Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Dec 1968

Vol. 237 No. 10

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £1,667,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá dé Mhárta, 1969, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Oideachais (lena n-áirítear Forais Eolaíochta agus Ealaíon), le haghaidh Seirbhísí Ilghnéitheacha áirithe Oideachais agus Cultúir, agus chun Ildeontais-i-gCabhair a íoc.

—(Minister for Education.)

Mr. Coogan

An tseachtain seo caite bhí cúpla focail le rá agam ar an Meastachán i dtaobh na Gaeilge. I would like to stress again, as I did last week, on this Estimate, the grave danger that has been caused to the national language by the bunch of hypocrites that are in this House at the helm who have built up in this country a hatred where there should be a love for the language. It is about time we took control from those who are in it for what they can get out of it. We must admit, as I said last week, that no progress has been made in regard to the teaching of Irish. It may be taught, but it is forgotten. When going through the streets, the highways and byways outside the Gaeltacht, where can you hear the Irish language spoken? It is spoken in the Gaeltacht and it was spoken in the Gaeltacht before a lot of that bunch took over the teaching or, as they say themselves, the furtherance of the language.

I want to warn about the hatred built up against the language the people once loved. Probably they loved it because it was the thing to do in the British times; but unless something is done to rescue it from the hands of those people who, I repeat, are in it not for love of it but what they can get out of it, it will die. I would, however, stress that there are sincere enthusiasts. I see one over there from Clare and I know he is sincere about it. If we had more of his type we would have more of the language throughout the country. So much for that.

We heard about the doings of the Department, the great increases, the explosion as it were, but there would be no need for this explosion if we had not to catch up on the backlog, if we were not so far behind in comparison with other countries. We need not clap ourselves on the back, because there has been a failure to deal with education as it should have been dealt with over the years. It was suddenly brought home to us by the late Minister, go ndéanaigh Dia trócaire ar a anam, and we started to get on our feet and to get where we should have been many years ago. Now there is a need for this explosion. Is this explosion going to be at the expense of all other services throughout the country? There is a great deal to be done. When one sees neglected boreens one wonders if the money available should be spent on putting them into proper condition.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot discuss other Estimates on the Estimate for Education.

Mr. Coogan

I am discussing the money earmarked for this purpose which possibly could be as well spent otherwise. I am pointing out the backlog that exists.

Is it possible that free higher education will mean that the market for professional people will be flooded? What will happen in that case? I would welcome the development of career guidance so that, so to speak, a square plug will not be put into a round hole. In that connection, I would stress the importance of vocational education. Today, in many cases, the technician makes far more money than the professional man. Will the professions be overmanned whereas the demand is for the technician who can play an important part in the development of the country? This country may not be a land of saints today but it is possible that we have too many scholars. I wonder is that a good thing.

Reference has been made to the problem of the mentally handicapped child. Anyone in public life comes across cases of mentally handicapped children almost every day. Something should be done to meet this problem. There should be a crash programme. When the much maligned Coalition Government came into office the country was riddled with TB. The Coalition Government took action as a result of which TB was eradicated.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with education.

Mr. Coogan

I mentioned it to show what can be done. I realise that the problem of mental handicap cannot be eliminated but, at least, it should be possible to provide for some alleviation of the problem. I have indicated how the inter-Party Government dealt with the problem of TB. Something should be done to help families who have a mentally handicapped child.

The necessity for having a school bus service arises from the closing down of schools. While centralisation may be all right, there is a danger inherent in dependence on transport. Many of us remember that not so many years ago, during the war, there was not as much oil in the country as would grease the hinges of a pair of spectacles. It is possible that a similar situation could occur again and could continue for years. Please God, that situation will not recur but ní hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb.

There is great dissatisfaction about the fact that some school children have to walk to school although a school bus may travel the same route half empty. It is time that there was a revision of the regulations governing the school bus service. Certainly, the school bus should not pass children who are walking to school.

We have heard of the danger to children alighting from a school bus. This is a matter for the Department of Justice but I realise that it would not be feasible to have a member of the Garda controlling every school bus. I would suggest that the Minister for Education would consult the Minister for Justice with a view to safeguarding children. For instance, there could be a regulation to the effect that traffic may not pass a school bus that has stopped to allow children to alight. It should be possible to have a flashing sign on the back of school buses indicating that children are alighting. We should not wait until tragedies have occurred before taking preventive action.

Appeals have been made for retrospective payment of grants in the case of university students who had entered college before the introduction of the grants scheme. If such grants are justifiable in the case of one section, they are equally justifiable in the case of the other section. Some students have had to work very hard during the vacation in order to earn the money to pay their fees. In some cases the fact that they had to work overtime affected their health. Great credit is due to those who did make this effort. In my view there is a case for the payment of grants retrospectively. I hope the Minister will not be prejudiced by the fact that students sat outside the gates of Leinster House in order to make their point.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Not a bit.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister was a student himself. Students are sometimes condemned for their capers. There are eminent surgeons in my town whom I could remind of the time when they smashed brass door knockers and threw flour at respectable ladies, and so on. The students of today are sometimes regarded as being worse than the students of yesterday because they march in the streets and shout and wear beards and long hair. On the whole, while there may be a few "odd men out" the students in this country are a good type. They should not be condemned because a few of them shout and may appear on television as a result of their escapades.

I would appeal to the Minister to consider the question of providing some form of assistance to those students who were already attending college before the commencement date of the scheme of university grants. I stress this matter because I know what it is to have children attending college, the cost of clothes, the cost of living generally. I am lucky to be in a city within a stone's throw of a college, but what about the unfortunate man who struggled hard and said: "I will not have my child struggle as I did. I will try to put him through college"? There is a lot of hardship involved, and the Minister should reconsider this, especially for the western areas. Money is not all that flush there as it would be in the other areas. Even if it means some sort of test—I dislike the phrase "means test"—I put it to the Minister that the case is there for the student who is already going through college. I have been asked by these students to put their case. I see their point and that is why I have put it here today.

