Vocational Education Bill, 1930—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."

Minister for Education (Professor O'Sullivan)

This is a pretty long Bill and I do not intend taking you through the whole of it. I assume that the Senators have read the Dáil debates on this Bill. The Bill is the result of the dissatisfaction of my Department with the system that exists at present and it is the result of the recommendations made by a Special Commission that devoted a great deal of time, energy and ability to an investigation of the whole problem of technical education. I may say that most of the provisions of the Bill follow the recommendations of that Commission. There are two exceptions in which the Bill is not following the recommendations of the Technical Commission. I have elsewhere called attention to these exceptions. The most important is that we found it impossible to devise any working system of machinery that could enforce the whole-time attendance of boys and girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen at technical classes. It would be impossible to enforce the attendance of boys and girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. Once you single out one particular class, namely, those not in employment or in suitable employment, we found it was impossible, when we examined the recommendations of the Commission and their implications, to carry out that recommendation.

The other matter in which we have not attempted to carry out the recommendations of the Commission is on the question of apprenticeship legislation. It was not because we felt that apprenticeship legislation was not desirable and necessary, but because to seven-eighths of its extent it fell within the sphere of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and that Department is preparing a Bill on the matter. This present Bill only attempts to deal with the education of a large mass of the young people of the country from the age of fourteen onwards. It is true that a certain number of youngsters between the ages of fourteen and sixteen are already dealt with, both in the national schools and in the secondary schools, but far the larger number are practically untouched once they leave the national schools, except in so far as they are dealt with by the existing system of technical education.

This is an important problem, and my remarks apply to the country as well as to the towns. There is a tendency on the part of boys and girls when they leave school at the age of fourteen to forget a great deal of what they learned at school. It is proposed to try to remedy that. There is the further problem, namely, the problem of the provision of technical education in the narrower sense to be tackled—namely, the intellectual side of the training for industry. That is what I call technical education in the narrower sense. We have dealt with that problem as fully as we can from our present knowledge of the conditions and our present knowledge of the resources of the country. There are two types of education dealt with in this Bill, one for want of a better term is called continuation education and the other technical education. There is no new system introduced and no new principles practically to speak of except, to a limited extent, that of compulsion, which I will explain later on. There are no new principles introduced either as regards control of technical education or continuation education. The types of education that I have referred to, continuation and technical education in the narrower sense, are actually being provided under our existing system by the technical committees in different parts of the country. So far as that is concerned there is no new condition. What we really attempt in that respect is merely a better formulation of what is now in a chaotic condition.

In the technical schools it has been objected that owing to the system —and not the schools, but the system is responsible—there is a great deal of confusion in mixing up altogether the wider vocational education and the narrower technical education. This Bill tries, as far as legislation can do it, to prevent confusion of that kind. It is a very big problem that we have before us in this country. It is a problem that the country will have to face if it intends to keep its place in competition with other countries. This Bill is not a new departure. It is a reform of the existing system. Control of vocational education and technical education will still, as heretofore, be in the hands of local committees. There is no change introduced so far as the principle of control by committees is concerned —technically, that is. At present local education authorities are the county councils and the borough or urban councils. In future it will be the committees appointed by those bodies, that is the committees appointed by the county council and the borough council. In practice there is no departure in principle there. However, we have made the committees smaller. Up to the present the committees have been absurdly large. Of those often very few attended. It was only on exceptional occasions that you had anything like a full muster, not when the ordinary routine committee work had to be performed. The work had really to be carried on in practice by a small number of people who regularly attended. In future we propose to limit the size of the committee, as Senators will see, if they refer to the second part of this Bill. Furthermore, there is this provision in the Bill as it left the Dáil. In the original Bill there was a provision that there should be fourteen members appointed by the county council, and that of these eight were to be members of the county council. The whole fourteen could be members of the county council if the county council so desired. That was my first attempt to deal with two conflicting interests.

As the Senators are probably aware, however, from reading the debates of the Bill, and also, possibly, from some statements in the Press, it is proposed under this Bill to continue the system we have at present—namely, contribution by rates. That being so, as the power of raising rates within a certain limit is vested in the committee, I was anxious that the county councils, the rating authority, and the borough councils should have a majority of their own members on the committees. It is for that reason that the provision is inserted that there should be eight out of the fourteen members of the committee members of the county or borough council. In that way I hope to safeguard the rating authority of the county council. But the Bill did not quite do that, because it is quite possible that even a majority of the county council present might be against the raising of the rate, and still it might be raised within the limits of the Schedule of the Bill. Therefore, from that point of view the original system is not satisfactory, as the power of raising the rate was vested in the committee. Representations were made to me from various parts of the country that that seemed to impose an obligation on the rate-striking authority. But I have another objection, and it was this: that the incidence of eight out of fourteen of the committee being taken from the county council would unduly limit the liberty of the county council to choose what they thought would be the most suitable people to run a system of this kind.

Consequently as a result of these considerations and the representations made to me from various bodies representing the agricultural community, I introduced a change. I induced the Dáil to accept a change in this part of the Bill—namely, there were these provisions put in: five of the members chosen by the county council must be members of that body, and that five will form the Estimates Committee, and that five alone, or whatever number up to eight is elected by the county council on this Vocational Committee will be the members of that committee who will have the power of raising the rate above the minimum rate within the scheduled limits in any year. In that way I think we have, as far as it is possible to do it, provided for and safeguarded the rating interest—the interests of the county council on the one hand, and secured more liberty from the purely educational point of view, on the other hand. These are some of the important changes in the Bill.

