This might entail the setting up of some kind of psychological research institute which would prepare these tests, standardise them, grade them and interpret the results, all of which is a very specialised occupation. If the Minister would consider this, I would hope he would have in mind ultimately the extension of these psychological and aptitude tests to all our schools.

I should like to see them conducted at intervals of a year or two years from the time the child starts going to school, so that we could have all these reports available, have them assessed by someone competent to do so, and have the results of the assessment, together with the teachers' reports, and the examination results, all made available to the parents when the child finished school, so that the parents could decide where the child should go, what direction he should take, and whether he was likely to succeed in that direction. It goes without saying that this should simply be advice to the parents, and not compulsion on anyone. There are great possibilities in that if the Minister could develop it, and perhaps, arising out of the work of the compulsory schools, he might lay the foundation for its extension to all schools.

I have referred to parents once or twice and I want to say that, in my opinion, a lot of lip-service is paid to the primary rights and duties of parents in regard to education. I do not think it unfair to say that interest by parents in education is actively discouraged by the teachers, the churches and the Department.

Mr. Corish

It is not encouraged.

Mr. Colley

Indeed, they are regarded as interlopers. That is a shocking state of affairs, especially in a Christian country where we are taught, as part of our religion, that the obligation, the responsibility and the right of educating one's children is vested primarily in the parents, and that the State has no right to interfere except to lay down certain specific standards. That is basic teaching in regard to this matter, but how does it work out in practice?

As I say, in the main, parents are regarded as interlopers. I know this is a very vexed question, but it is one about which I feel very strongly. I am sure Deputy Barron will have a fit, as a teacher, when he hears what I have to say next. I feel that the Minister should take active steps to encourage the foundation of parents' committees. I know the Minister is certainly not opposed to that idea. He has dealt with this problem before, but I rather have the impression that he said: "I certainly am not standing in the way of anyone forming parents' committees," but I want to urge him to actively encourage them. They will be unable to succeed unless the Minister pushes them.

Grave difficulties are involved, particularly for the teachers and managers and others, but these committees have worked in other countries, and in certain parts of this country in certain schools. If their rights are laid down clearly at the beginning, and if where they can go is laid down, I feel there is a great potential for good in the formation of such committees. The parents would know what the teachers are trying to do, and what their aim is in regard to particular subjects. The teachers would get the co-operation of the parents which is so necessary to get the best out of the children. I have no doubt many parents' committees would provide the teachers with many facilities which they are crying out for at the moment, and which they do not see themselves getting to aid them for many years.

I do not want to see the parents' committees used, as some are, solely as fund-raising committees. That is a separate function. Deputy Byrne spoke about that, and there is a lot to be said for his point of view. If you want a fund-raising committee, let it be a fund-raising committee and do not call it a parents' committee.

Deputy Barron urged some form of integration between the various branches of education. I heartily agree with him. I think all the branches of education, primary, secondary, vocational and university, should be integrated and work together in a centrally designed plan, if you like. The resources of this country are far too small to be squandered on this kind of duplication, overlapping and competition which goes on at present, in some cases.

One example, which I understand is becoming less common, is that in certain primary schools, children are kept on to do an unnecessary year's work for some reason about the average and not letting them into the vocational schools. This usually happens where secondary schools are not available. I understand steps have been taken and that it is less frequent, but it is the kind of thing that should not happen. Children should come first and not the situation of the primary school involved. If there were co-operation between all branches of our educational system, that could not happen, and automatically when the child had finished in primary school, he would go into the next branch, whichever it was.

In my opinion, the secondary school course is geared, officially and practically, to the universities and the seminaries but, in fact, the majority of our secondary school students do not go to the universities or the seminaries. For that reason, I want to urge again on the Minister what I mentioned a while ago, that he should consider dividing up the Leaving Certificate in such a way that one could major in the Humanities and science, or in business and industry and commerce into which most of our secondary school students go. They leave school utterly and absolutely untrained for business. If most of them are to go into business, why should they be sent out almost as labourers in this field?

Do not misunderstand me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am not against a liberal education, but I am against education being provided on such a liberal basis that the majority of our secondary school students become the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in the commerce field. For that reason, I want to see the secondary schools making provision in the Leaving Certificate for those who want an opportunity of doing a major examination in business and commerce, and also taking papers at a minor level in the other branches I mentioned, the Humanities and science. That would involve reducing the marks for the classics. It would also involve getting the universities to alter some of their entrance requirements.