Getting back to the school, one would like to see more of the cultural side of Irish life having its place in the curriculum. I have in mind the question of céilí dancing. It is disgusting to go into a dancehall today and see a céilí dance being murdered. There is nothing nicer or more enjoyable that foreigners or tourists coming here would like to see than céilí dancing. Before it is wiped out completely, like the Irish language, something should be done to foster it among our youth. I suppose the capering that the present generation indulge in is a passing phase, but many of us can look back on properly done céilí dancing. I suggest the Department should encourage this by having it taught in our schools. I should also like to see physical culture in our schools. One may say the curriculum is overloaded, but if we have not healthy bodies we shall not have healthy minds, and there is a great need for that today.

Finally, I would ask the Minister, before it is too late, before it is buried completely by those who only want to commemorate it, to take the Irish language out of the hands of those at present in charge of it; to try to create a love for the language and eliminate the hatred there is for it today. I appeal to the Minister to do all he can before the hypocrites bury it once and for all.

Mrs. Desmond

In opening my contribution on this debate I should like to recall to the minds of my fellow Deputies the Estimate debate we had here in this House two years ago. Two years ago our debate on the Estimate for Education followed upon a long period of discussion, a series of symposiums, seminars, teach-ins, and what have you, the subject of which was invariably education. At that time education was brought into perspective. We realised at that time the basic cause of all our ills as a nation was the lack of attention we had been giving, up to then, to this subject. We realised that our future, economically and socially, depended upon it, that instead of doing what we had been doing up to then— dividing most of the money among other Departments and forgetting about education—we should make education a priority.

From this discussion and this new light which was thrown on the subject of education, there emerged a few basic truths, and while they have been mentioned often enough, it is perhaps no harm to repeat them very briefly. There was, first of all, a realisation that the social and geographical inequalities in education had reached frightening proportions. Secondly, there came to light the fact that participation in education at the second level, at post-primary level, existed to four or five times a greater extent among one section of the community than it did among another, and that participation in higher education was 68 times greater among one section of the community than among another. There also came to light the fact that by 1970 there would be a deficiency of 70,000 in the number of people with the necessary qualifications for industry, that is, at the junior certificate level.

That, briefly, was the picture in 1966, and the Minister in introducing his Estimate at that time announced some proposals, and I would say without hesitation they were the first ambitious proposals of any kind that were introduced in this field since we attained freedom. These proposals were: that fees for the purpose of post-primary education would be abolished, that is, in all schools that would opt for the scheme; that free school books would be introduced for 25 per cent of our people; and that free transport would be provided. While this scheme had its faults, it was definitely a step in the right direction. The case I want to make after two years is that these faults and the omissions which we pinpointed in that scheme still exist to a very large extent.

In this regard, we spoke, in the first instance, about the lack of emphasis on primary education; we spoke about the failure of the scheme to make post-primary, that is, vocational or secondary education, possible for the really needy sections of our community; and we spoke about the means test for books which we considered invidious because it involved a division among the various social classes at the level of children and at the level of the classroom. We were told that the number of comprehensive schools would be few and that a dovetailing of the facilities that existed already in secondary and vocational schools would substitute for comprehensive schools. We talked about the vital necessity of career guidance at an earlier stage. We also talked about the lack of emphasis on adult education.

These deficiencies still exist. At the primary level, I fully appreciate that this is something that has been actively considered and is something we all hope will reveal far-reaching changes in the very near future. At this point in time there has been no change. Although money has been expended— I do not want to be unreasonable—we still have far too many structurally unsound and sanitarily unfit schools throughout the country. It is rather frustrating for those acting on behalf of school managers or parents to experience the long delays that occur and the frustration encountered in getting accurate information in regard to carrying out repairs necessary to bring a school building up to a desirable standard to house young children for several hours daily. Criticism is often made of school managers and no doubt is sometimes merited but, as I have said before, the Department is mainly and ultimately responsible for the condition of our primary schools. We compare very badly with other countries where very little State aid is given to schools but where State institutions exercise more care in that an inspector or engineer inspects the school regularly and insists on proper standards. We do not seem to have anybody employed for that purpose. That is why I say that in the last analysis the Department, and only the Department, is responsible and open to any criticism we may offer on that score.

There is an almost total lack of visual and audio aids and of facilities considered necessary in 1968 and vital in helping a teacher to impart information to young people. I admire teachers who are undertaking the difficult task of trying to do what I suppose the national school is designed to do in the first analysis, foster a love of learning in young people and feed their imaginative minds. That must be very difficult in unfit surroundings. Yet I know that, for the most part, that is what the teachers are doing. There is a very small minority who are a hindrance and who still insist on the use of corporal punishment. I am opposed to corporal punishment and totally opposed to corporal punishment for failure at lessons. Only one or two cases have come to my notice but the Department has a function to ensure that this hindrance to fostering a love of learning and framing young minds to receive further education at second and third levels is eliminated. I feel sure that the few who leave school associating school with something unpleasant cannot make the fullest progress possible at subsequent levels of education.

I agree with Deputy Coogan that there is a complete lack of physical education at all levels, including the national school level. Everything indicates that this is a subject of major importance and will assume greater importance as we progress materially. Physical education is vitally important to health, especially in the cities and towns, and at present when people take less exercise through necessity than they did formerly the need for physical exercise and culture is very great from infancy to the completion of education and all through life. There is also a very deficient school medical and dental service. There are reasons for this and those of us who are members of health authorities have considered the matter at meeting after meeting. There is a shortage of dentists but there is no shortage of dentists graduating from our colleges each year. The health of schoolchildren is tied up with the question of a good school health service and this is something that should be tackled far more intensively than is being done.