The other important matter in the Bill is compulsion. A certain amount of confusion seems to have arisen on the question of compulsion. I have already dealt with one aspect of compulsion. There is recommendation 18 of the Technical Commission Report that suggests that we should enforce a full-time attendance at school from those not in suitable employment between the ages of 14 and 16 years, but we found in practice that we could not really put a regulation of that kind into effect in the country. We have power in the Bill under which the Minister may compel the attendance at a limited number of hours of instruction per year of those between the ages of 14 and 16, not necessarily for the whole country at the same time. I take it this will be gradually extended—that is to say, there will be a gradual extension of this compulsory section. There have been objections raised to the compulsory section—namely, that it will interfere with the work in the agricultural districts. So far as it is possible to do so by legislation we are trying to guard against that. An amendment in the Dáil which I accepted provided that the actual hours of attendance in the country districts should be fixed by the committee and not by the Minister. The Minister will decide whether in certain areas the compulsory section will be operative. The actual hours of attendance will be decided by the technical committee after consultation with the agricultural committee of the county. In that way the different interests ought to be safeguarded.

The only other matter to which I think it is necessary to call attention is the question of the costs. This Bill, following the example of other countries where the system of post-primary education has been carried through, proposes to introduce the system gradually. There are a number of reasons for doing that. If we were to attempt to introduce this system in one or two years we might very easily make many false starts and waste a lot of money. We might have our resources depleted on schemes that were not the best. For that reason we decided to go slowly. If this scheme were in full operation in the country within the next five or six years we estimate that the total additional cost to the country would be about £300,000. I have indicated that that is the cost in addition to the present cost of technical education. That would be borne partly by the State and partly by the rates.

Sir John Keane

In what proportion?

Professor O'Sullivan

I suggest about fifty-fifty. There is power on the part of the Minister to make these grants. I want to be quite clear that I am not suggesting that in any case where there is more than a fifty-fifty grant that that would be cut down to fifty-fifty. There will be very little interference with existing grants. Any additional cost will be met partly from the rates and partly from the State, and not in one definite year, but for a period of two or three years. I take it for granted that the arrangement will be on a fifty-fifty basis.

In the Bill as originally introduced in the Dáil the minimum rate was 2d. and the Schedule allows for an increase of that rate every year by the committee of a farthing until it reaches 6d. However, amendments were proposed by members of the Farmers' Party, and I accepted both of them reducing the minimum rate to 1¾d., except where a higher rate is struck at present. The Schedule will cease to operate in 1940. I am convinced that with the minimum rate of 1¾d. it will be possible to work the scheme satisfactorily at the start. Let people be convinced, especially let the Estimates Committee be convinced, of the value they are getting under the Bill, and they will gradually advance and be quite ready to provide the necessary finance. I find no difficulty in accepting a limit of 4d. up to 1940 for country districts. If this Bill works well and satisfactorily, in ten years' time the future Minister for Education can then tackle the problem as it presents itself to him.

There are a few schemes at present under which, owing to the small amount produced by a penny rate, and even the small amount that can be produced by the higher rate that could be struck under the Bill, it may be necessary to make a somewhat higher grant. As I indicated already, that extra sum will not cost the State much; perhaps £3,000 in the first year and £10,000 when the scheme is in full operation. I have tried to explain the purpose of the Bill. It contains 121 sections and a few schedules. It is possible that I may not have dealt with the details very precisely. However, it is impossible to go through the Bill seriatim, for after making long introductory speeches I am often accused here and elsewhere, especially elsewhere, of not dealing with particular points that somebody wants specially dealt with. Therefore, I shall leave any further points which Senators may wish to debate until they have first mentioned them. I suggest that the Seanad should give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Mr. Farren

I think the Minister is to be congratulated in bringing forward the Bill. I am certainly in favour of the proposals contained in the Bill. My only regret is that the Minister has not gone further in the present Bill. The Bill proposes to deal with a very serious problem indeed. It proposes to deal with the period in children's lives starting at the age of 14 years, when they leave the primary schools. Unfortunately, we have all to admit, more particularly as regards the towns and cities, that the time of boys and girls—I mean those of the poorer classes whose parents cannot afford to send them to secondary schools—is being wasted. From the period between 14 and 16 years they are almost running wild in our streets. I regret that the Minister has not accepted the recommendation of the Technical Commission in that respect, and that he would not insist on compulsory attendance for boys and girls between 14 and 16 years at the continuation schools. I think it is a pity he did not accept that recommendation. There might be some difficulty in enforcing that provision in rural areas, but from my observation in the larger cities, I think it is a very great pity that he does not insist on full-time compulsory attendance at continuation schools of boys and girls who are not in employment between the ages of 14 and 16.

I am not advocating that boys and girls ought to go to work before they reach the age of 16. I am opposed to that. Children, however, under present circumstances, are only dying for the day on which they are 14 years of age, so that they can get away from the primary schools. The character, of the boys particularly, is being moulded between the age of 14 and 16. As we see in the streets of Dublin—and this applies to the boys of several people whom I know—when they leave school at 14 they are not compelled to attend the continuation school, and their lives are destroyed. They have no occupation. When boys have no occupation and are not made to go to school they get into bad company, and their whole future is jeopardised at this period, if they are not compelled to seek employment or go to school. I have always been, and am still, in favour of compulsory attendance from the age of 14 onwards, whether by way of attendance at technical schools or at some other schools of that type where the boys and girls would get proper education.

