Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Wednesday, 7 Feb 1968

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education (including Institutions of Science and Art), for certain Miscellaneous Educational and Cultural Services and for payment of sundry Grants-in-Aid.

—(Minister for Education).

Mr. Lindsay

Now that we have formally established the career guidance section in all our schools we will have, as a result of the screening that must necessarily follow the proper application of any career guidance system, really good material and this brings me straightaway into the area of teacher training. Instead of the two-year period in operation I suggest there should be at least three years, and preferably four years, and I want that third or fourth year period associated with the training school in which the mechanics are done and the liberal side of the teacher's educational progress dealt with, both in the training school, in the universities or in any other school of technology that might be deemed suitable. This kind of screening should, in my opinion, be kept up all the time at all stages of the teacher's training so that he or she can be selected from the point of view of particular propensities and particular capacities. It would be very easy to extend this teacher training period by carrying on with the two years at present being operated and then sending the teacher for another year to some school. This might be described as a sort of post-graduate anti-climax because I have heard it mooted abroad that the Minister is thinking along these lines; if these lines are being considered I suggest that the idea be dropped at once because any such step would be a retrograde step in the ordinary progress of teacher training.

Having given them the four year course or, to begin with, the three year course, you would then have to give them parity of status to enable them to go into a primary, a secondary or a vocational school and, presumably, they would carry with that parity of status parity of salary, something I regard as very desirable. The children would benefit from this. The parents would be better satisfied and, by and large, as the process goes on the children would get the best available by way of teacher because the teacher, trained under the system I suggest, would then be able to choose his particular school or move from a particular class to a higher or lower class, thereby keeping up the whole process of what one might describe as integrated education.

Before I leave the primary schools, may I say that school managers in the vast majority of cases have given great service, given it voluntarily, and achieved great work. There have been some laggards, of course, but one will find them anywhere. One will find that particular type always ready to sit back and be satisfied with the minimum. But the vast majority strive after not alone the maximum but the optimum.

I want to deal now with the question of secondary and vocational education. Last year, I freely conceded that the Minister's policy vis-à-vis transport was, in fact, a better one than the one we suggested. I still think it can be improved. There are certain difficulties. These may seem to be small but they are not small to those affected. Frankly, I cannot understand a transport system being described as free when that system imposes a charge on some. That may be related to the question of forcing a particular pupil to go to a certain school. That might not always be the best thing for the pupil and I do not think one can gauge on a geographical basis what is best for all pupils going to either secondary or vocational schools or on the basis of mere finance either. If there is a bus travelling from A to B and that bus is not full, or overcrowded, I see no reason why one or two pupils should be charged for travelling on that bus merely because they elect to go to one school rather than another. There is more in it than that and, quite frankly, I do not understand it.

I should like the Minister to elaborate on this when he comes to reply because it is a matter giving rise to considerable anxiety on the part of certain parents affected by it. It is also giving rise to trouble because we, in turn, have to make representations to the Minister or CIE, or both, all of which should not be necessary. The life of a member of the Oireachtas is difficult enough without piling on areas of useless representation. There should be more time for legislative activity and less time taken up with purely administrative matters. If these things were done with a little more humanity as compared with the rigidity that operates at the moment we would have much more time at our disposal to deal with more important matters.

I am not so sure that in a country like ours, in primary, secondary and vocational schools, our educational system is geared closely enough to the family, closely enough to the rural conditions in which families live and in which pupils are brought up. The Irish Times yesterday, in a column entitled “A Social Sort of Column” by Eileen O'Brien, published an interview with Dr. Birch of Ossory, who dealt very clearly with this aspect of the school versus the rural community and the family. There is nothing in the primary school programme, or, indeed, in the secondary school programme at the moment which deals with rural life or any aspect of it. Book learning seems to be divorced from practicalities as well as realities, and though there has been a change, particularly in some subjects, vis-à-vis textbooks, I do not agree that that change, intended to bring everything up to date, has effected what it was intended to effect.

The incorporation of certain extracts from world renowned poems and world renowned authors into school textbooks has given rise to some slight controversy. Indeed, it has been the subject matter of an Adjournment literary debacle in this House as between the Minister for Education and a Deputy of my Party. If one can find in almost any of the paperbacks you can buy freely in any of the shops in this city and some of our towns the words of which complaint was made, I do not see why we cannot come out in the open with the whole thing. In this respect one cannot help touching on an element of our youth today— or juvenile delinquency as some people like to call it.

In my view—maybe this is a sort of nostalgia for youth—I have the highest regard for the youth of today, subjected as they are to all the allurements that could, if wrongfully employed, corrupt; and one cannot but marvel at how few of our youth are getting into real trouble in spite of these very persistent temptations. Some people are inclined to think that if youth, particularly those in secondary and vocational schools, and undergraduates, are assertive, are clamouring after truth, are interested in reality, are concerned with the facts of life in a genuinely interested way, they are approaching the realm of delinquency. They are not, and credit must go to the youth of this country—indeed to the youth of the world at the moment —the vast majority of whom are rejecting the temptations that are there and that could so easily destroy them.

There are, of course, adult delinquents and it is there the trouble starts. An adult delinquent can be a parent, a teacher at any level, primary secondary, vocational, university; he can be a person of influence or stature in his community. Because example is the great driving force, if example is not good and if it fails to come up to the standard it should reach, then the result cannot be favourable to the child or youth subjected to it.

Therefore, I can say truly that I am sick and tired of all those super-excellent people who band themselves together into crank communities and are decrying perpetually the activities of our youth today. Our youth is a good youth. All it needs is leadership and I am satisfied that even if it does not get the leadership it deserves there is emerging from that youth a leadership which one day will do credit to this country. Do I hear rumblings from the greatest adult delinquent in the House?

Last year I appealed to the Minister to promote this to a total demolition because the present system is bad psychologically. A means test is wrong always, whether in old age pensions, school fees, hospital maintenance or anywhere else. Anything that tends to differentiate as between citizens or children of citizens is damaging psychologically; and when one looks at the Minister's statement and notices the large percentage of books that are free one must wonder why the remaining relatively small percentage cannot be given free also. It is a question in my view of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar.

We have a peculiar position here—I use the word "peculiar" in its classification sense—in our secondary schools in regard to the staff because so many of our secondary schools are owned and run by religious communities. The religious communities would be doing themselves a very good service if they adopted that particular portion, for the moment, of our policy and gave the lay teachers positions of responsibility in various departments in their schools. There is agitation for this. Once there is agitation for something in time there must be concessions but between the beginning of an agitation and the granting of a concession feelings become ruffled and hardened and bitternesses develop, sometimes to a degree that can never be cured in a particular institution. It is for that reason that I would suggest that those positions of responsibility be made available as soon as possible.

Now, the Minister's speech, while it gives a good broad outline of the mechanics of the whole system of education as it operates here, nevertheless is silent on the concept of education generally. All its aspects, the psychology of education, the part psychology plays, are all again bound up with the teacher training. I should like to hear more of this. I should like to hear more of the plans or the planning that is going on within the Department itself. The great defect in our system is that educational planning is being done by administrators. There is no doubt the administrators in the Department of Education, as, indeed, in the higher echelons of all departments, are excellent but administration and planning, particularly planning from a carefully thought out concept are two different things. In my view it is impossible for the administrator, or group of administrators, however excellent they are in that field, to do the planning that is necessary in this Department, particularly in education. It was for that reason we suggested this unit within the department devoted entirely to planning.

There is a matter in relation to education which has been given some publicity recently and it is very important. Apart altogether from its educational facility it is important right through life. That is the question of voice training or speech therapy, or whatever you call it. I do not mean elocution, which confines itself to imposing an accent on one's ordinary speech. I am talking about speech training and the therapy of voice generally that makes more for clarity of expression. Might I refer again to the speech I made in 1955 when I referred to this very matter? On 7th July, 1955—I quote from volume 152, column 410—I said:

Another matter to which I would refer in all sincerity as a matter of some urgency is that of speech training. It is not very long ago since we in this country were renowned for a very long time previously, principally abroad and to some extent at home, as a nation of orators and as people who could not alone be heard but could be understood. I am not speaking about Members of this House, or members of local bodies or anybody else like that. I am speaking of the average person who is called upon from time to time to say a few words in public or even asked a question in the ordinary course of business. At the moment we are a nation of mumblers.