In Cork, which I do not think is very different from other health authorities, we attacked the problem from all angles. We tried to have a voluntary service in which parents brought their children to the clinics. We then reverted to the school service and we found that with the shortage of dentists only children under ten years of age could be treated. This is sadly deficient because dental health becomes of major importance after age ten when the final teeth are formed and when dental decay may appear. We must take steps to cope with this problem properly because without a healthy body a child cannot meet fully the challenge of imbibing knowledge and education. The Department of Education cannot afford to overlook this problem in which it should be deeply involved and it should maintain liaison with the Department of Health to ensure that the health of the children we are trying to educate is safeguarded. Unless a child is healthy it cannot benefit fully from the educational facilities provided.

We still have the problem, though to a lesser extent as some progress has probably been made, of overcrowded classrooms. I shall be saying a little more about pupils and teacher training later on and I know this is a problem the Minister has in mind. I hope it is one that will be solved in the very near future. Whatever may be done in the field of primary education cannot be fully effective unless classes are drastically reduced. We have an ideal which still seems very far from reality of having special classes for retarded or subnormal children, those who because of a mental handicap are incapable of assimilating knowledge as well as normal children and have tended to be left behind up to now. We do not seem to have done very much to bring them up to the level of the brighter pupils. I know that something is being done and that individual teaching orders in some cases have provided special classes for these children, but tied up with this is the problem of speech therapy. I was very surprised recently to learn from the Press that speech therapists cannot be trained in this country and they have to go to England to complete their training. Elocution is a very important subject at all levels of education. Perhaps we have tended to regard it as the acquisition of an accent but, of course, it is not that. It is very important for the fostering of confidence.

So far, we have not recognised the need for elocution teachers. Indeed, the system obtains whereby, if a school employs an elocution teacher, it does so at its own expense. Very often we find that it is in the fee-paying schools that this service is provided but, of course, the service is just as necessary in non-fee-paying schools. I believe that an amount of money, by way of increment perhaps, should be given to teachers of elocution at any level of education.

On previous Estimates I have spoken on the Irish language and I do not wish to repeat what I have already said. However, I should like to say that most of us in this country wish to see a situation whereby boys and girls leaving school could speak the Irish language fluently—that they would be able to speak it because they have a love of the language. I am glad to see that there is a vast improvement in the methods of teaching Irish. I notice, for instance, that reading is not introduced in the infants classes but, rather, it is introduced later on. The children are taught, first of all, to understand the language, then to speak it and afterwards to read it, in that progressive order. This was not so in the case of ourselves and those who followed us.

However, we still have a long way to go towards making our national language more attractive. This is something that we should apply ourselves to constantly. It has a lot to compete with in a world which, shall we say, is growing steadily smaller but it is very vital that we retain our national culture, that we teach our national language and make it more attractive and that we make our books more attractive. We should ensure that every step that can be taken is taken to teach the Irish language to our boys and girls.

Regarding the provision of a library service in our national schools it is felt that this is at least one way of making up to children who were deprived of culture through no fault of their own. We should apply ourselves to the improvement of the library service in our schools because we now have so many children at all levels of education who, through no fault of their own or of their parents, were deprived of culture in the home. This, as I have said, may be through no fault of the parents who, themselves, because of economic circumstances did not have a complete education either socially or culturally. I hope that the scheme which is at present in operation will prove to be entirely successful. I hope, too, that the scheme to combat certain set-backs that children suffer from will also be successful. I also hope that, as the schemes progress and some benefit is seen to accrue from them, they will be expanded and that everything possible will be done to improve the schemes without any unnecessary delay.

I referred previously to the faults at the second level of education and I also referred to the need for career guidance. I have not changed my mind on these matters. Career guidance is very important, particularly at the stage where a child leaves the primary school. We have these facilities in our secondary and vocational schools but, of course, what happens in practice is that a child chooses either vocational or secondary education and he continues in whichever one he chooses, the parents having no way of knowing when he is leaving the primary school which system is the most suitable for him. Career guidance is vital, particularly in the case of boys, a large number of whom leave school every year with a pass leaving certificate or, perhaps, with two or three honours in their leaving certificate; but, in fact, they are fitted for nothing in particular.

We all go along with the idea of liberal education and we believe that education should be liberal in so far as is possible, but a pass leaving certificate or a leaving certificate with two or three honours does not qualify a boy for a university grant; in fact, it qualifies him for nothing. This is poor compensation for the average boy. Somewhere along the line he should have had career guidance. So far, we do not seem to have any real appreciation of the need for such guidance. Surely, if it is necessary in our comprehensive schools where there is a vast variety of subjects, it must be necessary for the child who is either at secondary or vocational schools. Therefore, we might introduce it at second level. The Minister may say that it is introduced at intermediate level but I believe that major upheavals could be avoided if it were introduced at the earlier stages.

Perhaps, at this stage, I might be forgiven for asking a question. I regret that I was unable to be here during the early stages of this debate, but I should like to ask a few questions about the new colleges of technology. There appears to be confusion in the minds of most people as to the definition of a technical college and a college of technology. This was raised on the Estimate last year and the former Minister for Education, the late Deputy Donagh O'Malley, defined a technical college briefly as a place catering for second level education for pupils who had got the group or intermediate certificates and he defined a college of technology as one catering for third level education. However, it would appear that the present colleges of technology are defined as colleges catering for both second and third level education.

Mr. B. Lenihan

There is, as it were, a liaison here between second level and third level education, tending to merge in with a new type of education which would be post-second level and yet not fully the end of third level.

Mrs. Desmond

There has been new thinking on this and the two have been combined—would that describe it?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes.

Mrs. Desmond

I should also like to ask the Minister about something which concerns Vocational Education Committees and CEOs generally. What is the future of vocational schools? We got the impression earlier on when this was announced, when the very welcome move was made towards the provision of the intermediate certificate courses in vocational schools, that all vocational schools would provide courses up to the leaving certificate?

Mr. B. Lenihan

In large centres we have a situation where vocational schools will all go to the leaving certificate, particularly those which will specialise in what will be called the applied sciences leaving group. In the smaller centres they will go as far as the intermediate certificate and, where we can, we will co-ordinate the two vocational schemes and give a comprehensive scheme in each case.

Mrs. Desmond

This will be capable of implementation?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes.