Some people may say I am urging interference with the autonomy of the universities. I do not think I am, but if I am, I still urge it. I believe the universities have a moral and social obligation. Even if they never got any money from the State, they would have that obligation, but they get such substantial sums from the State that the Minister is entitled to expect that our whole educational system, including the universities and their entrance requirements, should be co-ordinated.

I understand that examinations in secondary schools have to be held on particular dates in order to tie in with the requirements of the universities. That kind of thing is wrong. There should be no doubt—and it should be made quite clear—that this House feels the Minister has a right and a duty to ensure in regard to the universities, or anywhere else, that the syllabus and the entrance requirements are regulated and tied in with the rest of the educational system, and not to have the whole thing working in separate compartments and nobody knowing in the one what is being done in the other until the unfortunate student comes up against it.

There is another matter I want to mention. There seems to be a certain doubt where in a particular area a primary school is needed as to who is supposed to take the initiative to have that school provided. I probably know more about it than the average person, but it seems to me, too, that in practice the Department may agree there should be a school in an area, the parents may agree, but if the putative manager is disabled or old and does not want to take on the burden— and it is a considerable burden—you may find that area going without a school for many years.

This is something which I am afraid just cannot be tolerated any longer. I am not saying it is happening all over the country, but it is happening in certain areas and it is serious enough to merit protest in this House. I am urging the Minister to take whatever steps are necessary to see it does not continue. The position is that in theory the Department can do something but in practice it is very difficult for them. That being so, I would urge the Minister to see what further powers he needs to deal with the matter easily.

Mr. Corish

I think I even know the area.

Mr. Colley

I am not speaking of one area.

Mr. Corish

I am sure the Deputy's remarks are influenced by that experience, and the Minister knows it, too.

Mr. Colley

With regard to the training of teachers, I would urge, as I have done before, that the aim should be that our primary and secondary teachers, perhaps all our teachers, should have a university degree, plus the level of teaching training the primary teacher now has, because I think the primary teacher gets a much better training and teaching than anybody else, though not a university degree. We should aim at a combination of the two, or at least on a greater degree of interchangeability among teachers.

It can, and, I think, does, happen in secondary schools that a teacher with a degree who is qualified in certain subjects teaches subjects in which he is not qualified at all. This is something that should not be tolerated and I would ask the Minister to consider remedying it. Would it mean the employment of many more teachers or would it mean just a small number of extra teachers? I am sure the Minister has already considered this, and would he therefore tell us what would be involved in providing a system in which no teacher would teach in secondary schools subjects in which he is not qualified.

Many of our primary schools are small one- or two-teacher schools. The effect of this is that each teacher is teaching perhaps two or three classes. I understand the primary teacher, despite the good training he gets, is not trained in the art of teaching more than one class at a time. If this is so, I would urge that some training be given to primary teachers to deal with that situation, because there must be a different technique involved. It may be that urging this is a confession of failure but the fact is that a majority of our schools are one- or two-teacher schools and we have got to have our teachers geared to deal with that situation until we are able to change it.

There have been complaints about the methods of teaching history. I do not want to go into all the pros and cons but I would urge the Minister to give serious reconsideration to the whole approach to the teaching of history. When I went to school—and I do not think the system has changed in the meantime—we spent a very long time learning early history, remote history from 1000 A.D. to about 1700 or 1800, and very little of history from 1800 on.

Dr. Browne

Does the Deputy not agree with Napoleon that history is all bunk?

Mr. Colley

No, I do not.

Dr. Hillery

Anyway, it was Henry Ford said it.

Mr. Colley

The Minister should consider having the teaching of Irish and world history confined to a more recent date, say, the last three or four hundred years, and let the more early history be dealt with at the advanced levels, even in the universities. The amount of time children spend learning what happened, or is alleged to have happened, in Ireland before Christ, is, I think, most unsatisfactory.

In the situation in which we find ourselves to-day, management training is something we are all agreed is essential, but as far as I know a boy who leaves secondary school and decides he wants to train as a manager has not got a course to go to there and then. It may be the Minister would consider whether management courses would be provided to which a boy could go soon after leaving secondary school when he had made up his mind he wanted to study the subject which is a very complicated one.