I think that is true in 1968 because nothing has been done since that time about it.

Some time last year I put down a series of questions to the Minister in this regard because there are some very dedicated people in this country who have gone to London which I understand is the nearest educational centre for getting a qualification in speech training. They have come back here and have been going to certain schools, which are able to pay them the fees, or charge the parents the fees. Now, of course, the charging of fees for extras is out and accordingly schools find themselves in the difficulty of not being able to employ those people who are available but who cannot give the service all for nothing. They must live as well as everybody else. I would strongly urge that, certainly at the beginning of secondary school education, speech training should be incorporated in the programme, either as a subject or associated with languages, so that our people from the very start would get to know the fundamentals of making themselves clear when asked to speak.

I notice that the Minister says he hopes to make some progress with regard to slow learning or retarded children. Again, in 1955, I referred to this and I notice in 1965 a commission was set up to inquire into it, 10 years later, but that commission has not so far reported. When I talk about retarded and slow learning children, I am not referring to mentally handicapped and mentally retarded children for which great work is being done and for which, of course, the Minister very properly pays tribute in his speech to the voluntary people who give of their time and money to assist those unfortunate children.

A good deal of money is being spent on the vocational schools side and that is a good thing. I do not know how well the scheme of integration, dialogue or co-operation between secondary schools and vocational schools when they exist in the same centre is going. That will have to wait for examination until we are able to assess the situation properly. Of course, it should be watched and a very sharp eve kept on it. I agree with Deputy Hogan O'Higgins here today when she said that all of the children who are over 12 or past sixth standard or who can take a bus or private transport or whatever it is and go to the local secondary school, certainly create very great problems for teachers not alone problems of space but problems of segregation from the point of view of intelligence standards. There will, of course, be a falling off every year but, nevertheless, there should be some sort of test, some sort of interview, conducted by the superior of either the boys' secondary school or the girls' secondary school or the headmaster of the vocational school in conjunction with the principal of the national school or primary school which those children are leaving.

At some stage there should be an assessment of the suitability of a child for secondary education, for vocational education or as far as intermediate certificate and, even at that stage, an assessment as to which way a child is best suited to go. Children need that help: even parents need it. It is only from the teachers that the parents can really get an assessment of their children. That is a matter that will have to be examined as the years go on and will have to be examined quickly.

Now, on the closing of schools, whether they be primary or secondary, I think there should be very full consultation locally, with the owners of the schools, the parents and the representatives of the Department. I do not think a decision should be reached merely on an inspector's report. Again, dealing with the statistical viewpoint, because the human factor is left out of it all, there are some small schools, whether primary or secondary, that would best be closed in the interests of everybody. Then there are others which I think would have a very great claim to be kept open. Above all, before children are moved from one school to another, it must be made absolutely certain that the school building to which they are being transferred is adequate to house them in easily manageable classes, that there are enough teachers there to look after them and that the sanitation is all that it should be. That is not happening in most of the changes from closed primary schools to others: in fact, there is no change at all. I would look forward to what I would term the County Kerry activity moving into parts of my constituency in North Mayo to deal with the question of the sanitation in some of the primary schools here to which extra pupils have been brought in very recent times.

We do not quarrel, by and large, with the educational process as it goes, except for the fundamental differences to which I have already referred, particularly the planning unit within the Department which, of course, is responsible to the Minister. If the Minister over-rides the suggestions of that planning unit, he is obliged to give his reasons for so doing in public either through a reply to a Parliamentary Question or in open debate in the House or, indeed, in open debate outside it.

I should now like to turn to the universities. There is great excitement; there is great confusion. Everything is happening; nothing is happening. Grants are being sanctioned but very little building is going on. I particularly want to direct the attention of the Minister to our own university in Galway for which I was very glad to note he said recently the Government have sanctioned £1,750,000. I do not doubt the Minister's word. I believe that that sanction has been given.

Mr. Corry

That is only a couple of noughts. It makes no difference to Deputy Lindsay.

Mr. Lindsay

Not at all. In fact, it is probably true. My concern is its immediate application to the purpose for which it is intended. Galway University is in urgent need of assistance. I think that attention was probably focussed upon it in the most effective way in recent times by the teach-in in Galway which the Minister and I attended, as well as many other equally important people.

Cork has its own problems. They appear to be looked after, especially as far as sanction goes. I was quite surprised recently—but not amused— to read in the Cork Examiner of 11th September, 1967, the report of a speech by the Taoiseach who, if it is not generally known, is a Corkman. Speaking in Cork and referring to the recent appointment of a President of the College in Cork, the Taoiseach, in his characteristic and disarming way, was reported as follows in the Cork Examiner of that date:

At the outset of his address Mr. Lynch said it was well known that there had been two contenders for the post of the Presidency of University College, Cork, and well known also that he had favoured the defeated candidate who had been a classmate of his own.

Maybe the Taoiseach did work for the defeated candidate. I want to deplore the intervention of a Taoiseach or Minister in the appointment of a President or in the appointment of any member of a staff of a university. University autonomy in the field of education is very nearly a sacred thing and the Taoiseach, any more than the Minister for Education or any more than myself, has no right to intervene in the appointment particularly of a President of a University College.

Then we come to the great talking point at the present time. Some people call it amalgamation; some call it a merger; some call it other things which you would not even find in the new school books, to which exception has been taken. I do not believe in the workability of a merger, as I understand a merger. I can understand what we suggest as a university authority that would assist in the co-ordination and co-operation and dialogue generally as between Trinity College and University College, Dublin.

University College, Dublin, has now virtually moved out to Belfield, has its own buildings and of course has all its faculties still. Trinity College is an extremely old institution in the centre of the city. It has played a very vital part in the history of this country, some of it creditable, some of it not so creditable, but the not too creditable part is easily understandable when you relate it to the times in which events took place. It is the university of Emmet, Tone, Douglas Hyde—one could name several others down the ages—Davis, John Blake Dillon, all of whom played a very important part in the history and development of this country which ultimately reached its natural objective in the Treaty of 1921.

Have a unit or university authority by all means to see what can be done to avoid overlapping and duplication and wasting, but leave the fabric of the two universities alone. Let each have the basic faculties that make up a university. Indeed, if I were planning at the moment and if I were giving serious consideration to this matter from an authority point of view, that is, in power, I would consider the feasibility of a third university in Dublin, and I would have it on the north side to cater for not more than 4,000 or 5,000 people, in close conjunction and collaboration, of course, with University College, Dublin, and Trinity College. In American cities there are several universities, all kept down to a minimum attendance. I think the proposal as the Minister has put it, a merger, was not a happy word, and I think it would be wrong to destroy anything that belongs either to a majority or to a minority.

University College, Dublin, has its own particular claim to a place in the history of this country: McDonagh, Pearse, Kettle, and all of these great people of that time. But, I want to make our policy perfectly clear on this question which we published on November 28th last. It says:

There has been no overall assessment of the nation's requirements in the field of university education, nor any plan to meet these requirements in a co-ordinated way. We believe that this has given rise to serious duplication of facilities, and the fragmentation of scarce resources of academic skills.... No small country can afford such unnecessary duplication, much of which arises from competing claims by University College, Dublin, and Dublin University.... The duplication of facilities requires a close co-ordination of university college facilities in Dublin, which could be secured only by the establishment of an effective policy-making university authority which would have the power to secure this co-ordination. Fine Gael proposes to secure the creation of such an effective policy-making university authority in consultation with the colleges concerned.

That is perfectly simple and a perfectly reasonable objective to which neither the authorities of University College, Dublin, nor the authorities of Trinity College could take the slightest exception. I do believe that to the word "merger" and what it connotes, exception is being taken, not spoken out openly but worked against quietly and there is where corruption starts because if there is, as it were, an underground in both of these places, the Minister might as well be hitting his head against a stone wall unless he achieves his objective by co-operation. I think he should withdraw this word "merger" as soon as possible, and that should not be too long because there must be a Fianna Fáil dinner in the next week or two.

Mr. O'Malley

Would the Deputy read, from what he has been quoting, the next two lines.

Mr. Lindsay

That is the bit about ecclesiastical difficulties? I hope the Minister does not think that I was afraid of it.

Mr. O'Malley

Why did the Deputy stop?