Mrs. Desmond

So, the smaller vocational schools which now only cater up to the junior standards will go further?

Mr. B. Lenihan

They will go to the intermediate, and the larger ones will go on to the leaving.

Mrs. Desmond

When does the Minister envisage they will be informed about these schemes for the intermediate course?

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are having discussions on that at the present time throughout the country with a view to a comprehensive sort of approach, taking the whole country into account, providing for the junior and senior level and second level of education and co-ordinating that type, the two branches of post-primary, with the regional technical colleges. Discussions are in progress at the moment.

Mrs. Desmond

That is something I was not clear about. The future of the vocational schools seems to be hanging in the balance at the moment.

I also said earlier that second level education was not making education available for the really needy section of our community in 1966 and precisely the same circumstances remain in 1968. I would remind the present Minister, who has the problem of implementing this, of what his predecessor said in 1966 when introducing the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Education. I would refer the Minister to Volume 225 of 30th November, 1966, column 1890, where the then Minister said:

In the lower income group there will also be a number of pupils whose particular family circumstances will be such that even with the provision of free tuition and free books the keeping of them at school will still be a hardship on their parents. When my scheme is in operation and I have had an opportunity to assess the extent of this problem, I shall have to see what special provision for such cases should be made.

Could I appeal to the present Minister to pay particular attention in the immediate future to that matter. I should like once again—and I have said this so often that I am tired talking about it—to draw the Minister's attention to the children of social welfare recipients. I have in mind particularly children of widows who receive an allowance for their children until they reach the age of 16 years and who, regardless of the fact that these children would be continuing in full-time education, have this allowance, this element of their social welfare payments, withdrawn when the child reaches the age of 16. This is contrary to all modern thinking.

A child who has gone past the age of 16 and who may need further education should be treated as a dependant. While this is a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare, I would appeal to the Minister for Education to impress on his colleague the need for continuing this particular payment for a child up to the age of 16. It seems ridiculous at this particular time, when we are trying to make education available to the more needy section of our community, that the neediest section of all are penalised financially for educating their children after the age of 16. These particular people, our social welfare recipients, are our lowest paid income groups. People who are trying to cope with the present spiral of living costs, trying to maintain large families on £8, £9, £10, £11 or £12 a week must find it extremely difficult to make ends meet. They find it vitally necessary to send their children into some form of employment when they reach the age of 14 or 15. Children of such parents who do not continue at full-time education courses are deprived of this education. This is certainly a matter of finance and economics. The Minister's predecessor promised that when this scheme was in operation he would look into this aspect of it. Even at the time of the initiation of free post-primary education this need was seen and I would appeal to the Minister, if he is not already doing so, to address himself now to the payment of grants, or the giving of incentives of some kind, to the children of such parents who may continue in secondary education. Until this is done we cannot say that secondary education is freely available to the needy section of our community.

I have spoken about another defect. This is the means test introduced for the issue of free books. This test should never have been introduced. A lot of money would not be involved in having these books made available to all children in the non-fee-paying schools. As an example of what headmasters or headmistresses of these schools have to face up to, I should like to instance one of the many schools involved. I have a school in mind which caters, by and large, for children in the lower income bracket. The principal of that school at the beginning of the school year 1968-1969 started a scheme. She decided to ascertain the need in a big built-up area for free books by placing a box somewhere in the hallway at the entrance to the classrooms, in which box the pupils would place the notes from their parents commenting on their needs for free books. As a result of this box being placed there for a week she received something like 173 requests from parents. I am not suggesting that all those requests were genuine but she had no way of knowing that they were. In September of this year the Department issued to this school a grant, and I have been told to say this by the principal involved because it highlights the problem that exists, of £124. On the basis of the cases made by the parents of the pupils involved this teacher reduced the number of pupils needing free education to the absolutely needy. She needed £264 12s 6d to make free books available for the 44 who most needed them but she had 173 applications. She had no way of making absolutely certain and of satisfying her conscience that the remainder of the applicants were not as deserving as those who got free books. Certainly, she felt this was a terrible problem. In fact, it was discrimination against the needier sections of the community. The money arrived about 1st November but there was a time lag of about six weeks between the time children who could afford to pay for them received books and the time the free school books were made available. That meant that those awaiting free school books were without the books for about six weeks.

This type of discrimination must be wiped out. The 1968-69 circular in relation to free school books mentions, for the purposes of the scheme, that a necessitous pupil is a child from a home where genuine hardship exists because of unemployment, the mother being a widow, and so on.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Would Deputy Mrs. Desmond please let me have the particulars of the case to which she is referring?

Mrs. Desmond

Yes. Paragraph 3 of this scheme gives particulars of the amount on average which will be provided for each necessitous pupil for each year of the intermediate certificate course and for each year of the leaving certificate course. I think this should not apply at all. I am giving that case particularly because it existed and is now being rectified but it will not fully be rectified until the six-weeks time lag in the provision of free school books is wiped out. This task should not be inflicted on principal teachers who feel they cannot discharge it to the satisfaction of their conscience. I appeal to the Minister, among the next steps he will take to improve education, to abolish this means test for free school books.

There will exist a gap—it is a gap which it is difficult to close—between the types of extra-curriculum activities, and so on, in the fee-paying school as against the non-fee-paying school. I remember making the suggestion, perhaps last year or the year the Minister announced the scheme, that if schools, for no reason other than exclusiveness, wanted to remain outside the scheme they should pay for it and that the payment of capitation grant to those schools should be discontinued. Often these schools go in for physical culture, speech training, and so on. These schools often teach subjects which are desirable within the scheme. It is very difficult to generalise. The aim should be to bring up the level of schools within the scheme to that which obtains in the fee-paying schools and, as far as possible, to wipe out the gap that exists at present between the schools where the pupils are paid for and the schools which have opted for the Minister's scheme.