It is a lamentable thing that there is no employment, practically, for young people in this country. It is almost impossible to get employment for boys and girls in this country up to the age of 18 years. Even if we found employment for them I think we ought to endeavour to see that they finish their education. Somebody said at one stage that it was necessary, because we were so poor, to spend more money on education. I believe that any money spent on education will be money well spent, because I think that we badly require it.

The Minister has outlined a number of sections in this Bill, and he has explained the proposals with regard to the setting-up of the committees. I have some experience of having served on a technical education committee and I am inclined to agree with the proposals the Minister has made. With regard to raising finances for the scheme, I think the proposal is sound, because the Minister proposes in the Bill to maintain the status quo. I read the Minister's statement in moving the Second Stage of the Bill in the other House, and I think he said that he proposed to maintain the status quo, and that then he was prepared to advance pound per pound—that for every pound raised by the local authority a pound would be granted by the State. I think that was perfectly sound, because it is an inducement and an encouragement to local authorities to raise money on the rates for the purpose of carrying on technical education that is required in a particular locality.

I am glad to note that we are getting away from the old idea that it is not necessary to have technical education for the main and staple industry in this country, which is farming. If there is one industry that requires technical education and requires that properly trained minds should be brought to bear on it it is our main industry—agriculture in all its branches. We made a start some time ago which I hope will have very beneficial results, when we established a Chair in University College, Cork, for Dairy Science. I think that was a step in the right direction, always bearing in mind that this is mainly an agricultural country and that it will continue so. It would be well if we bore in mind in all our educational schemes, whether they are for the primary schools, secondary schools, technical schools or universities that we should cater for the industry which is the main industry of the country. For that reason I am glad to have read the Minister's statement that as regards the rural areas it is proposed that these technical schools shall deal with the subjects that will be most beneficial to the inhabitants of the particular localities. I think that is perfectly sound.

Another matter about which I wanted to speak was the statement of the Minister that he did not propose to deal with apprenticeships. There may be good reason, as the Minister said, as to why the question of apprenticeship is not dealt with in this Bill. If it had been dealt with in the Bill—it is a subject with which I am most conversant—I would be prepared to offer my opinion, but as the Minister, for reasons which he did not give, said that it was not thought advisable to have the questions of apprenticeships introduced in the Bill, I have nothing further to say, except that I am in agreement with the main provisions of the Bill. I regret, however, that the Minister has not insisted on compulsory full-time attendance of boys and girls who are not in employment between the ages of 14 and 16 at these continuation schools.

Mr. O'Doherty

I must say at the outset that I am in general agreement with the Bill. There are one or two points which I would like to put before the Minister. With some of them the Minister may already have been acquainted. The Minister is no doubt aware that amongst a certain section of the teachers, teaching under technical committees, there is a big feeling of unrest in regard to this Bill. I am referring to the itinerant teachers of Irish. They feel that their position is being undermined by the Bill. Their position is purely temporary; they have no pensionable rights, no security of tenure of office. They feel that the Bill will make for less security in their tenure. Some of them have gone so far as to formulate and to send to organisations interested in the development of the Irish language, resolutions calling on public representatives to use their influence with the Minister to make their position secure. I see enormous difficulty in doing that, but, at the same time, there might be some way whereby the position might be improved. The resolution I am referring to was passed by the Coiste Gnotha of County Meath. It reads:

That this meeting of the Gacls of Meath request the Coiste Gnotha of the Gaelic League to draft amendments to the Vocational Education Bill, 1930.

(a) Providing specifically for the stabilisation on an improved basis of the teaching of the Irish language in the rural districts, as at present conducted under existing Technical Education Acts.

(b) Providing specifically for the transfer under the new conditions of existing part-time teachers of the Irish language in these rural night classes.

(c) To stabilise the positions of the existing part-time teachers of Irish by providing specifically that the positions shall become whole-time, permanent and pensionable as in the case of other teachers under the present Technical Education Acts.

(d) That all teachers of Irish to be appointed in future be appointed on a whole-time pensionable basis.

(e) That amendments to such effect be properly drafted and inserted in the appropriate portions of the Bill.

I see the difficulties the Minister would be confronted with if he attempted to carry the resolution into effect. At the same time, Section 6 provides for Vocational Education Committees throwing the responsibility for drafting a course of instruction on them subject to the sanction of the Minister. If a sub-section were inserted making it compulsory on the Education Committees to set aside portion of the hours to be devoted to technical instruction, or in continuation classes, solely to Irish it would make, to some extent, for security of the itinerant Irish teachers. I question whether it would not be advisable for the Minister to consider the necessity at this stage of our history of having compulsory sections in the Bill dealing with the utilisation of Irish as a medium of instruction in continuation or technical classes. The Minister smiles. Those who have been associated with the development of the Irish language know that notwithstanding the fact that many pupils are brought to a state of perfection in the primary schools, when they reach the age of fourteen and go out in the world to roam the streets, or to go to work, they forget all the Irish they learned. We have before us an Education Bill which more or less winks at that. We have compulsory Irish in the primary schools, and it seems to me the logical sequence should be to have compulsory education in the continuation schools and the technical schools. We have compulsory Irish in the universities and provision made for the teaching of technical subjects through the medium of the Irish language. Surely we should not deprive children who are not in a position to get these benefits, owing to their inability to pay for secondary or university education, of an opportunity of continuing their Irish language course?