Mr. Lindsay

The next part of it is:

We are, of course, aware that there are at present ecclesiastical difficulties affecting the entrance of Catholics to Trinity College, and that these difficulties have contributed to the under-utilisation of Trinity College's facilities by Irish students, and to the duplication of facilities between the two Dublin University colleges. These ecclesiastical difficulties can, we believe, be overcome with the goodwill of the ecclesiastical authorities concerned, which has always been forthcoming whenever the State has actively sought it, and with the assistance of the authorities of the two university colleges involved, who are unlikely to insist on continued duplication of effort and facilities, unless the State encourages it by continuing to provide financial aid for wastefully competitive courses.

There are of course ecclesiastical difficulties but these are difficulties which, in my experience, have never constituted a hurdle which cannot be attempted. Anybody in my experience —there may be other experiences— who has asked permission from Most Reverend Dr. McQuaid from this diocese to go to Trinity College has got it, once he gave adequate reasons for so doing.

I might say in this regard that it has been fashionable not alone this year but for many years past for the neo-educationists to attack people like the Archbishop of Dublin who, in my view, is the real progressive in our Irish Hierarchy. He is a true conservative and a real progressive, and has done more for schools and school buildings in this Archdiocese than anybody would ever have dreamed of when he took this exalted office. I have nothing to get from the Archbishop and it does not mean that I am going to get anything by praising him. But I feel, and have felt for a long time, that between the pronouncements one hears in the queerest places—letters to the papers from neo-educationists, ecumenical addicts and all this strange band of happy warriors now coming together— they are inclined to forget that fundamental things must remain fundamental and the only charge they can level against this prelate is that he insists on fundamentals keeping their true status and remaining fundamentals. That does not provide any difficulty for our policy. What we have said there is equally consistent with what I have said now and we are prepared to stand by it.

The medical schools do not come within the ambit of this debate. Neither do law schools generally, except in so far as they are faculties within colleges. But I do not see anything in this Estimate to help art or the teaching of art. I do not see anything in it to make pupils understand colours, their use and blending. Recently, at the Ursuline Convent in Waterford, the Minister said he had been grossly negligent and would do something about this straight away. There is nothing in this speech to indicate he proposes to do anything in this regard. He became so romantically artistic in this convent in Waterford that he was deploring the sad treatment being meted out post mortem to the late Patrick Kavanagh, the poet, that we were only giving him a seat on the canal bank instead of a seat in the Seanad during his lifetime.

The Minister must be harking back to the days when such men were given places in the Seanad, when they were nominated by the late Mr. Cosgrave to the Seanad in recognition of their contribution to the arts and sciences and the general culture of our country. The Minister must be apologising, through the nunnery at Waterford, to the Irish people for what has happened in between. When other Prime Ministers and other Taoisigh had the opportunity of nominating to the Seanad men of culture, of learning and of industrial standing in this country, look at what they did. Mr. Cosgrave was abused for having people in the Seanad like the late Oliver Gogarty and W. B. Yeats. Mr. Costello in 1948 was abused for putting people of the standing of the late Arthur Cox and Mr. Guinness Mahon into the Seanad, representing culture and banking and industry. Look at the cricket teams nominated by the Fianna Fáil Taoisigh.

I said at the beginning of this speech that education was becoming a fashionable subject, so fashionable that it was almost on the verge of decadence. Let the Minister beware that with all his anxiety—and I accept a great deal of it as genuine anxiety and I accept him for the work he has done, but I am not prepared to accept the cant— he is not translating genuine work into cant and destroying again the hopes of the Irish people for a proper educational process.

Mr. Treacy

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an Mheastachán seo, agus ba chóir go mbeadh an chéad fhocal i dteanga ár sinnsir, an Ghaeilg. Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeachas agus mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire Oideachais as an méid atá déanta aige ar son oideachais in Éirinn. Is íontach an obair atá déanta aige, agus tá rian a chuid saothair le feiceáil ní amháin ar fud an Mheastacháin seo ach ar fud na hÉireann. Níl mórán Gaeilge agamsa, ach is cuma faoi sin. Tá dualgas orainn úsáid a bhaint as an méid Gaeilge atá againn gach am is féidir. Is cóir go mbeimís go léir ag caint Gaeilge ar an ócáid seo. Taobh amuigh de pháirtí polaitíochta, taobh amuigh de pholasaí pháirtí pholatíochta, tá an dualgas orainn go léir cuidiú le chéile chun an Ghaeilg d'aibheochaint agus an teanga a chur ar ais in Éirinn mar is dual dí. Dá dtuigeadh na daoine chomh práinneach is atá an cheist seo, do bheadh a mhalairt de scéal againn. Ach, fairíor, tá formhór muintir na hÉireann ina gcodladh sámh, gan suim acu sa Ghaeilg ná i gcultúr na tíre. Tá a lán seoiníní in ár measc go fóil.

Those of us on this side of the House are not unmindful of or ungrateful for the welcome breakthrough which has been made in our archaic and outmoded educational system, and it is undoubtedly to the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Malley, that the greatest credit belongs for this welcome breakthrough. There was never any doubt or ambiguity as to where we in the Labour Party stood in respect of this vital matter of education. We have always said that education should be free to all. From the very foundation of our Party over 50 years ago, we have stood by the firm conviction that investment in education would bring a rich and lasting reward to this nation.

We have always said that our system of education should be based not on privilege, not on the ability of the parent to pay, as it has been for so long, but on the ability of the child to benefit. We have always contended that a nation which was underdeveloped educationally would always remain underdeveloped economically, and this is as it has been in this country for the past 40 years. We neglected the most essential thing of all, the human resources of our people, their talents, and we in the Labour Party long for the day when the children of this nation will be free at last to give their talents, their energies and their genius in the service of their own country, and I emphasise "their own country". What a terrible waste it would be if the vast amount of money now being expended were to be wasted and that the exodus, the haemorrhage of emigration were to continue, if the flower of our youth on whom we are now conferring, very largely, free education, were to go abroad for a livelihood, and all that expenditure and sacrifice were to go for nought.

It would be unfortunate if we were again to face a situation where some 40,000 boys and girls who come out of our schools each year having completed their education could not find a means of livelihood, a means of applying their talents and their energies for the benefit of their own country, for the rejuvenation of this decaying economy of ours, for the greater prosperity of our country in the years ahead. While acknowledging the progress which has been made and paying due tribute to the Minister for his courage and his daring in bringing about this advance, let me say there is no room for complacency. It is not a time for jubilation or for throwing hats in the air. It is not a time for the Fianna Fáil Party, for the Minister, or even the hierarchy of his Department to form themselves into a mutual admiration society of backslappers as if all was well with our education system.

All is not well. There is a long way to go. There are still grievous defects in our educational system, and that is evidenced by the deplorable conditions in which thousands of our children are obliged to remain during their school life, in cold, damp, dilapidated, insanitary and often rat-infested school-houses, a threat to their health, schools where it is clear that it is impossible for a teacher to teach or a pupil to learn. This is a system which purports to be free, and yet the only way parents can secure free books, which are an essential ingredient in education, and a very costly one too, is by the parents and children subjecting themselves to an odious means test to ascertain whether they possess a medical card. As members of local authorities, we all know the kind of inquisition and the odious means test which apply in respect of securing a medical card. For, to secure a medical card, it must be clear that the applicant is unable, by his own industry or other lawful means, to provide a health service for himself and his family. Large numbers of people, thousands of ordinary working-class people are precluded from having their names placed on the health register. In other words, they are denied medical cards by reason of the rigid means test which the county managers apply.

It is a matter of humiliation and distress for children when this test is applied. I am appealing to the Minister to remove this blot, this stigma, from an otherwise relatively good educational system, especially when one sees evidence of a positive vested interest in respect of the supply of school books. One sees evidence of changes in books, regular changes in textbooks, which are a source of great worry and great financial cost to the parents. It is a pity the Minister did not stand up to this challenge of the vested interests in respect of the supply of school books and say it must end, and that the odious means test, this terrible embarrassment to children and parents, must be removed from the system.

With regard to the transport service, a charge is laid down for transport for certain categories of children. Worse than that, it is difficult for the ordinary layman to understand why school buses should pass little children on the road going to schools in the same town, especially on winter mornings. It is difficult to understand why these children cannot be provided with the shelter of these buses. Many of the children to whom I am referring live further away and, in many cases, their parents are poorer than the parents of the children who enjoy this free transport. I appreciate that the Minister has reasons why these children should be passed by, why they should be refused admission to these school buses, but outwardly on a cold bleak morning to see these school buses passing by little children of tender age would strike one as a very hard and very callous approach. We would hope that an arrangement could be made whereby all these children going to the same town could be provided for on the school bus.