Most speakers have referred to free school transport. I do not want to go into detail. I would just say briefly that, like many schemes, the free school transport scheme has degenerated into a maze of regulations which most parents fail even to begin to understand. References have been made to the school bus running half empty and passing children who are walking to school. If a child is not qualified under the regulations to go in the bus then CIE and the driver of the bus are tied by the regulations. The problem is not easily solved. If we load up the bus there will still be the problem of children for whom there is no room in the bus. Like schemes designed to make life easier, whether for children or adults, the fewer the regulations the better. If we can keep the regulations so that they can be understood then we shall have the goodwill of the people. When one tries to explain to a parent why his child is not allowed to go on the school bus one feels one is not getting through to the parent because of all the regulations.

Another matter concerns the driver of the school bus. This came to my notice at a recent Vocational Education Committee meeting. A teacher applied to drive the school bus. Our first reaction was that there might be somebody who really needed that employment but we discovered that it is very much part-time employment and that the wage for the job is about £5 9s 0d per week which would not constitute an adequate wage for a family that would be dependent on it alone. School transport could be used for many purposes. Take, for example, physical culture and games. If these were placed on a firm footing, the school bus might be utilised to an extent that the driver would be employed for 40 or 42 hours per week. The driving of school buses is an outlet for employment, an outlet which a person needing employment cannot avail of at present because the wages are so inadequate. Perhaps some reorganisation of that service might be accomplished with that point in view?

I referred earlier to teacher training. I should now like to ask the Minister a question. Perhaps I should do so by way of Parliamentary Question rather than now, across the floor of the House.

Mr. B. Lenihan

No, it is all right.

Mrs. Desmond

I should like to ask the Minister has he any evidence that the standard of those seeking teacher-training this year is any lower than it was last year or the year before that?

Mr. B. Lenihan

No. The standard is maintained.

Mrs. Desmond

That is good because we were somewhat concerned as to the effect the new scheme might have.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That was my worry, too, but the feared attraction has not had the effect anticipated. In the next university year we hope to have off the ground a basic university type course for teacher-training at all levels—primary, vocational and secondary.

Mrs. Desmond

This is the only year then in which this danger might have been anticipated and the Minister is satisfied there has been no lowering of standards this year?

Mr. B. Lenihan

There has been no lowering of standards.

Mrs. Desmond

Other speakers have referred to the extension of university maintenance grants to those already in university. I understand both sides. I understand the students' case and I understand the difficulty involved for the Minister. Those already in university have a case when one remembers that they now see students coming in in a slightly better position than they are themselves.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Those who did not get in at all have an even stronger case.

Mrs. Desmond

That is quite true, but I would like to think that the Minister might be able to meet the case of those students who are already in. There are other problems which students have. It strikes me greater involvement by students in management, and so on, might be a very good preparation for life. It would foster a sense of responsibility. There is, of course, student unrest all over the world. As Deputy Coogan said, some of it may be superfluous, but I was rather alarmed to discover that some recent agitation was designed to prevent a lowering of standards. The students had a very good case. If we do not maintain our standards, or even raise them, we will not be able to hold our place. On the whole the claims made by the students would appear to be reasonable. Voicing their protest at the lowering of standards did result in an improvement.

Mr. B. Lenihan

If the Minister for Education tried to do anything he would be accused of interfering with university autonomy.

Mrs. Desmond

It is essential that money should be expended on research and that the talent and energies of those best equipped to do such research are devoted to that research. From that point of view, I hope that the outcome, whatever it may be, of the proposed merger will be satisfactory from the point of view of the allocation of faculties. I should like those in these faculties to be relieved of all this worry and contention at the moment because, if standards are not maintained, we will suffer in comparison with the rest of the world.

The Minister, his predecessors and his successors will be judged on the measure of their success and the extent to which education will help to break down the social barriers, plus the extent to which standards are improved or, if possible, raised. With regard to gearing education to the needs of the future, some attention will have to be paid—more attention than has been paid — to adult education. There is provision for grants but these fall far short of what they should be. I remember an OECD survey team which pointed out that it would take 13 years before any upgrading in the level of education was felt in our labour force. The labour force, with an average age of 42 years, is the product of the deficient educational system of 30 years ago and their skills would not be equal to the tasks required of them today, through no fault of their own, of course, and we make the case that these people should be afforded an opportunity of retraining; they should not be penalised because they were the product of an unenlightened system of education 30 years ago. This is something about which the Department of Education should be just as concerned as the Department of Labour. The challenge is very great. Any Minister prepared to meet it will have the goodwill of all and the blessing of future generations.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Tá geall le fiche bliain imithe le fánadh ón uair a tháinig an chéad Dáil le chéile ar an 19ú Eanáir, 1921. Deineadh an chuid is mó d'obair na Dála sin tré Ghaeilge. Do ceapadh timthirí ar a thugtaí timthirí Dála agus cuireadh mar chúram orthu féachaint chuige go mairfeadh an Ghaeilge sa Ghaeltacht. I 1922 cuireadh scéim cúrsa samhraidh ar bun chun caoi a thabhairt do mhúinteoirí feabhas a chur ar a gcuid Gaeilge. Do caith na múinteoirí a neart agus a ndúthracht ag foghlaim na Gaeilge. Do bhí cuid acu ag dul in aois agus do bhí cuid acu óg. Do bhí grá agus gean acu don nGaeilge agus do thuigeadar gurbh é a ndualgas an Ghaeilge a chur chun oiread agus triúr ag labhairt Gaeilge cinn. Dob ait liom mar sin an Teachta Ó Cuagáin ag gearán na chuala sé le chéile ar shráideanna na Gaillimhe. Dubhairt sé linn, dubhairt sé fé dhó linn, go raibh an dearg-ghrán ag an bpobal ar an nGaeilge de dheascaibh na gcluanairí a bhíonn i mbun na Gaeilge. Ní thuigim cé h-iad na cluanairí a bhí i dtreis aige. Ní fheadar an dtuigeann sé féinig é. An cluanairí iad an Roinn Oideachais? An cluanairí iad lucht na gcoláistí? Cé h-iad na cluanairí in ainm Chruim?