On reading the official debates in the Dáil I noticed—though I may be wrong—that the Minister made a statement with regard to Section 27. Section 27 provides that the Minister retains the right of dismissing any individual officer or servant of any local committee without reference to them. An amendment was introduced in the Dáil, and the Minister said an effort would be made at a later stage to bring that section into line with Section 105, which placed the Minister in the position of at least inquiring locally. If the Minister is satisfied that he has done that I wish he would point out where it is. I think the section remains as it was.

Professor O'Sullivan

I introduced the second sub-section of Section 27.

Mr. O'Doherty

That is so. I am glad the Minister drew my attention to that. The drafting is peculiar. One section gives the right and another section takes it away. That seems extraordinary. However, I feel with all the country who have an interest in educational development that it is high time such a Bill was introduced. I was glad to hear the Minister say that its operation would be gradual, because in measures such as this I believe their operations should be slow. It is only by such methods that the proper working and the proper understanding of educational requirements can be arrived at.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about the finances of the Bill. There are two methods of getting money for the schemes. One is dealt with in Section 43 affecting local contributions. As far as I can see there is a flat rate for all counties of 1¾d., which is made up, I gather, by a fifty-fifty contribution. Section 53 deals with grants made by the State. As far as I can see it may equalise out the sums given to each county. Does the Minister take account of the population? I will explain the matter in this way. In Kerry the population is 150,000, and in Meath 60,000. In Kerry 1¾d. would produce £2,100, while in Meath the same amount would produce £4,000. Obviously, there will be three times as many persons in Kerry as in Meath to come under the educational scheme, both in vocational and continuation classes. That being so, in order to provide for all, it will mean something like a difference of £6,000 to make the two sums equal which come from the State. As far as I can gather the Minister said that only £3,000 would be required. What I want to be sure of is that whatever money is available will be apportioned according to the population of each county.

Mr. Linehan

I desire to refer to the financial part of the Bill. It is proposed to make a departure from precedents whereby the provision of education is borne by the State and not by the ratepayers. I am aware that representatives of the ratepayers have voluntarily struck a rate and made a contribution towards certain classes of education in the past but, under this Bill, there is a compulsory clause compelling them to pay rates representing fourpence in the pound. I would like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the ratepayers can bear a further burden of fourpence in the pound. From what I know of the ratepayers they are grumbling at the rates they now have to pay, and they are living in the hope that the Government will, in a short time, bring in a Bill to wipe out rates altogether. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that part of the Bill by providing the whole of the costs out of State funds. If he does so the ratepayers will pay their share as ordinary citizens. I have not seen any resolutions from any representatives of the ratepayers, that is, the county councils, in favour of the financial part of this Bill. As a matter of fact, I have seen in the Press that some county councils passed resolutions protesting against the imposition of this extra 4d. in the pound on the rates. I hope that the Minister will accept an amendment to strike out part 4 of the Bill and to let the State finance the scheme in its entirety.

Mr. Connolly

We all welcome this Bill as an effort to put continuation education and technical instruction on a proper basis. There are, however, one or two points in it with which I would like to deal. First, I would ask the Minister to give some assurance that the continuation classes will be mostly non-technical and to ensure that the committees operating will not entirely devote their activities purely to technical instruction. The Minister has embodied a direction in the Bill stipulating for technical classes which will be suitable according to the industrial and other developments in an area, but I have not heard or found anything in it of a directive nature as regards cultural possibilities or cultural activities. I have the fear that they may be neglected. Of course, committees will have to submit their schemes to the Minister or to his Department. We also presume that the organisers or inspectors from the Department will have a great deal to say in the outlining and preparation of schemes. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that alternative proposals or schemes of cultural activities for continuation classes will be laid down by the Minister.

With all due respect to the various county councils, I am not prepared to accept their schemes, or the view that they are competent to frame schemes, from the cultural viewpoint. I feel that that is something to which particular attention should be paid. Strange to say, though I am an industrialist, and have been so all my life, I have always found that if cultural development could be got it meant far better technical development and a better type of citizen, which is what we want. It is not so long ago since we were reminded in this House that most of the cultural activity as regards literature, drama and the arts was made by what was called the Anglo-Irish element and not the native element. As was then pointed out, there are historical reasons for that. Great progress has been made in other countries as compared with this, and I hold we will have to give in the country districts as well as in the cities and towns an opportunity for cultural development through continuation classes. I am doubtful if the Bill will do that unless particular attention is paid to that idea at the beginning. If the Minister and his organisers and inspectors have control and have an opportunity of outlining the schemes there is a chance that that will be done. If, on the other hand, it is left to the ordinary rank and file of county councils and urban district councils, I think the chances are very slight indeed. Reference has been made to apprentices and that an Apprenticeship Bill will be introduced, but under Section 87 there is really what is tantamount to a provision for apprentices in employment. It is compulsory on employers to release workers in their factories or otherwise so that they will be free to attend classes. Under Section 61, I think, there is a provision for time of 180 hours, which means 45 days of four hours or, alternatively, 90 days of two hours each, however it may be divided.