Another related matter, which is referred to from time to time and urged on the Minister, is the question of career guidance. We had a report some time ago from the Council of Education on this subject which I can only describe as lamentable and completely out of touch with the position.

At this stage I do not urge the Minister to do anything elaborate in the matter of career guidance but I would commend to him the system which is used in Northern Ireland where simple leaflets are issued to the children telling them a little about the various jobs but mainly telling them what jobs exist. The children here do not know what jobs exist for which they will be suitable and accordingly I would urge that this basic information be provided.

I would urge also that some form of general science course be made essential for all students. It is now generally agreed that some basic knowledge of science is essential for the ordinary man of the 1970s. We should start providing it now. It does not have to be an elaborate course.

Now I come to the old chestnut the Minister has had before—that of civics. I know the Minister is interested in this and I feel we could combine with civics such things as a critical appreciation of music, of films, of television and the development of a critical faculty in regard to most subjects, one of the things we lack very much.

This is something that can come only from the education provided in our schools. It is a long term thing. A combination of civics and the development of a critical faculty is something which might be more effectively attempted in schools television than in any other form and the Minister might consider this as one of the subjects to be provided in the new television programme for schools.

As the Minister is well aware, there have been considerable changes in the teaching of mathematics and even in the type of mathematics taught in other countries. The Minister showed considerable foresight some years ago in sending teachers and others to the United States to study these courses. I take it, it was as a result of that that the proposal he had for changing the course came about. I shall not enter into the pros and cons of whether that was properly prepared or not but I urge the Minister to urge his Department to be a little elastic about mathematics. There are various methods in vogue at the moment for teaching mathematics and in one of these I became very interested. It is known as the Trachtenberg method which, no matter how admirable its features, could not be taught in our schools at present as it does not conform to the Department's requirements. The net effect is the same: you learn mathematics but you learn them in a different way. I urge the Minister if he gets a proposal from a competent teacher who wants to use some of these methods and if he is satisfied about the reliability of the method, although it is not used in this country, to allow the teacher to use it and, indeed, should show considerable interest in it and apply various tests to see whether it is better than the existing methods we use.

On the question of extending the school year, particularly in the senior classes, I know this is a subject dear to the Minister's heart and I think most people agree that the amount of time for which the schools, particularly the senior schools, are closed is indefensible. I assure the Minister that he has the support of most thinking people and, I think, of most members of the public in trying to ensure that the classes are considerably extended so that more time will be spent in class than at present.

Finally, I shall mention a matter arising out of a seminar I attended some time ago, at which the Minister presided for portion of the time, and which some members of the House also attended. Two things struck me and I have been making inquiries since about them and I understand there is reason for advocating them.

There may be some doubt whether this is a matter for the Minister but, to some extent, it certainly is because much of the research is carried out in universities. Some of it may come under the Department of Industry and Commerce. I suggest that where people find themselves doing basic research, they should not have to spend perhaps many months, or a great deal of effort in ascertaining whether the particular research they are given to do has not already been done in some part of the world. There are certain fields in which it is impossible to find out and the only remedy I can see is to set up some sort of central technical library where anybody can discover what research has been done and what results are available. This might be expensive but in the long run it will be an economy because we should not have people wasting research grants doing work—first, having to look to see if the work has been done or not— which has already been done. This is unnecessary duplication which we cannot afford. It would be money well spent to set up a central technical library which will make available to everybody engaged on research information about what work has been done, what stage has been reached and what has still to be done.

Allied to that, I suggest the formation of a central information service to make information available on the availability of research grants and scholarships. There are many of these available, particularly from the US, and I think the information should be available to students so that some brilliant student who might avail of one of these if he knew of them will not take a job instead just as if these facilities did not exist. One of the bright young men who avail of these grants may turn out to be another Einstein. Since these facilities are available, we should take advantage of them and our students should know of their existence and have an opportunity of applying for them.

This is one of the most exciting times we could have in education. The challenge is very great but the prizes are greater still. It is a great consolation to me and many others to know that at this time the Minister in charge of education is far-sighted and clear-thinking and realises that education involves the development of the whole mind, physically, mentally, morally and socially. What is most required here in addition to the qualities I have mentioned is strong leadership and I think the Minister has shown he is capable of giving it. He may have to show even stronger leadership in the future. I feel confident that if he does, he will get full support from all sides of the House.

Mr. Coogan

Many Deputies have stressed the importance of what is not taught in our schools.