The much-awaited break-through in respect of extra help, much needed and urgent help, for our university students has not yet been achieved. The Minister is well aware of the sacrifices which so many thousands of Irish university students are making in trying to maintain themselves at the university. The cost of digs, meals, clothing, appliances, books and so on, is a formidable impost on the student who comes, perhaps, from a poor or relatively poor family. These students are making a great sacrifice and this is an added handicap and an added burden for the poor man's child trying to get through the university today. It was hoped in this instance that the Minister would see his way to providing a decent maintenance allowance for our university students. It is a matter of deep disappointment to me and my colleagues in the Labour Party that provision has not been made on this occasion for such an essential facility.

The indiscriminate closure of schools without due regard to the wishes of the parents is a matter of concern to many of us. While believing that a larger centre of education is bound of necessity to give better facilities to the pupils, and provide them with better education, we think it behoves the Minister and the Department to consult with the parents before a closure. A position has now been created in which the Minister and his officials are taking up the attitude that they know best what suits the children, and that they will close schools despite the confirmed opinion of the parents that this ought not to be done, or that there was an alternative. I am submitting that parents have rights in matters of this kind, and that their views should be taken fully into account before a decision is made to close a school. I hope to elaborate on this matter of closures later on in my remarks with special reference to closures in my own constituency and the feelings of shock and dismay which many of those proposed closures has caused.

I was particularly pleased to see that at last there are positive proposals for the commencement of the erection of schools of technology in the spring of this year. That is something we in the Labour Party look forward to with hope and enthusiasm, because we know there is an acute shortage of skills and we hope that through the medium of the schools of technology we will find the kind of technicians, craftsmen, tradesmen and so on, we so badly require in order to make some worthwhile industrial advancement.

I also notice the amount of money which the Minister is making available to CIE for extra school buses. We are all very grateful to CIE for the way they have responded to the Minister's appeal for a school transport service and they have carried out a formidable task smoothly and efficiently. It is, however, a matter of concern to me that owners of private transport would not be considered in the provision of school buses. Many of them have been, but I know in my constituency of an owner of some excellent school buses that have not been taken up by the Department. It is difficult to understand why this is so, because in this area, which is well known to the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Davern, who has just come in, the Cashel area, there is need for an improvement in the school transport service. Yet, these excellent buses are lying idle and are not availed of, while extra moneys are being voted in this Estimate to CIE for the provision of new buses. Private enterprise should be given some recognition in this matter. I am concerned that a man of not very great means should have incurred the expense of purchasing two buses which he believed would be used by the Department for the free transport service. As yet, despite representations, certainly by myself, to the Minister, the buses are still idle while we have a clearly defective school transport service which means that children are obliged to get up exceptionally early in the mornings and return home pretty late in the evenings. This causes concern to parents, especially in the case of children of tender years.

Earlier, I expressed concern that school closures were taking place without at least seeking the goodwill of the parents. I appreciate the necessity to close certain old schools, the need for mergers to ensure better education but it behoves the Minister, in the interests of education and particularly of the children, that he should try to secure the goodwill, understanding and co-operation of parents. I know of schools which were closed and the school transport service put into operation, and the school buses now arriving in the area are regarded rather as if they were Black Marias arriving to take the children, as it were, forcibly from the parents and imprison them for a number of hours per day. This is bad psychologically. There is, perhaps, need to educate the parents and this should be done. It is bad to have this sort of situation arising.

A number of schools have been closed in my constituency. The most recently proposed closures are at Marlfield and Ballyheaphy. In Marlfield, there has been a protracted withdrawal of children, a school strike, if you like, that has received a lot of publicity in the papers and other mass media. From a reply to a question last week, it seems the Minister has taken up the attitude that it is still in the best interests of the children that they should be transported to Clonmel. I attended a number of meetings of parents concerned in Marlfield with his Lordship, the Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, Dr. Russell, and meetings also with the Minister's representative. I have attended many such meetings in regard to closures but I have yet to experience such a determined approach as that of the parents in this case and such a conviction on their part that they are right and that it is intrinsically wrong to close this school, that it is wholly unjustified and that the simple solution is to carry out minor repairs which, in fact, is all that is required in this case.

The school needs proper sanitary facilities, proper heating and lighting; otherwise, it is reasonably good. It is staffed by two excellent teachers and has turned out some excellent pupils who have won themselves high places. I say this—I see Deputy Davern smiling —not because I happen to be one of them myself but because we can point to many who have got high places in Church and State in this country, and indeed many other countries. I think the Minister is unwise in this matter because the tradition at Marlfield school has always been that when children have spent a few years there and have had their formative education there at the primary level, they automatically gravitate towards the secondary schools in Clonmel. There was never any problem in that respect and they had little difficulty in getting to Clonmel, whether they walked, cycled or had a car.

The Minister's concern about better education does not arise in this instance and it would be a great pity if this otherwise excellent school with such a great tradition should be closed, especially as I know that this lovely village of Marlfield is to be improved and developed. There are already plans before South Tipperary County Council, of which I have the honour to be chairman, for the provision of a site for the erection of cottages. I hope the Minister will have another look at the situation and realise the determination of the people to retain the school, their loyalty to their teachers and the old tradition of the school and allow them to retain it. This would not diminish their educational opportunities in any way. I trust the Minister will fall in with their wishes and have the minor repairs, which will not be very costly, carried out so that educational facilities may continue at Marlfield.

In respect of the school at Ballyheaphy, Araglen, Kilworth, Co. Cork, which, despite the postal address, is in part of my constituency, here again there is agitation and opposition to its proposed closure. There is disappointment that the Department and the Minister have dishonoured what the people felt was a firm undertaking, if not a promise, to erect a new school at Ballyheaphy.

I understand from parents who visited me recently that plans for the erection of a new school at Ballyheaphy were drawn up two, four, five or perhaps six years ago and that it is difficult to pin responsibility for the delay on any individual or group. It was felt that this new school should have been provided a long time ago. I feel I am presenting the unanimous wishes of the parents of Araglen and district, many of whom are not of my political persuasion, when I say that the move to close Ballyheaphy is deeply resented and the people feel they are being let down by the disinclination, if not the refusal, of the Department to erect the promised new school. This is a mountainous area and it will be difficult to provide transport. I understand that the terrain is such that the pupils are spread over a wide area and that the teachers and pupils may have to be dispersed between a number of schools in the area, certainly at least two.

In regard to school closures, I want to refer to the threatened closure of certain vocational schools in my constituency. In the virtual amalgamation of secondary and vocational education, in so far as certificates are concerned, it was never conveyed to the various vocational committees that there would be closures of technical schools. One can imagine the shock and dismay with which I and my colleagues in Clonmel received the news that the famed Mullinahone technical school was earmarked for closure. The shock and dismay were all the greater because Mullinahone school is unique in that it was built by the people themselves, by a great voluntary effort. Literally, the people built the school with their own hands.

Now they find that what they built up, this status symbol which exists in Mullinahone, this technical school, is, it seems, to be torn down by the Department of Education. This was dreadful news, coming as it did a few months ago when we were commemorating the centenary of the Fenian Rising. One might wonder what the Fenian Rising has to do with Mullinahone, but anyone who knows his history will realise that Mullinahone is synonymous with Charles J. Kickham, the great literary man who sacrificed everything so that his country might be free, whose philosophy might be summed up in the words "Educate that you may be free."

I am sorry the Minister has been compelled to leave because I was going to make a fervent appeal to him not to close Mullinahone school. It would be a retrograde step, tantamount to an act of vandalism, and in addition, it is quite unnecessary. The suggestion that the children should be transported to Callan, which is a considerable number of miles away, is certainly not well received by the parents. The vocational educational committee to a man are deeply disturbed and I would ask the Minister and the Department to give up this idea of closing this school. It is in a town which has no industry of any kind. It is a fair sized market town, depending on the farming community in the hinterland. This technical school, which, as I said, is a status symbol, is a source of inspiration and pride to the people of the town. It is the hub of their cultural activity and the Minister's advisers do not realise the damage they will be doing if they proceed along these lines.