So chaint dó dubhaint sé go raibh Teachta ó Chontae an Chláir a bhí dáiríre i dtaobh na Gaeilge. Ba mhaith liom a mheabhrú dó go bhfuil ceathrar Teachta sa Teach seo ó Chontae an Chláir agus go bhfuil togha na Gaeilge ag triúr acu—an Teachta Pádraig Ó hÓgáin a bhí tráth ina Ceann Comhairle, an Teachta Ó hIrghile, Aire Saothair agus mo chara an Bairéadach agus tig liom a rá go bhfuil corr- féin agus ní le maoímh nó le mustar adeirim é. Anois——

Mr. S. Collins

Cad na thaobh nach labhrann siad anso í?

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Táthar á labhairt anois.

Mr. S. Collins

Ach ní labhrann siad Gaeilge anso.

(Interruptions.)

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Ní béas liomsa cur isteach ar éinne a bhíonn ag caint sa Teach seo. Ligim do gach áinne pé rud a bhíonn le rá aige a rá bíodh sé i mBéarla, i nGaeilge nó i ndá theanga.

Mr. S. Collins

Tagaim leat.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Ní rún liomsa aon iarracht a dhéanamh ar mheon agus aigne Teachta ar bith eile d'aimsiú duitse nó d'éinne eile sa Teach seo.

Mar a bhí á rá agam, an tráth úd bhí chuile duine sa tír ag gabháil don Ghaeilge. Dá bhrí sin, ní thuigim cad na thaobh go n-abródh Teachta ó Chontae na Gaillimhe nó ó chathair na Gaillimhe, príomh-chathair na Gaeltachta mar a thugtar uirthi, Dáilcheantar ina bhfuil an-chuid den Ghaeltacht agus deontaisí á bhfáil ag na daoine toisc go bhfuil siad sa Ghaeltacht, go bhfuil fuath agus grán ag na daoine ar an nGaeilge.

Tig liomsa a rá nuair a bhím ag gabháil tré shráideanna na h-Inse go n-airím a lán daoine óga agus daoine nach bhfuil ró-óg ag labhairt Gaeilge. Táim buíoch do Dhia dá bharr. Tig liom a rá gurbh í an Ghaeilge an teanga is minicí a labhartar im thigh féin agus nílim ag maoímh as sin.

Dá gcuirimís romhainn fiú 20 focal Gaeilge a labhairt sa Teach seo chuile lá a bheadh an Dáil ina suí, ansan dob fhéidir go spreagfaimís pobal na tíre chun aithris a dhéanamh orainn. Cé thógfadh ar mhuintir na Gaillimhe nó ar mhuintir bhaile mhóir nó bhaile bhig ar bith ar fuaid na tíre gan bheith ag stealladh Gaeilge uathu féin nuair nach n-airíonn siad Gaeilge sa Teach seo agus nuair nach bhfeiceann siad sna páipéirí go labhartar Gaeilge sa Teach seo? Táimid sa Teach seo ag déanamh díobháil mhór d'obair na n-oidí, d'obair na scol agus táimid ag tabhairt droch-shompla d'aos-óg na tíre chomh fada is a ghabhann sé le Gaeilge. B'fhéidir dá ndéanfaimís Gaeilge a labhairt anso ná luafaí ár n-ainmneacha chomh minic ar na páipéirí nó ar Thelefís Éireann. Cuma sa riach liomsa cé acu luaitear m'ainm nó ná luaitear é!

Anois, bhí nós ag gach Aire Oideachais a bhí anso ar feadh i bhfad, nuair a bheadh sé ag cur a mheastachán ós comhair na Dála é a dhéanamh i nGaeilge agus go mbeadh aistriúchán i mBéarla ag na Teachtaí nár thuig an Ghaeilge. Le roinnt bhlian anuas táimid ag scarúint leis an nós sin. Ba bhreágh liom bheith anso nuair do léigh an tAire an méid dá mheastachán a bhí i nGaeilge. Bhí aiteas ar mo chroí ach, foiríor géar, ní ró-fhada gur iompaifh sé ar an mBéarla. Do bhí beirt scáil-Aire ann le freagairt a thabhairt air agus, Dia go deo liom, níor labhradar oiread agus focal Gaeilge.

Ní dóigh liomsa gur cheart cluanairí a thabhairt ar na daoine a chuireann spéis sa Ghaeilge nó a bhí ag iarraidh an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn ach táim suite cinnte dhe gur cluanairí iad súd adeireas go bhfuil grá agus gean acu don Ghaeilge agus ná cuireann de dhua ná de strus orthu féin oiread agus focal Gaeilge a labhairt le héinne.

Anois, ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do mholadh nó d'impí nó d'achainí a chualamar ón Aire. D'impigh sé ar Theachtaí Dála gan gríosadh a thabhairt do thuistí a bhíonn ag chur i gcoinne dúnadh na scol mbeag. I gcead don Aire agus i gcead do lucht an Tigh seo deirim go bhfuil sé de dhualgas ar Theachta Dála nuair a chuirtear toscaireacht chuige agus go n-iarrtar air freastal ar chruinniu na dtuistí ina Dháilcheantar féin gur ceart dó freastal air agus má bhíonn plean réasúnta acu gurbh é a dhualgas cuidiú leo chun a gceart a chosaint.

Deir Airteagal 42 (3) 1º den Bhunreacht:

Ní cead don Stát a chur d'fhiachaibh ar thuistibh, in aghaidh a gcoinsiais nó a roghan dhleathaí, a golann do chur ar scolaibh a bunaítear ag an Stát nó ar aon chineál áirithe scoile a ainmnítear ag an Stát.

Is ag na tuistí amháin atá an cead a rá cá raghaidh a gouid leanaí. Ní réitím leis an Aire nuair a dheineann sé impí ar mo leithéidse loic ar na daoine a chur anso mé má bhíonn plean réasúnta acu.