Mr. Colley

As Gaeilge.

Mr. Coogan

Fan noimeat. An dtuigeann tú í? An bhfuil an blas agat? It is well to teach the different subjects but one of the most important things is to teach road sense first. It is wonderful for our children to have languages and degrees but if they are crippled for life, what good is it? We cannot overstress the importance of road sense. We can see the great work done by some teachers in the behaviour in the children coming home from school when they walk on the right hand side of the road facing the traffic. The Minister should encourage that type of teaching in other parts of the country.

Physical culture is also very important and so is civic spirit, which is greatly lacking today. A great deal could be done with the children in school. First aid is also important and, while I know a certain amount of it is being taught, I think the instruction should go further in that regard. The curriculum may be overloaded but, if so, use might be made of television to teach such subjects on one or two nights a week. It would be a very suitable medium.

I have mentioned here before the importance of career guidance. Parents as well as children have to be guided to prevent a square peg being put into a round hole, to see that the right job is filled by the right child. I would ask the Minister to do all he can in that regard.

On the question of the Irish language. I was amazed to hear the last speaker saying that the revival would have to start from Dublin. I have often listened to Irish speakers from Dublin and the native speakers of Irish who were present had not a clue as to what they were talking about. If you want to save the language, it is important to start, not in Dublin, but in the Gaetacht. It is imperative that the native speakers should be retained in this country. The cradle of the language, the Gaeltacht, is being denuded. There is no use in talking about what will be done or what has been done. Until such time as the people in the Gaeltacht can be assured of a livelihood in the Gaeltacht, I would suggest they should be taught English, that they should be prepared for the British market to which they are going, so that they will not be the carriers of the hod all the time. People from the Gaeltacht come into the town of Galway and they have not a word of English. They come in to acquire a knowledge of English in order to fit themselves for the English market. I have ample evidence of that.

The Irish speakers in this country are comprised as to 75 per cent of native speakers, as to 15 per cent of enthusiasts and as to ten per cent of the greatest hypocrites this world ever produced, who are cashing in on the language and killing it. But for the good work being done by the few enthusiasts, I do not think there would be much Irish spoken.

I smiled when I heard the Deputy say a minute ago that the revival would have to come from Dublin. For the past ten years, since I was first elected to the Dáil, I have not heard a word of Irish spoken in the streets of Dublin. If I tried to find somebody who spoke the language, I would find that it was some well-paid official who spoke it or somebody who had to learn Irish for his job. Is mór an náire go bhfuil an scéal amhlaidh. Day in and day out, constituents of mine who cannot speak a word of English come in to me. They feel embarrassed when they come into the town of Galway. They feel more embarrassed still when they have to emigrate. It is an awful situation that many of them could not even go to confession in England, that the priest had to follow them out in order to cater for them. If a man's soul has to be saved as well as his life he is entitled to have at least a smattering of English. We fight an uphill battle, sandwiched as we are between two English-speaking countries. That may not have been of such importance 30 years ago but now when distance is measured in minutes and hours, it assumes greater significance. If you want to save the language, save the Irish speakers.

The report on the Irish language reminds me of the kiss of life, an effort to revive. It reminds me also of locking the stable door when the horse is gone. After 30 years of Fianna Fáil great effort, what progress have we made? I heard more Irish spoken 30 years ago in the town of Galway than I hear in five years now. If I wanted to hear the national language spoken, I would have to go deep into my constituency. There is more Irish spoken to-day in Coventry and Birmingham than there is in the entire Gaeltacht. That is due to Fianna Fáil policy. It is the result of what they were going to do for the people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not debate that on the Estimate.

Mr. Coogan

I know that is a sore point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Whether it is sore or not, it is irrelevant.

Mr. Coogan

Let us consider the position of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to the Irish language. Take the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil. Start with the Taoiseach. I should like to know how much Irish the Taoiseach has. I would safely say that half of the members on the Front Bench cannot speak Irish. I would say that about 15 per cent of the backbenchers cannot speak Irish. I do not say that they are all failures in that respect. There are many of them who call themselves "Seán" who were called "Jack" and "John" at one time.

A grant of £5 is given to school children coming from Irish-speaking homes for proficiency in Irish. That is a good thing but it would be much better if that grant were given to childdren coming from English-speaking homes for proficiency in Irish. That would be an inducement to learn the language.