Psychologically, the closing of Mullinahone school will have disastrous consequences. That this school which they created, their university, should be taken away from them in this way is an act of ingratitude which they would feel very deeply. This is not just the closure of a school; it is a threat to all that the community holds dear and it must not be allowed to happen. I appeal to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Davern, and to Deputy Fahey who is here also to use their good offices and their influence with the Government to see that this deplorable decision is not implemented.

The man to whom I have referred, Charles J. Kickham, this great literary giant who stood shoulder to shoulder with Rossa and Devoy and all these great men of the Fenian movement, left us in Tipperary many things which we cherish. Among his great literary achievements is a book called Knocknagow, otherwise known as The Homes of Tipperary. I am pleading now for this school which was built by the men and women of Tipperary with their own hands and which has served the homes of Tipperary in Mullinahone and its surrounding areas for a goodly number of years. It would be an insult to the memory of Charles J. Kickham whom we commemorated last year at Mullinahone and paid due tribute to him for his courage, his daring and his sacrifices that this country of ours might be free. Ironically at about the time we were celebrating in Mullinahone—and my colleagues were with me there too on that occasion—plans were made and were being put into operation for the closure of the educational edifice which his successors created in that town. I hope I have said sufficient to save Mullinahone school and if I have not said sufficient to retain it and to convince the Minister of the worthiness of my plea, I can rely on countless stalwart men and women to give back the answer when the right time comes.

While I am talking of technical schools as such, I want to advert to a situation which has arisen at another worthy school in Tipperary, Cappawhite technical school. The Minister must be well aware of the repeated representations made to him by the CEO of the South Tipperary Vocational Education Committee expressing concern about what we consider to be the outright poaching of pupils from this catchment area and transporting them to an outside catchment area. I understood when these catchment areas were drawn up by the Department of Education that they were virtually sacrosanct and that it was intrinsically wrong for anyone to poach from one area to another. The vocational education committee, of which I am a member of long standing, is satisfied that endeavours have been made, and are probably continuing, to entice children to go to an outside technical school, children who are within the immediate area of Cappawhite and certainly within the catchment area and should be going to Cappawhite vocational school. They are being advised to go to another school in North Tipperary.

This constitutes a serious threat to the future of Cappawhite if allowed to continue and the person or persons of influence, and influence over parents in particular—and enticement is, as far as I am concerned, certainly a very moderate word to use in this matter—who can very easily entice them to send their children elsewhere, have done that. As a result, scores of children have been lost to Cappawhite technical school to which they had a particular allegiance and have been transported to Newport in North Tipperary instead.

For some reason or another, the Minister has been unable or unwilling to receive a deputation in respect of this important matter of the future of Cappawhite. He has had his legitimate excuse in recent weeks and months— the threat of the spread of the foot-and-mouth disease and his disinclination, perhaps understandably, to receive a deputation from the heart of Tipperary. I wonder if he is satisfied, in consultation with his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, that the threat of foot-and-mouth has eased to the extent that he might now be good enough to receive this deputation. He will then hear confirmation of my expressions here of the anxiety and worry which agitates the minds of all the members of the vocational education committee, and particularly those members in the Cappawhite area, about the unfair poaching that has been going on and the violation of this catchment area. I should like the Minister to tell me at some stage whether he does regard the catchment areas as places in which the children would be expected to go to school within that area rather than being enticed or cajoled to go into another area.

These then are some of the sentiments I wanted to express in respect of the effects on our education system, on my constituents, and the schools of my constituency. I want to tell the Minister that I make a particularly special plea for the retention of Mullinahone vocational school. I feel that the Minister who is fair, understanding and progressive will see that Mullinahone is no ordinary school; Mullinahone is a symbol of all that is good and noble in that townland synonymous with the name of Kickham, the product of the people by a particularly great voluntary effort and something which must not and shall not be filched from them by any Department of Education.

We support the Minister in all his progressive designs. I congratulated him in my native tongue and I congratulate him now in English on his courage and daring in achieving this magnificent break-through in our education system. To him the greater credit belongs. I have mentioned some of the defects which still require to be attended to. No doubt they will receive attention in good time. We support the Minister in all that he does to bring about that happy day when we can have an Ireland of happy homes in which our children will be given an opportunity to apply their talents, energy and genius in the service of their country. That is the Ireland to which we all aspire.

I should like to conclude by expressing the ardent hope that an amicable understanding will be arrived at between the Minister's Department and the schools and parents to whom I have referred, and that we will not have too dictatorial an approach by the Minister's advisers on the question as to whether a school will be closed or remain open. We hope that there will be goodwill and co-operation so that we may go on together to build the free education system which we all desire.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Davern)

There is very little need for me or for anyone else to shower further praise on the Minister. That would be gilding the lily as far as his policy and his activity as Minister for Education is concerned. Suffice it to say that the 106,000 children who are now receiving free post-primary education and their parents have sung his praises throughout the length and breadth of the land. There are 80,000 this year who are able to avail of post-primary education. Post-primary education will be available to all children and will not be confined to those whose parents are in a position to pay for it. The credit for all this must go to the Minister for Education for implementing the scheme, to the Minister for Finance for making the money available, and last but by no means least, to the tax-paying public who have fully entered into the spirit of this tremendous effort on behalf of the nation.

This is one of the soundest investments of all time. It will show a return in quicker time than any other investment. The boys and girls now entering post-primary education at the age of 12 and 13 years will in six years time be men and women who will have to face up to the many difficulties of wresting from the world a living compatible with their ability. They are now being given an opportunity to do this by the system of free post-primary education. It is up to them to take every possible advantage of the opportunities presented to them.

With regard to the closure of schools, I attended what was possibly one of the first meetings in connection with this matter in South Tipperary, at Ballyhurst, where a one-teacher school was being closed. Naturally, that aroused indignation and there were the usual side issues connected with local meetings, particularly when an institution of long-standing is being taken from the people. However, I can assure the Minister and all here concerned that the parents of the children attending that school, which was a one-teacher school—a position which was fair neither to pupils nor to the teacher who was trying to cope with six classes—are now loudest in their praise of the new arrangement whereby the majority of the children are attending a school in Tipperary town which is a one-class/one-teacher school.

There is one regret that I have however with regard to the Protestant and non-Catholic children attending national schools. We have adopted a policy on the closure of one-teacher and two-teacher schools for most of the children of the nation, but the children of the minority denominations cannot avail of the facilities afforded to the majority. The Minister is sympathetic to their special case. As a minority group, they must be protected more zealously, possibly, than any other group. They have certainly many disadvantages under the present structure. With all respect, I would ask that there should be established central schools in areas, particularly areas such as South Tipperary-West Waterford, for Protestant children, and facilities instituted for them because of the fact that they come from widely scattered areas.

Under the present system a child can attend a national school up to the age of 11 or 12 years. In some cases hardship is imposed on parents who, due to the type of structure of the national school in the locality, have to send their children to boarding-school at, say, the age of nine or ten years. This interferes with home life and community life at this important time of a child's life.

The question of the mentally handicapped has been mentioned by previous speakers. I should like to thank the Minister for his dynamic approach to this very real problem. He has sanctioned a school for the mentally handicapped at Cashel which will serve South Tipperary and a good portion of North Tipperary. Tenders for this school have been advertised and I am quite sure that even as I speak, the successful contractor is already notified. This is a step forward in dealing with a real problem. In the past six or seven years, this matter has been receiving the attention of the public and the Minister has acted in regard to it in the most expeditious fashion.

Up to the present time vocational schools were, in many instances, regarded as the poor relation in the matter of education. The Minister has rectified this attitude by the introduction of the common intermediate certificate. The curricula of these schools will include the normal academic subjects included in the curricula of secondary schools but will also place particular emphasis on skills and crafts. This is something of real value to the children in rural Ireland. The vocational school pupil will be a technician in his own right. The knowledge that he will obtain there in regard to maintenance of farm machinery may make all the difference to the boy who returns to a farm as to whether he makes a loss or profit on his farm.

An important aspect of education is the establishment of parent-teacher associations. It is wrong for a parent to sit back and leave all the decisions as to what a child should do, the examination or course he or she should follow, to a teacher or anyone else. Parents themselves must be actively interested. I believe parents could gain from a closer liaison with the teachers and the children; such liaison would ensure the children being steered and guided to the courses best suited to them and the subjects for which they show the greatest aptitude.