Sul a ndéanfar trácht ar scoil a dhúnadh ba chóir dul i gcomhairle leis na tuistí agus gan a dhéanamh fé mar a thárla fé dhó i gContae an Chláir gur cinneadh idir an bhainisteoir agus an Roinn—cineál comhcheilge a bhí ann —scoil bheag a dhúnadh nach mór i ngan fhios do na tuistí. Do chuireas in aghaidh dúnadh na scoile agus cuirfidh mé in aghaidh dúnadh scoile ar bith dá leithéid.

Ansan do tháinig cigire. Do chuaigh sé i gcomhairle leis na tuistí agus nuair do chuala sé glór na dtuistí do chuir sé a thuairisc fé bhráid na Roinne agus do mhol sé gan an scoil a dhúnadh. Cad do thárla ansan? Tháinig cigire ón Roinn agus do mhol sé go ndúnfaí an scoil agus go ngéillfeadh na tuistí duine ar dhuine. Cad déarfaí le cigire ón Roinn a raghadh isteach i scoil ar bith agus a labharfadh leis na leanaí boga óga a fhiafróidh díobh: "Lámha in árda an méid díobh gur maith leis nó léi dul ar an mbus go dtí a leithéid seo d'áit." Ar son Dé cad a dhéanfadh leanbh ar bith ach an dá lámh a chur in áirde; fiú dá bhfíafraítí díobh ar mhaith leo dul go dtí an ghealaigh déarfainn go n-abróidís gur mhaith leo dul ann. Iarraim ar an Aire agus ar lucht na Roinne féachaint chuige sul a ndéanfar scoil ar bith a dhúnadh agallamh a bheith ann leis na tuistí agus má bhíonn tuiste ar bith sásta go ndúnfar a scoil i gContae an Chláir cé hé mise chun focal a rá ina choinne?

Dubhairt an tAire gur mhian leo pé áit ina ndúntar scoil go gcuirtear saorthaisteal ar fáil do na leanaí nó mar a thugann sé féin air "supervised transport". Ní thuigim cad is brí le "supervision" den saghas sin. Bíonn an tiománaí i dtosach an bhus agus slua leanaí istigh sna suíocháin. Ná bhíonn an tiománaí ag coimhead súil ar na bóithre cúnga, cásta, go mór mhór fé mar atá siad i nduthaigh Bhaiscne, ní bheidh sé i ndán dul isteach sa bhus gan é stopadh agus "supervision" a dhéanamh orthu. Do mholfainn don Aire nuair a dúntar scoil agus nuair a bhíonn ar na leanaí taisteal ar an mbus 3 nó 4 mhíle ó bhaile socrú a dhéanamh go raghadh duine de na h-oidí amach sa bhus ar maidin agus duine eile um thráthnóna chun maoirseacht a dhéanamh ar na leanaí.

Níl locht ar bith le fáil agam ar mheastacháin na bliana seo ach is trua géar liom nár cuireadh breis airgid ar fáil i gcóir na saor-leabhar úd.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to deal with one or two matters in connection with this Estimate. I would like, firstly, to endorse, if I may, some of the remarks which you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, made when speaking on this Estimate. Those who had the privilege of listening to Deputy Jones, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, or who subsequently read his remarks on the Estimate at present before the House, were impressed by the attitude which he adopted and the views which he expressed, and in particular the concern which was voiced with regard to the authoritarian attitude adopted by the Department. I wish to endorse what Deputy Jones said in regard to the need for consultation between the Department and the various interested parties in education. He expressed far more fully and with much greater knowledge than I can the concern which has been expressed not merely to him directly but to other Deputies. He expressed the concern which has been voiced in recent months in many areas by persons interested in education.

The particular topic which I wish to deal with tonight, however, is one on which I said a few words last week on the conclusion of the debate on the supplementary Budget. It is the position which has developed concerning the proposed university merger. The time has come when the Minister and the Government should review the whole situation in this regard. When this proposal was originally announced for a single university in Dublin there were many people attracted by the idea. They were anxious to see some form of rationalisation and some approach to a co-ordinated effort between the two universities in the city with a view to avoiding, wherever it existed, overlapping or duplication of unnecessary faculties or facilities and a desire to achieve wherever possible any worthwhile economies. However, there were certain other attractions in the proposals, such as a desire to get the best out of both universities and to ensure that university education in the city would progress on lines that would make available the best possible facilities for those anxious to use them and for those anxious to attend as students at either college. The situation, however, has now changed considerably. It is on this aspect of the matter that I wish to say a few words.

It is a mistake, in a matter of this sort, to lay down as unchangeable the precise form of merger which the Minister has laid down as the only method whereby the single university can be achieved. In the letter of July which he issued and in the decision to establish a Higher Education Authority it was clearly laid down that this decision was not open to discussion. Though those who are concerned with this matter realise that when public funds are concerned, when public expenditure is involved, the Government —I suppose in the last analysis the Dáil—have the final say as to how much will be made available, this is not entirely a question of money. Indeed, in this matter the whole question of the future of university education in the capital city is involved and all that means for the nation.

The decision to merge the two colleges in a single university is one way of dealing with the problem of university education but it is certainly not the only way of dealing with it. As has been shown by a number of special articles, letters and discussions undertaken since this announcement was made originally, there are numerous ways in which this might be done. It is not the function of any Deputy or, indeed, of this Party or possibly of any Party to specify or lay down the precise terms of the form in which that arrangement should be made. The word "merger" has now taken precedence over every other consideration. It appears that a decision was taken by the Government to establish a Higher Education Authority with limited terms of reference, with a firm directive that only the form decided on by the Government is that which will be accepted—that the Authority were then authorised to carry that dictat or decision into effect.

In this connection I consider it right to recall—indeed it is pertinent to consider it—that when this whole question was first brought forward for discussion in recent times, the Commission on Higher Education recommended against the decision which was subsequently announced by the late Minister for Education. After that decision had been announced it was stated that a White Paper would be issued. A White Paper has not been issued so far and after a lapse of more than 12 months the Minister's 6th July letter laid down a clear indication, a clear basis on which the Higher Education Authority should operate.