Might I suggest to the Minister that it would be a good idea to divide —and I speak as a manufacturer who makes his apprentices attend classes—to divide the time at the classes equally between technical and cultural training. A boy gets on an average 8 or 8½ hours a day mainly working. He goes to a technical class afterwards, which, according to the spirit of the Bill, will be adapted to his particular industry. I hold from experience that that boy far more needs cultural education, education in what one might call the applied arts of his industry, rather than to go on monotonously following the instruction of a man who is not in many cases so competent in the particular craft as his own employer. I prefer that boys between 16 and 17 who are going to attend these classes should get a general and cultural education rather than a training on the purely technical side.

I suggest that the Bill, taking the spirit of Section 87, will be interpreted as meaning simply that a boy who is working, say, at woodwork for 8½ hours in the day, will continue to devote his time when attending the classes to the same type of work. In my opinion it is more essential for him to have his general education improved and to be trained in drawing, designing, or anything else, but above all that his general education and development of character should be continued. A reference is made in Section 71 to the Act of 1925. That deals with the form of attestation which was demanded by the Bill in 1925, and which is still in operation, and which, from this Bill, it is still intended to maintain. This form was unsuccessfully resisted in the Seanad in 1925, I think largely on an amendment by Senator Douglas. That amendment, however, was defeated. I think this attestation ought to be eliminated, and I do not think that this Bill should contain that condition of employment. Recently the Technical Congress protested against continuing that imposition, which amounts to a political test. Whatever argument might have been used for it in 1925, and I do not admit there was any argument for it, has disappeared now. At all events, as the Technical Congress pointed out, it did this, that men of real character who had any objection to the political test would not sign it, and that men of worse or weaker character would sign, and the result would be that technical instruction, and the continuation classes, would lose the services of the best type of teacher. I suggest we have reached a period in our history when such a section ought to be eliminated. No man of any character is going to subscribe to a political test in which he does not believe. Many of us think that particular section was put in at a time in our history with a view to penalising these people who had certain political ideas at the time. The main point now for us to remember is that we may lose the services of the very sterling characters who will not sign this form, and the time has come for it to go. We will probably put up an amendment proposing its elimination, and I hope that amendment will receive the support of the House and the favourable consideration of the Minister.

Mr. Johnson

I am sure the Minister is gratified with the cordial reception that has been accorded to this Bill in the Dáil, the Seanad and throughout the country. I, too, join in that congratulation. I am very much of the same mind as Senator Connolly with regard to one of the defects in the Bill which I think might have been remedied in the Dáil and perhaps could be remedied here. There is very much overemphasis upon the training of youth and the possibility of confining the activities of the committees to the technical side rather than to the general education side that is allowable within the scope of the Bill. I understand, of course, as the Minister pointed out, that there is nothing in the Bill to limit the present powers of the technical education bodies. This Bill completes the trilogy—we had a general Education Bill, a Bill dealing with secondary education, and now we have a Vocational Education Bill. One might say that the general scheme the Minister had promised as educational reform is completed, but there is another aspect that might have been dealt with in the Bill, but which I am afraid is rather clouded.

The Bill is called a Vocational Education Bill, and vocational is defined to include technical and continuation education. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the very wide educational need amongst the adults. Youths are mainly catered for on the compulsory side of the Bill, and not altogether in connection with their actual occupation, but there is also a desire for knowledge by young men from eighteen upwards, and for grown men and women for some development of their knowledge, and getting a chance of general mind—and character-building. That is a side of education that has developed very much in recent years amongst the working classes in other countries—I suppose in the countries of the Continent of Europe, but certainly in Great Britain, and to some extent in Northern Ireland. Efforts have been made in the Free State, but these efforts have not been very successful. I did hope that some attention would have been paid in the Bill to this, in a direct fashion, and in such a way as to encourage and to invite educational continuation bodies themselves to make provision in their schemes for the poorer classes, and to provide university extension lectures not necessarily dealing with their occupations, but not necessarily excluding these, and which would be of a very beneficent character in the making of good men and women and citizens. I say that the term "vocational education" is apt to direct the minds of members of the committees to that particular side of their work, and in effect to confine their thoughts to the vocational side of the activities of the committees, and notwithstanding the fact that it is allowable, within the scope of the scheme, to continue and to extend elementary education, which would cover almost any subject whatever.

I am sure the Minister is very well aware of the activities of such bodies as the Workers' Educational Association, which has been definitely and financially recognised by the Departments of Education in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and which has the closest association with the universities. I think it would be well to have that association with a university, and I would hope that the universities in this State would take an active part in the promotion of that side of adult education. I would like to see in the Bill provision made for a scheme of such courses of classes, with the aid possibly of the university tutors. I do not know if that could be effected by way of amendment to the Bill, but if it could be dealt with by way of amendment at all it would be a rather considerable amendment. I hope the committees will be reminded that there is more than purely technical work before them, that there is the extension of elementary education, not in the narrower or primary subjects, but in the wider subjects, shall I say, by simple university lectures, and through classes that are capable of being understood by and participated in by the man who has had only the benefit of primary education, and yet has acquired a great deal of knowledge of the affairs of life and is practically enabled to give to university tutors very great assistance by the play of mind with mind and by putting experience against theory. I think under schemes which the Minister's Department may have in mind, that when any question of this kind comes up they should include the possibility that, wherever a local committee has a desire to participate in this general working class educational movement—the adult educational movement—they should be encouraged to participate in it and provide for opportunities of that kind.