On the matter of compulsion, I want to say that you can lead an Irishman but you cannot drive him. That is where the failure of the Fianna Fáil effort lies, that is, if there is any sincerity in that effort. Let us test the sincerity. How many Deputies or Ministers in the last election put the Irish form of their names on the ballot paper? I challenge any of them. Of course that would affect their jobs. That is the Deputies' sincerity. Let us see what they will do in that regard in the coming election. Possibly,, a man with a name starting with "Z" will put the Irish form of his name on the ballot paper, if that would bring his name up to the top of the paper.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has this any relevance to the Estimate?

Mr. Coogan

I have tested the sincerity of those who are trying to teach us Irish. The trouble in this country is that Fianna Fáil have made the language a tool and have played their part in killing it. They can accept responsibility for that.

The Commission set up to report on the Irish language was like all other commissions set up to handle problems, such as the itinerancy problem, when there is a matter which it is distasteful to the Government to face up to. Then they can say: "Do not blame us for what they say; we need not adopt it if we do not like". I regret to say that in my city, where we had a full Irish-speaking battalion in the Army, one can count on one's fingers the number of Irish speakers in that battalion now. It is very regrettable agus is mór an náire é gur thánaig an lá sin. The importance of the Irish language was proved in the Congo. It saved the lives of our troops there. When wires were tapped and when information was being looked for they did not know what was being said through the medium of Irish. It is a fine thing that our language played a very important part in the fighting by our Irish troops in the Congo. I am glad that men from the First Battalion were in that fight and that the language played its part in helping them.

I welcome the Minister's statement in regard to the setting-up of a college of technology. He mentioned Galway as one of the places concerned. I can assure him he will get every support from us. He has already been invited to do it by the City of Galway Vocational Education Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member. I assure the Minister he will receive the full support of that committee and of all sections of our community.

I should like to stress again the importance of civic spirit, physical culture and road sense. If we went further and added possibly boxing, the manly art, or even judo we might have less of "The Twist", and so on. Physical culture will help to keep a lot of our youth from going soft as unfortunately there is a lot of that today.

I wish the Minister good luck in his endeavours.

Mr. Desmond

It is strange that we are discussing an Estimate for the Department of Education and that in a month or two we shall again be discussing an Estimate for the Department of Education. As so many Deputies from all Parties, including the Labour Party, have dwelt in detail on the aspects of this important Vote I think that to await the introduction of the forthcoming Estimate would be more important than a discussion of an Estimate which is now almost 12 months old. I know that that is not the fault of the Minister: perhaps it is the fault of the House. It is anything but satisfactory to find oneself discussing an ancient Estimate, as it were.

The first point I want to deal with concerns our national schools. Perhaps we shall know shortly from the Minister what progress will be made in connection with this type of school building and whether it will speed up the erection of schools in rural areas. Undoubtedly the Minister has a big task in providing adequate schools and in improving many of the others in every county. If his new proposal will help this serious situation it would be well that we should know it.

We have a serious problem as regards sanitation in many rural schools. I fail to understand why grants are not being made for this purpose. I do not hold the present Minister responsible for this position as every Minister for Education of every Government in this State seems to have adopted the line of not allowing grants for water supplies in schools.

For some years past any person can get a grant towards the cost of the installation of a water supply. Yet, the Reverend Manager must provide the money for a water supply in every school in his parish and that money must come from the parish. In most respects, conditions in schools in rural areas are good but in certain schools the sanitary conditions are appalling. The Cork County Medical Officer of Health reports on conditions in the schools. The report may point out that everything is in fairly good order in most schools but there is a question mark about sanitation. Would it be possible to form local committees? It would be of immense importance and great help if the Reverend Manager had the co-operation of a committee comprising the parents of the children of the parish and the teachers with the Reverend Manager in charge. I am sure such co-operation would be forthcoming in most parishes.

I do not suggest that the local committee should have full powers to deal with everything, far from it, but there are many instances where improvements to schools could be made without having to approach the Minister or his Department. With commonsense and an understanding of the problems, some of our schools which seem drab can be improved by voluntary effort and voluntary help.

Deputy Coogan mentioned career guidance officers. That is another aspect in which the co-operation of a local committee and a full understanding by all concerned in the parish can help. The tragedy all down the years has been that frequently the parents of a boy or girl leaving a national school do not know what the ability of their child amounts to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.