I should like it if the Minister could in the not too distant future introduce vocational guidance officers in the classrooms when the children reach the intermediate certificate standard, which would be about 15 years of age, and should be in a position more or less to make up their minds. Here, as in other countries, we have far too many people equipped with the wrong type of education. Too many children are allowed to go on in happy-go-lucky fashion to leaving certificate, a certificate which equips them for neither the right kind of job nor the job for which they are best suited. For some peculiar reason, the leaving certificate has become the hallmark of a well educated person. That is really fallacious and many of those who hold the leaving certificate might be far better off with a dog licence. There are too many competing for the same type of job, clerkships and so on.

This has been amply demonstrated in our universities. Only 35 per cent of undergraduates come out with a degree and that means that 65 per cent are not fit subjects for university and are wasting their time. One cannot stop them wasting time, but one can save themselves and their parents embarrassment. Indeed, parents in the past might have been saved a good deal of money had the entrance standard been fixed at a higher level. The Minister has taken care of that this year in that one honours in leaving certificate will be essential for entrance to university. Next year, I understand it will be two honours. This will result in a higher entrance standard and it may help to eliminate a good deal of the wastage. Students filling lecture rooms and taking up places can adversely affect others who might make much better use of these places but who, because of lack of accommodation, cannot enter university.

These are a few pertinent points. They are points which could be given a better airing at a later date when the Minister has had time to study them more fully.

With regard to the transportation of children, particularly in the rural areas, those travelling long distances of eight or nine miles have to start early in the morning and return home at three or four o'clock in the evening when the light is beginning to fail. A parent-teacher association could do valuable work by initiating some scheme of hot meals at midday for these children. The idea of free meals should have gone out with the soup kitchen, but a hot meal organised by the parents would be a boon to the children and would be important from the point of view of the involvement of the parents in the education of their children. The Minister may have enough on his plate without getting free meals under way, but the parents and managers could give a lead and ensure that these children have a reasonably substantial midday meal. At the moment the children can scarcely benefit to the fullest possible extent from the teaching that takes place in the afternoon because they have had no proper midday meal.

I sympathise and agree with some of the matters adverted to by Deputy Treacy. I know, however, that the Minister is in the position of having all the facts at his command. He has not allowed his judgment to be swayed or distorted by pleas, particularly invalid pleas. We should not be too parochial; I can be as guilty of that as the next. We are rather prone to the modern philosophy of "I'm all right, Jack". The Minister, on the other hand, has to take into account the national interest and that is bound up more than anyone perhaps realises with the potential capacity and ability of the children of the nation. These are the immediate charge of the Minister so long as he retains that portfolio; if he continues to implement so many revolutionary policies and to such good effect, he will hold the office for many long years.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

One of the most revolutionary improvements in education has been the expansion in the transport of pupils to primary schools. Conditions in the past, when children travelled on foot in all kinds of weather, to and from school, spending the day in the classroom in wet clothing, were responsible for a great deal of the rheumatism and tuberculosis rife in the country. For that reason alone, the Minister has done a great deal by extending the transport scheme. It is, however, a mistake to correlate that expansion with the closing of schools. Reading the newspapers, one is aware of the agitation because of unfit schools. We have a great many schools which are structurally unsound. Some have been described as "rat-infested dumps." But the Minister would want to be careful not to allow himself to be led into the error of believing that, if he is providing transport over a certain area, that necessarily connotes the closing down of a school which is structurally sound, built possibly within the past 20 years. This has been happening in some areas.

I have no particular complaints in my own constituency. We are fairly well able to look after ourselves, but when we discover that a school which is structurally sound is to be closed down, if we do not think such closing is in the best interests of the pupils, the parents, or the teachers, we resist such a closure with all the force at our command. Human nature being what it is, and remembering the bureaucratic system under which we operate it is only natural that schemes and plans should be laid and maps drawn behind closed doors; if transport is provided, the planners say that there is no longer any reason why a particular school should be kept open.

I put it to the Minister that until the backlog has been cleared and we have been provided with all the schools required, it is bad policy to close any school which is structurally sound. It is bad policy to do that until such time as all the uninhabitable schools have been bulldozed and replaced by modern, up-to-date educational centres.

I should like to give that note of warning to the Minister who may be carried away by his own enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of those who advise him to plan so that we can create a situation in which children are transported to school in such a way that nobody has to go to a two-teacher school. We must take into consideration the social conditions applying to every area. In my constituency we are fortunate in having comparatively sound school buildings structurally and perhaps the matters I am referring to do not apply to my county as they do to some of the poorer areas where this very acute problem exists.

There is one more point I wish to make before leaving school transport. It was referred to by Deputy Treacy and I was pleased to note that the Labour Party at times realise the value of private enterprise. In some areas transport has been handed over almost entirely to CIE. With the kindest thoughts towards CIE, they somehow or another always succeed in introducing the dead hand of officialdom into everything. We are not so much concerned in the part of Wexford in which I live but in South Wexford, CIE practically control the entire transport arrangements so that time and again the planning mind comes into effect.

Buses can pass the doorsteps of children but the plan is there and the children have to be collected at a particular point. Therefore, to a large extent the benefits that could accrue from free school transport are nullified because children outside whose doors the buses pass have sometimes to walk a mile or a mile and a half to get the bus in the morning and have to walk home the same distance in the evening. This does not happen because of some official planning mind in the Department of Education but because of the mind within the confines of CIE which dictates that though the buses pass their doors, some children must walk as much as a mile to the point of collection.

One other point I wish to make brings me to a matter for which the Department are responsible. As far as I know, the plan is that children are collected and transported only if they live outside a certain radius of primary schools. That sounds grand but when minibuses and other CIE vehicles come to collect the children, those living inside the three mile radius, or whatever it is, are not collected. There is no sense in the world in that. Because a child lives two and half miles from a school and can be collected, why should a bus not also collect another child living 1¾ miles away? These are things the Minister should consider seriously because otherwise the benefits that could accrue will be nullified. The Minister will get plenty of opportunity to consider such cases because he will get them from practically every Deputy from every part of the country.

There has been a great deal of discussion here about universities and I am inclined to agree with Deputy Lindsay that the chosen word "merger" was not a wise one. I appreciate what the Minister and the Government are trying to do. They are trying to save money. However, a better and more operative description would have been a unified effort between universities. The universities in Dublin, the National University and Trinity College, have somewhat different outlooks on life generally. In the first flush of enthusiasm, when everybody was asked to co-operate, when the spirit of ecumenism became widespread, there was this encouragement and everyone, including the professors and the dons in the two universities, felt that a merger was advisable.

I do not think it is. The idea of having, shall we say, an overall governing university authority, with representation from all, is possible and it would probably be advantageous for the different universities. It would make it possible for those who direct the policies of the universities to meet and discuss the question, but the idea of a merger, with the idea of ultimate amalgamation, is out of the question.

History dies very hardly. I am not a graduate of either the National University or Trinity and therefore I feel freer to speak. Trinity College is one of the oldest universities in what was originally known as the British Isles —I suppose it is almost treason today to use that description; I am speaking geographically. The National University was founded about the turn of the century and it is unlikely that the traditions and the ideals of both are the same or that they would blend satisfactorily in a merger. I suggest the Minister should forget that term and approach the matter from another angle. If he does so, he will get co-operation from all parties concerned.

I have had the opportunity—I am sure the Minister has had—of attending the different universities from time to time and of speaking at what are known as symposia on subjects relating to different matters. I have gone to Trinity and the National University in Dublin, to Galway and to Cork Universities, and I have always been impressed by the independence of identity they all have, to a certain extent. Therefore, if the Minister is trying to bring about a fusion, he should first of all allow the universities to continue with their individual identity.

Before I leave the matter of the universities, there is another warning I should like to give to the Minister.

With the changing times, the professions are not as populous as they used to be and I know that already there is a tremendous shortage of doctors in the UK. The problem there of procuring medically qualified people has become so acute that the British fighting services are paying students and many of the students are joining Irish universities. Their fees are being paid and their education being carried out on the basis that they will be prepared to enter one of the fighting services in Britain. I mention that because the shortage in the professions that exists today in the UK will obtain here to-morrow. Already we have evidence of it. I do not know what the cure is. Perhaps the cure is the antidote.