There are one or two things in the Bill that I would like to have some light on. I refer to them at this stage because the information the Minister may be able to give me may make it unnecessary to bring forward amendments. The Minister drew attention to his desire that the money-providing authority, which is the local authority concerned, should have representation upon these educational committees. It was really a question what the proportion should be of the persons elected to local authorities. I am rather at sea in regard to that, because I suppose we have the right to assume that the Department of Education has collaborated somewhat with the Department of Local Government. My reason for referring to this matter is that I find that Section 8 of this Bill provides "that the Vocational Education Committee for a borough vocational education area shall consist of fourteen members elected by the council of the county borough which is such borough vocational education area, of whom not less than five nor more than eight shall be persons who are members of such council."

That is a very definite direction. The Minister has justified it and has quite approved of it, but the Minister for Local Government, in effect, abrogates and cancels that section beforehand in his Dublin Bill, which provides:—

So much of any statute or of any order made under any statute as requires that a person elected or nominated to be a member of a public body by the council of a county borough or by the council of an urban district or in particular by the council of the county borough of Dublin or by the council of either of the added urban areas shall be a member of the council by whom he is elected or nominated shall not apply in respect of any person elected or nominated by the city council of the new city.

That is to say, that what the Minister for Education is asking the Dáil and the Seanad to enact, almost at the same time the Minister for Local Government is asking the same Houses to annul and to repeal. I cannot understand it because there is such a glaring contradiction between the two principles. No doubt, before this Bill passes the Minister for Local Government will be asked if he has consulted the Minister for Education. It is really such a glaring contradiction and so unsatisfactory that I hope very much some reconciliation of the two sections will be brought about before either Bill becomes law. There is another point on which I would like to have the Minister's assistance, that is in regard to his intentions touching the area of Dublin, Rathmines and Pembroke. I leave out for the moment the proposed coastal borough. As I gather from the Education Bill now before us it is intended that the present areas shall continue, and that Rathmines and Pembroke shall be separate vocational education areas.

Professor O'Sullivan

I did not want to assume that the Seanad would pass the Dublin Bill unchanged. Therefore, I am waiting until I know what the intentions of the Seanad are with regard to the Dublin Bill. When I know what the intentions of the Seanad are, then possibly they may amend this Bill for me.

Mr. Johnson

In that case I take it that we shall have to postpone the Committee Stage of this Bill until after the Dublin Bill is passed. That helps me to get over a little obstacle. I am rather surprised it was not raised in the Dáil. I agree with Senator Farren in expressing regret that some means has not been found for making attendance at classes from fourteen to sixteen years of age and onwards obligatory, unless a reason can be adduced that a youth is employed in an occupation of a wage-earning character. While it is true that we cannot commend the idea of starting youths of that age in wage-earning occupations, nevertheless they seek, and are allowed to be relieved from school at that age on the plea that they are going into wage-earning occupations, and so long as they are in that position they might be exempted from attendance at classes of one kind or another. I think it is a great pity that some means have not been found to meet that. I cannot understand where the tremendous difficulty arises, but no doubt the Minister is justified in what he says, because I am sure his sympathies are with the intentions and desires expressed by Senator Farren and myself : that there should be no gap for these young people now leaving school at fourteen years of age.

This conflict between the central and the local authorities is always very perplexing. In this case if the central authority wishes to force a policy of this kind upon the local authorities they should pay the whole thing. It is not right to impose upon a local authority the obligation to raise a rate. Heretofore, that has been permissive. The county raised the rate voluntarily, now it is obligatory on the local authority, and if that is the case, I think it is only reasonable that the local authority should have control. If not, let the central authority take over the whole responsibility and let them finance the whole thing. I would like the Minister to tell us whether if he had a clean slate and no commitments he would not think it the better course that the whole of this education should be put in the hands of one central authority as primary education is. If he is not prepared to do that then let it be the other way. Let the local authorities themselves strike a rate and have complete control. Do not give them a sort of so-called veto on the one hand and manacle them on the other.

Mr. Wilson

I wish to support the latter portion of the statement made by Senator Sir John Keane. Here is a subject which demands the highest directive qualities. Yet it is left to the common laymen in the country. We know the alleged progress that goes on in the country in the name of technical education and what is going on at the present time in that direction. Classes for shorthand and typewriting, and a few things of that kind are going on in the country, and that is supposed to be a great advantage to the State. On the other hand the Minister will resolve all the inequalities of the finance that operate under the present system in Kerry as against Meath and in Donegal and Wicklow and Dublin by the central authority paying the piper per head of the population. People seem to think that because a thing is supposed to be done by the central authority the rural areas escape payment. We know well enough that the revenue of the State, as regards 60 or 70 per cent. comes from the rural areas and, therefore, they will pay their share of the inequalities and injustices that will be done under this Bill. If there is to be a charge then the Minister, as in primary education, and as in secondary education, more or less, ought to be the directing force. Let him demand from the Minister for Finance the necessary revenue to bring about the advancement of education, so very badly needed in the rural areas.