Since then, indeed at the time the Minister's letter was issued, a large number of academics—a total of 467 members of the staffs of UCD, TCD, UCC and UCG—published a statement advocating four or more separate and co-operating universities. When that announcement was made, or just at about the time that document was to be released, the Minister for Education issued his letter of 6th July.

It is on that aspect of the matter especially that I wish to comment. This Higher Education Authority—I said this previously—which consists of a number of distinguished persons, was hand-picked in the sense that it is not representative of and cannot speak for particular faculties, particular universities or particular colleges. The members of it were hand-picked to perform a limited, defined function laid down by the Minister on behalf of the Government. Since then—this is where I think the Minister and the Government are mistaken and the Authority are mistaken, and this confirms the concern which has been expressed by Deputy Jones in respect of other spheres—the Higher Education Authority have met representatives of the two Dublin universities.

I do not know whether this is generally known, but whether it is or it is not, I think the procedure adopted was quite remarkable. When the UCD representatives met the Authority only two members of the Authority put questions to them. All the others either had their questions channelled through the chairman or were, by expressed decision, prevented from asking questions. When the Higher Education Authority met the TCD representatives, the control was even more rigid: on that occasion the questions were, I think, all put by the chairman and it was made clear that questions should not be put except by the chairman and that if questions were to be submitted by other members they should be submitted in writing.

One can understand the procedure whereby questions on a matter of this sort would be put through the chairman—it is probably a more efficient method of doing it and it might be more courteous to have questions put through the chair—but it is surely the wrong approach in a matter of this sort where you have people of distinction, as some of them are in their particular spheres, dealing with people of eminence in their particular spheres as representatives of the two colleges, to operate in a sort of silent atmosphere in which the approach is: "That is the decision we are here to implement. We are going through the form of meeting them but we do not propose to ask questions." Indeed it is clearly understood that this procedure has been decided on.

That is not consultation in the ordinary way in which any representative body or group of people regard consultation as being effective and constructive or indeed realistic. If a body of eminent people, as I have said some of these people are, whether they were hand-picked or otherwise, find themselves on this Authority, if they are to be of any use in advising the Government, if their advice is to be of a worthwhile character, it is surely sensible to suggest that a person sitting around and participating in or conducting a discussion by people of distinction representing the two colleges in question, should be free to ask a question and not to have either to write it out or put it through the chair? The whole purpose might be lost. No matter how quick a person may be he may forget what the precise question is, and by the time it is written out the discussion may have proceeded to some other point. The reason I mention that is because I believe it shows the mentality which has been adopted in dealing with this matter. This is a very important national question which in many ways transcends politics or political interests.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is a question which should be considered on a national basis. Indeed, the significant feature of the document which was signed by members of the staffs of the four universities was that it included people who were known to be supporters of all political Parties. Many prominent Fianna Fáil people signed it, many prominent Fine Gael people and, I have no doubt, many Labour people and, possibly, some not connected with any particular Party. It is, therefore, essential that their views should be considered and their experience and knowledge taken into consideration before any final decision is reached.

There are, of course, a number of alternative solutions—some form of merger with separate and co-operating universities or a proposal such as that which has been laid down by the Minister as immutable. The potential benefits of unification and co-ordination possibly lie in areas other than the concept envisaged in the merger. There are a number of research institutions and bodies in this country and particularly in this city at present carrying on specialised research in particular matters. There is the Agricultural Institute, the Economic and Social Research Institute, the Medical Social Research Council and the Institute of Public Administration. All these bodies at present are outside the universities. The question of linking these with the universities, the question of linking a body of considerable value to the community such as St. Patrick's Training College, the opening up of specialised teaching resources of the two Dublin colleges, the question of releasing places at present in Trinity College which are occupied by an excessively large number of students from outside Ireland—I know that efforts have been made in recent times to redress the balance in that regard— the question of bringing Trinity College, Dublin, more into the life of the community—and irrespective of what its historical position may have been I think there is a general recognition that it has a useful role to play—the utilisation of all these resources and facilities, and when I say "resources" I mean them in the broadest possible sense, and the question of providing the best possible system of university education particularly here in this capital city—all these are questions which must be carefully examined and considered before a decision is arrived at. Indeed, when considering what the future needs may be, a great deal of stress has been laid on the college here in the centre of the city, Trinity College, and on the new facilities which will be available at Belfield. Some people who have considered this from their experience of working in actual university life, who have studied the statistics and who are conversant and familiar with the problem, have come to the conclusion that instead of two separate colleges in Dublin it may be that in the future we will need a third university in this city. That question, too, must be considered.

In the proposals which have already been announced there are certain objectionable proposals from the point of view of making the best possible use of the resources available. So far as economies are concerned, and I think this is the thing that originally attracted a number of people, the worthwhile economies are very few. With the possible exception of the faculty of veterinary medicine and one or two other relatively insignificant faculties or parts of faculties, there are no worthwhile economies. Indeed, the situation that has developed is that almost every faculty, certainly all the major ones, are not merely substantially overcrowded but the problem is to get accommodation and to get extra facilities. Undoubtedly in certain respects changes of administration could probably make better use of the facilities available, but the defect in the proposal announced is that it is proposed to transfer two major prestige faculties, Medicine and Law, to Trinity College. This would leave a serious imbalance not merely in the prestige faculties but would denude the new University College at Belfield of a number of students who should have available to them the modern facilities which will be provided there.

We believe that the correct approach to this matter at this stage is to re-examine the whole question, to approach it in a realistic, constructive fashion, in consultation with the representatives of the universities concerned. It is remarkable that the staff representatives who have signed this document represent the four colleges. It is true, and it may be said, that the Board of Trinity College are agreeable to the proposals. That is understandable because some of these proposals go further than they ever anticipated and probably further than they might even wish in regard to certain aspects of the matter. We believe that effective policy making should be done in consultation with the colleges concerned with a view to securing closer co-ordination of the facilities available in the city and that every aspect of the matter should be carefully and fully explored.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.