If in ten or 12 years we are to find ourselves, as we probably shall, with a grave shortage in the professions, we may have to try to do something on the lines of what is being done by the fighting services in Britain. We shall have to encourage people to take courses of studies in the professions and ensure that we retain them in this country afterwards. We shall have to subsidise their education and ensure that we retain their services afterwards. It is the only way we can offset the problem we shall have to face in the not too distant future. I should like to thank the Minister for what he has done in regard to the education of mentally handicapped children. I am a member of a private organisation in my county which concerns itself with the education of mentally handicapped children. That organisation worked hard to secure the education of those less favoured people in this country. The national conscience has been aroused recently in relation to mentally handicapped children. We have struggled over the last number of years while different Ministers have occupied the position of the present Minister for Education but we did not have any success in receiving support from the official angle in relation to those children. I am now happy to say that all the differences which existed between my organisation and the Department of Education have been resolved and we have received the greatest help imaginable from the Department so that we have been able to start a school for moderately handicapped children in Enniscorthy which embraces the greater part of County Wexford. We will have a school built on the lines referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, who spoke just now, at Cashel in the very near future.

I should like to put this point to the Minister, as it is one he may not have realised. It very often happens that mentally handicapped children come from very poor homes and, shall we say, homes of not very good ethical and social standards. Those children come to the schools and they are literally clothed and fed by the organisation of which I happen to have the honour of being a member. They are taught cleanliness in life and better standards of living. Those children are usually allowed to stay in one of those schools until they reach the age of about 16 years. The time will come when those children will no longer be in those schools. What is the future for them? Has the State anything to offer in relation to those children? Is it a problem which is being thought about? Have we any rehabilitation centre to cater for those children and to instruct them so that they may earn their own living and perhaps in time achieve a better standard of living and social conditions than they would enjoy if they went back to their own homes immediately after leaving those schools?

I might add, to enlarge a little on that, that those children, apart from the fact that they are being taught to read and write, although their intellect is very limited through no fault of theirs—an injury at birth is the usual cause—are able to make mats, baskets and such things. I am not aware outside of the city of Dublin of any rehabilitation centre to take over those children and train them so that they may be able to continue further and possibly be able to make a living. In the past people were down on those children. They were told they were stupid but now they are getting kindness. I should like to see the Department having something in mind to continue with the work which is being done in those schools.

Another point I should like to raise with the Minister before I sit down is that we live in an age in which there is a good deal of crime among youth. This is a materialistic age and there is no doubt that social workers and church dignitaries are fully alive to the difficulties of youth, particularly in our larger centres. I do not believe there is any real link up to date between the many youth centres run, again by private enterprise and by people who are giving, without any reward, thought, time and service, and those particular groups which are functioning throughout the country. It seems to me that the time has come when an overall lead might be given by the Minister for Education to co-ordinate those groups and to have an institution for training experts on youth guidance.

Quite recently in my own part of the country, the Bishop of Ferns decided in his wisdom—how right he was—to send one of his clergy away for youth training. He had to go to the United Kingdom to get that training because no such centre exists here. I suggest to the Minister that he co-ordinate all those youth groups. The Minister has initiated a lot of things in this country but I do not think he has done anything on this line. He should invite all those groups to come together. He might check on them from time to time. At the beginning, he might have a symposium in Dublin—everything seems to start in Dublin as it is regarded as the centre of the country— to bring all those groups together. All those groups would then be made known to one another. They should be given a subvention to help with a youth training centre.

Come what may, we are no worse than any other country but all those countries have realised this. Bigger and wealthier countries such as the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and France have become aware of this problem and have been dealing with it. They have innumerable colleges for the training of youth leaders for those youth centres. It is essential to have experts on this. We can learn from other people in other countries and I would ask the Minister to give attention to this point.

Mr. Healy

I want to congratulate the Minister and, through him, his Department on focussing so much attention on this most essential and fundamental subject of education. There is no doubt that, during the past 12 months, the topic of education has become one of very lively discussion in every household in the country. I know the money is not coming out of his own pocket but the Minister is providing millions more money than was ever provided before in this country for this purpose. I realise it is not free in the sense that nobody has to pay for it but the Minister has been able to convince the Government that the money should be made available.

It is very obvious from this debate that radical changes such as those the Minister proposes cannot be made without treading on somebody's corns. There are vested interests and traditions which are hard to move. Also, there are sentimental reasons which will express themselves when change occurs, even though the change means progress. I hope and I am sure, knowing the man, that that will not daunt the Minister.

I am interested in the City of Cork Vocational Education Committee. Due to the changes in the educational systems, we found in Cork that we had trebled the number of students who wanted enrolment in our classes last September. With the best intentions of the chief executive officer and of the committee, we would not have been able to house those pupils, recruit staff and make all the necessary arrangements for their education because, of necessity, the College of Technology will not or cannot be built for some years to come.

Cork regards itself as the cradle of vocational education and we have a special regard for it. I want to put on record our appreciation of the wonderful co-operation we received through the Minister from his Department and the officials, where my area is concerned—so much so that we had not to turn away one single pupil when the new term started. We were able to make-do with various buildings, reconstructed and renovated in a short space of time. We have heard so often about red tape in Government Departments but it seems to have been cut in all directions in order to make that possible. Therefore, I want to put it on record that, although we had not a building called a college of technology, we certainly had everything else in the way of pupils, staff and facilities.

I had the greatest sympathy with the last speaker and with those others who mentioned the problem of the retarded child. I think this is a field where the Minister should and will do all he can to help but it is a field in which there is a tremendous need for voluntary effort. In Cork, I think we are very far advanced in this respect. We have the Cork Polio and After-care Association looking after mentally and physically-retarded children and, indeed, people up to adult age. We also have the Rehabilitation Institute and we have a branch of the National Association for Cerebral Palsy. The latter are building a new school which they hope to have open before this year is out. My personal experience shows me and proves to me that, with the best intentions in the world, officialdom cannot be the full answer to the question of the retarded or physically-handicapped child. Voluntary effort is required. In this country, there is a tremendous well of support from volunteers, so long as they are made to understand the children and so long as it is understood that their efforts are welcome. We find that situation—and I am sure it is true of every part of the country. If we can harness that to the official mind and get the support that is necessary for the voluntary effort then we shall do a great deal to break the back of this problem which has come to the forefront only in recent years.

The Minister mentioned the National Gallery. I am aware of the efforts he has made. I know how far we have advanced in the past couple of years in the matter of getting pictures of merit sent around the country to local galleries that can house such pictures. If it comes within this Department, I would ask him to look also at the question of museums. There must be at least one-third, if not maybe much more, of the treasures of the National Museum which are never on exhibit and which would be very welcome for exhibition in places such as Cork, where we have a civic museum. I realise that the question of the insurance of the pictures arose. I am fully aware of the efforts that have been made and of the solution, such as it is, to bridge that gap and to make it possible to get the pictures to places such as Cork. I thank the Minister and I should like to join in paying a tribute to the Curator of the National Gallery for the work he is doing there. I am grateful for the increasing interest displayed by our people in this very valuable medium of education.

I want to speak now about the teaching of elocution in the schools. Nowadays, when a business concern has a job for, say, a clerical officer and wants a boy with honours leaving certificate they will receive as many as 40 applications in reply to their advertisement from boys who are all qualified on paper and who have equal qualifications. It is the boy who can speak out, who can express himself properly and who shows that he has personality who, in nine times out of ten, will get the job. Far from its being a case of influence by some Deputy or some friend who knows the boss of the concern, as we enter into an era where there is keener and keener competition it is the most presentable boy and the young man with personality who will get the job. There is not anything like enough attention being paid to this important matter. I do not think the girls suffer to the same extent as do the boys. Generally speaking, a girl who has had a secondary education speaks much better than a boy who has had a secondary education. The boy is so much more shy. He does not find it easy to express himself. Very often, because of this want in his education, a talented man will not get on as well as he should in business.

There are various forms of musical expression. I suggest that, by every means in his power, the Minister should encourage the holding of dramatic shows in the schools and judging the pupils on their speech. Perhaps a certificate could be issued to those who pass tests in speech. It is a most important matter and it is a facet of education that has been neglected in this country. In Cork, we have the Blarney Stone and we are said to have the gift of eloquence but it is a sad fact that there are many brilliant students there who are very poor at expressing themselves properly and that is a reflection on somebody. I am speaking rather strongly about it because I have so often heard industrialists in the city of Cork say that they have to take somebody from perhaps another area who has not the academic qualifications of local persons who offer themselves for employment but who is so much the better able to speak and express himself and who is thus able to put his personality across to better effect than perhaps the local person. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to look into this matter.