Let Senators picture to themselves what is going on in Wicklow at the present moment. Into the little towns there may be half a dozen scholars coming in the evenings. Five miles up in the hills nobody ever hears of a boy coming to a technical school. The children from there never come to the continuation classes. In the villages they will come to the classes, and this rate will be used for the development of a little portion of the population that exists in the neighbourhood of the villages. What we want is to bring the continuation system of education to the children of the small farmers, isolated outside the towns and the villages. The present system is not doing that. Nor is it likely to do it, nor is it likely to be done for fourpence in the pound. We know when compensation for damages done during the Civil War had to be paid the country areas paid 6d. in the £ for five years. Money could be found for compensation in that case. Why is not sufficient money being found now? I am certain you will do nothing with a penny three farthings in the £, and I am certain that the penny three farthings should be wiped out, and that the real finance of the Bill should be a central contribution according to the necessity of the area in each case. The poorer area should get more money. The rich areas which would be getting 9d. as against 2d. in the valuation should receive in accordance with their necessities. And the necessities, as we know, are greater where the people are poorer.

Mr. Comyn

I have listened very carefully to the many speeches made, and I am greatly surprised at the extraordinary technical knowledge that has been shown by the Senators in the course of the discussion of this Bill. I hope that the Senators who have spoken so well on the various aspects of this Bill will introduce amendments, so that we may go more fully into the various questions connected with the Bill, and discuss them more closely. As the Minister said, we have plenty of time. We need not adjourn for another month or two, or three months if we like. I am sure the Minister will be always ready to discuss the merits or demerits of the Bill with us, and to sanction a proposal when the proper time comes. There is one point that I think has been omitted. Senator Farren said that the money spent on education is money well spent. That may be true, but I think it is equally true that the value of education does not always depend upon its cost. I do not wish to say that that should be taken as any indication of my opinion that proper educational facilities should not be supplied to the people. At the same time there should be some regard to the expenses.

What I wish to say is that I am particularly anxious, personally, to ascertain from the Minister whether, or not there is to be duplication of offices under this Bill, and he is not here to answer that question.

It might be more convenient to wait until the Minister returns. It was for the sake of having the matter properly discussed that I raised the question.

Mr. Douglas

On the motion made I would like to make my position clear. I am not prepared to vote for the motion. This is the first occasion on which it has occurred that a Minister has been compelled to leave the House to record his vote in the other House. I do not think it would be seemly on the part of the House nor just and reasonable. I think this is a matter that could be discussed between the Ministers and the Cathaoirleach. If in the future it should happen that this would become a matter of frequent occurrence, then this House may feel inclined to take strong action. I think if the House definitely passed a resolution now and adjourned this Bill it would be absurd. We know that practically all the business we have here to-day will require the attendance of some Minister or another. To assume that the Minister for Education is the only Minister whose vote will be required in the other House would not be reasonable. Other Ministers would also have to vote. To adjourn simply as a protest would be most unwise.

Mr. Comyn

It is not a protest.

[Professor O'Sullivan, Minister for Education, having entered the House.]

Mr. Johnson

I withdraw my motion, with the leave of the House.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor O'Sullivan

I must apologise to the Seanad for having been away for a few minutes. I will deal now with a number of points raised in the debate. One was raised by Senator Farren and the same point was referred to by Senator Johnson. There was a recommendation made by the Technical Commission. I had better read it:—

"We recommend that attendance at a full-time school should be compulsory in urban areas at least for all young people between 14 and 16 years of age who are not in employment; and exemption from the obligation to attend national schools should be granted only in the case of those who are in employment."

Senator Johnson is quite right in suggesting that it is with regret I dropped that particular recommendation. I realise the importance, if possible, of securing attendance not merely part-time and if necessary by means of compulsion, especially in the case of those in the large communities. But the moral aspect of the problem is not so very great perhaps in the country districts. The damage done by unemployment is not so great because unemployment does not exist in the same way or to the same extent in country districts. Unemployment in the country for young people is a different thing from what it is in the towns, and I realise very fully the desirability of putting in a section of this kind, and not merely putting it in but making it effective.

I may tell the Seanad that in the first heads of this Bill and in the subsequent drafts of the Bill that left my hands there was a general section of that kind. But it was when we went beyond the mere general recommendation and tried to see how far we could carry it out in practice, we found, no matter what our desires were, that to make it compulsory for those not in employment would be impossible. We found that in practice that we could not carry it out. We would be putting into the Bill a pious expression, in itself not harmful, but it is a different thing to put in the shape of law a penal provision which could not be enforced. What might make the Bill look better from our point of view would be a section of that kind, but it would not produce any good results. I thing the spectacle of a provision of this kind not very seriously made and not working out in practice would have a worse result than if we were to leave out the provision altogether. So far as the general provisions of the Bill are concerned, and some expression of the general wish, I find that we had in the Compulsory School Attendance Act of 1926 one section which caused a general power of this kind to be enforced. The difficulties are very large. First of all there is the question of approved employment. That is not insisted upon here. It would be a question of reading through a schedule of employment and to say what would be approved and what would not be approved.

Supposing we took employment of any kind. We are not discussing the question of whether or not people ought to enter employment at the age of 16. Whether some people object to it or not it is practically inevitable that we should allow people at that age to enter employment. If it were a question of a person being in permanent employment or out of permanent employment, if these are the only two classes you have to deal with, the matter would be simple enough, but notoriously these are not the classes with which you have to deal. The problem is not limited to these in permanent or out of permanent employment. There is a lot of casual employment. A boy or girl may be in employment for one month and out of employment for another. It is the difficulty of enforcing it in the case of persons casually in or out of employment, that is insuperable.