I congratulate the Minister on all he has achieved since he became Minister for Education. Twelve months ago, even some of us on this side of the House thought that all the talk about free secondary education and free transport for post-primary pupils might be a pipe-dream and yet, within even that short space of time, these things have become a reality. Many progressive steps have been taken by this Minister for Education—maybe not all of them 100 per cent yet. I want to thank and to congratulate the Minister on the good work he has done and through him, I want to thank every official in his Department who had hand, act or part in it. I sincerely trust that everything the Minister has in mind for the coming year will become a reality and that when the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Education comes before this House for consideration in 12 months time we shall be able further to congratulate him as sincerely as we now do on the tremendous step-forward he has taken to put education in its rightful place in this country. Education is the same for all peoples. It is what we must depend on to take any kind of place among the nations of the earth.

Mr. Donnellan

It is not my intention to speak long on this Estimate. Having listened to speakers on the far side of the House, I am sure the Minister must be almost embarrassed by the amount of praise that has been showered on him. A certain amount of it is no doubt due to the Minister; he made a good try and I wish him every success in his educational programme.

There is a lot of talk these days about free education. I have not heard one Deputy on the other side of the House refer to the fact that the amount of the Estimate for the Department of Education this year is £38,325,400, an increase of £4½ million over last year. Does anybody really believe that our children will be educated for nothing when it costs that £38 million to educate them? I have yet to hear a Deputy on that side of the House mention that £38 million is being spent on our system of education. Let nobody tell me there is free education. That £38 million has to come from somewhere. The taxpayers will pay it and those children who are being educated will in their turn pay.

My main reason for standing up is to deal with problems which affect my own county of Galway. They are many and they are varied. I should like first to deal with some of the problems in primary education in County Galway. I am glad to see that the Irish National Teachers Organisation are coming more out of their shell than they have come in the past and that they are to a certain extent dictating to the managers and letting the managers know, directly or indirectly, that a better primary school standard is needed throughout the country.

The standard of many of our primary schools is something we cannot be very proud of. It was good to see last week that the INTO have at last come out in support of members of their organisation in the hope that this will prompt the Department of Education and the Minister to ensure that these schools which we hear so much about not being fit for teachers or for children will not continue like that in the future.

There is also a lot of talk about one-and two-teacher schools. I am not at all quite sure that the policy of the Minister in closing the majority of these schools—I suppose in time all of these schools—is altogether the right and proper policy. Leaving aside the one-teacher school, as far as the two-teacher school is concerned, it plays a greater part in the life of rural Ireland than educating the children in a particular district. The teachers are guides to local farmers and the policy of the Government and the Minister in closing these schools is not a step in the right direction.

There is one of these schools with which I am concerned, Carrowkeel National School. An official of the Department carried out a survey there recently and he estimated that in five or six years time, there will be only 46 children going to that school. There is a new school needed there and it has been decided by the Department to close that particular school and amalgamate it with a larger school in the town of Dunmore, notwithstanding the fact that a deposit was paid on the school to the Department of Education a number of years ago; a pump was sunk for water and the electric light cable is outside the school. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in this case because I feel there is need for this school at Carrowkeel, and he might even tell the inspector of the Department to come down and meet the parents and discuss the problem with them. It was also stated that there are advantages in a larger school. There may be advantages in a larger school but the parents and the children who attend Carrowkeel at the moment want a new school built there.

There is another problem relating to a co-educational school at Abbeyknockmoy. About five or six weeks ago, we had a meeting in Abbeyknockmoy which one of the local representatives attended. We had representatives from the county committee of education and the problem came up there about the closure of this co-educational school. We had Deputy Kitt who was elected chairman and we had the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, Senator Ó Buachalla, representing the educational council. They spoke to the people there about what they would do for them. I did not realise until after that meeting that there was a decision to close the school. These people knew it, but still they went along with these flowery promises that they would put proposals to the Minister and the Department of Education in an effort to keep this school open, when in actual fact it would be a miracle if it were kept open.

There is another school, a secondary school, in Coolarne. We had a meeting there last night. It emerged that it is the will of the teachers, the parents and the children who attend that school that that secondary school should remain open. All the Deputies from East Galway and from West Galway were invited to that meeting but those Deputies who support the Government were conspicuous by their absence. Some of those Deputies who had recently frequented Turloughmore in their cars could not find time to come down when the people needed them to keep the school at Coolarne open. This secondary school was opened on 8th September, 1965. There are 82 students on the roll, 48 girls and 34 boys. Various reasons have been given by the Department as to why it is intended to close this school. One of the reasons the Department indicated was that the number of subjects on the curriculum is insufficient. I would like to tell the Minister there are 13 subjects on the curriculum of the secondary school in Coolarne. I would be only wasting time to read them out. There are seven teachers there. This school is served by four local primary schools which have between them 560 pupils. It is estimated locally that in a year or two there will be approximately 200 pupils at Coolarne secondary school.

Last night I attended a meeting in connection with this school. I am sorry there was not a representative of the Government Party there because the parents, the teachers and the children themselves expressed the view that it was essential that this school be kept open. I would make a sincere appear to the Minister to look into this and to ensure, if possible, that the school remains open. This school could have obtained various grants from the Department such as those for television sets and science facilities, but they did not avail of these grants because they felt that if they did the Department might maintain that the cost of running the school was too high in relation to the number of pupils attending. I would make a strong plea to the Minister and his staff to keep the school open.

The teachers have indicated that if the Department provided the same facilities at Tuam, Mountbellew and Athenry as the students already have at Coolarne, they would be satisfied to close the school. At present the schools in Tuam are overcrowded. I do not know whether those in Mountbellew are overcrowded or not. I know Athenry was approached and that no preparation has been made there for the influx of children they will automatically get if the school in Coolarne is closed. I wonder what the view of the Department is on this?

I object to the Minister's refusal to meet a deputation. There is a saying in the West: never send a lad to do a man's job.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Send the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Donnellan

He did not even send the Parliamentary Secretary. He sent an official of the Department. The people of Galway elect eight Deputies to the Dáil. For quite a long time they have been represented by five Fianna Fáil Deputies and three Fine Gael Deputies. During their time Fianna Fáil have not done one thing for East Galway, or for all Galway for that matter. Not one of these five Fianna Fáil Deputies ever made an effort to bring one scheme that would be of benefit to the community in East Galway. Due to the fact that they elect five representatives, would it not be a good thing in return for you to keep this school in Coolarne open?

I am worried about the fact that both these schools, Coolarne and These are the people I represent. Is there any significance in the fact that Abbeyknockmoy, are both in my area. they are both in my area? The Fianna Fáil boys are usually trotting after me and the fact that two schools in my area are being closed makes one think. I am making a special plea to the Minister and his Department to keep them open. The people there want it, no matter what their politics are.

I want to say a few words now about the school transport service. I never agreed with the system of transport. The farmers have been crying out for something to help their income. Would it not be a good idea if instead of the present transport system, whereby children are collected early in the morning and left home late in the afternoon, and sometimes have to wait a long time for the bus, if a farmer in each village was appointed to bring the children to school? The children would be under strict supervision while they were in his care and it would suit better in rural areas than the present transport arrangements. I know the school transport service provides many problems and that it is a mammoth task for any Minister or Department to ensure that every child is carried, but I think my suggestion should be looked into.

I would like to see more recreational facilities in schools for boys and girls. Even if it meant putting another bit on the Budget for education, it would be money well spent.

I would like to thank the Minister for his grant of £1¾ million to University College, Galway. If Galway University is to keep up with the other universities in Dublin and Cork, it will have to get more money in the future. The facilities in that university are certainly the worst in Ireland and, I believe, the worst in Europe. It will have to have fresh capital to compete with the other universities.

I cannot leave this Estimate without saying a few words on the Irish language. There is much emphasis on Irish at present. I am a firm believer in the revival of the language, but under the educational system we had in the past many of our children from rural areas who attended these rural schools were forced to learn Irish. The reason that many of them are now the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in Great Britain is that they wasted a lot of their time at the primary school learning Irish.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 7 Feb 1968