The facilities will be there, I hope, especially in all the towns. They will have an opportunity of attending a school that is more closely connected with their ordinary avocations than, say, the primary schools, a school that might make more appeal to a person over the age of 14. These facilities will be there in a larger measure than at present. I would ask Senators to bear in mind the difficulties of enforcing even the ordinary Compulsory Attendance Act at 14. I would ask them to put themselves in the position of the District Justice who would have to enforce the Act. After all, it comes to that. It has to be enforced, and the court will have to enforce it. It would be practically impossible, especially down the country, dealing with people who may be in casual employment or casually out of employment, to make this particular portion of the Act legally enforceable. After all, that is what a compulsory clause means—not an expression of opinion on our part, but the legal enforceability of it. Where there has been continuation courses for pupils over the age of 14 the authorities generally follow the example we have adopted in this Bill. I do not think that you can make an exception for those in employment.

It has been suggested that in the city there are some classes at which by direct trade-pressure we could secure a compulsion of that kind. not legal compulsion in the full sense, but compulsion of another kind. Where you are dealing with children over 14 years of age, that has not been found to work satisfactorily, even from the purely educational point of view. It was with regret that I dropped the suggestion and if anybody in the Seanad thinks that he can introduce, not merely a general clause but a clause that can be worked out in practice in all its details, I shall certainly be quite prepared to recommend it to the Seanad and, if the Seanad adopts it to recommend its acceptance in the Dáil. I made the same offer in the Dáil, but so far, we ourselves have not been able to supply anything that would satisfactorily solve the problem. Senator O'Doherty said on one occasion that I was smiling. Perhaps it was that I was delighted at the presence here of somebody who had experience of the Dáil, and I was glad to get an encouraging word in the Seanad. The Senator talked of instruction through the medium of Irish. I was glad to hear him on that subject. He referred to the fact that we had compulsory Irish in the secondary schools and the primary schools. I do not know, however, that we have it in these schools by virtue of any statute. I do not know that Irish is likely to be neglected during the lifetime of the present Government and so far as the teachers of Irish are concerned I hope their tenure and their security will not be prejudiced by this Bill. But I should not like to admit the argument that we should compel committees to set aside a certain portion of their revenues for Irish courses, and not educational courses, in order to secure the position of part-time teachers of Irish or a temporary teacher of Irish. That is the argument.

Mr. O'Doherty

On a point of personal explanation. I object very strongly to the Minister for Education or any other Minister twisting the arguments which I have put forward. I did not advance the proposition on the basis of the security of the temporary teachers of Irish. What I did say was that it was a natural and logical corollary to the fact that we had made the teaching of Irish compulsory in the schools.

Professor O'Sullivan

I am very sorry if I misunderstood the Senator. I accept his explanation. May I point out that no statutory provision is necessary to safeguard the position of Irish? I have adduced sufficient proof of that when I say that there is no such provision in regard to secondary education. Neither is there any such provision in regard to primary education, and still we have done a certain amount in regard to Irish in these schools. I can assure the Senator that I did not mean to insult him or to misconstrue the context in which he used the words, but I could not accept the argument which he put forward.

No one would be stronger in condemnation of this Bill than Senator Johnson if I did anything else. We would have had highly constitutional arguments brought forward for such extraordinary conduct on the part of Ministers and that Senators were not going to be allowed to exercise their rights.

So far as the actual rates are concerned I have toned them down as far as I could, so that any amendment in that respect would jeopardise the whole basis of the Bill. Those who were interested in the matter approached me, and I did make certain important concessions to them which to a large extent went to meet their views. I consented to a reduction of the twopenny rate to 1¾d., and also, in order to meet their views, practically made the imposition of the larger rate no longer compulsory but really voluntary. So far as members of the county council on the Vocational Educational Committee are concerned, I tried to safeguard the interests of the county council in that way, and I thought they were fairly pleased.

Mr. Comyn

As the Minister was unavoidably absent when I spoke I would like to know whether there will be any great duplication of offices under the Bill. For instance, I see a section providing for the appointment of attendance officers. I also want to know whether there are to be numerous abolitions of office and consequent pensions. I see by Section 99 (5)

A vocational education committee may, with the sanction of the Minister, and shall, when so directed by the Minister, abolish the office of any officer transferred to it by this section, and every such officer whose office is so abolished shall for the purpose of the enactments relating to superannuation and compensation for loss of office, be deemed to have been removed from office by such committee for cause other than misconduct or incapacity,

and may give superannuation, pension or gratuity. I want to know whether the Bill involves any duplication of offices and any great amount in pensions.

Professor O'Sullivan

I do not think so. I could answer the last part of the Senator's question by saying "No." There may be one or two cases, but very few in practice. The enforcing authority, as far as the greater part of the country is concerned, will be the Gárda Síochána, just as in the case of the School Attendance Act. In the case of Dublin, if we asked the present officers to undertake work under the Bill it would be more than they could do. They have as much work as they can do at present. So many officers are appointed according to the districts in which they work. Some portions of the city are more thickly populated than others. In Kilmainham an attendance officer has to go farther distances than he would have to go in the middle of the city. In every case the attendance officers are fully occupied. If I threw all this work on to the existing officers I would have to get additional officers. I do not think there will be any duplication. New officers may have to be appointed. Even if I asked the committee to undertake the work of enforcing the Bill they would have to appoint some new officers.

Mr. Comyn

Committee Stage ordered for July 2nd.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 18 Jun 1930