Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Dec 1942

Vol. 27 No. 4

Building and Upkeep of Schools.—Motion.

Mr. O'Connell

I move:—

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that the total cost of the erection, reconstruction and equipment of national schools should be borne by the State, and that the public health authorities should be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the school buildings and premises, including repairs, heating, lighting, cleaning and sanitation.

This is not by any means the first time on which the propositions contained in this motion have been publicly advanced, but I feel it is particularly appropriate that they should be put forward now, in view of the attitude taken up by the Minister for Education when replying to Senator Baxter last July on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, but much more so because of something which has occurred here in this country within the last few months, and to which I shall have occasion to refer later on in the course of my remarks. In Volume 26, No. 17, Column 1846 of the Seanad Debates, the Minister is reported as follows:—

"With regard to school buildings, the point I should like to emphasise to the Seanad is that our national school system is organised on a parish basis. There is the parish unit and this organisation of primary education is in accordance with the religious sentiments of the Irish people. It has been described even quite recently by an Irish bishop as being not very far from the ideal, so far as Irish Catholic principles are concerned. The State is responsible for the payment of the teachers and it makes generous grants towards the building, improvement, heating and cleaning of the schools, but on the people of the parish, which is the unit of the whole system, devolves the primary duty of providing the funds necessary for the maintenance, repair, heating and cleaning of the schools and towards the cost of reconstruction of existing buildings and the erection of new school buildings when required locally."

In this passage, and indeed all through his speech on that occasion, the Minister spoke as if the present national school system were a homogeneous entity—something that could not be interfered with or altered in any way without doing violence to Catholic principles or to the religious sentiments of the Irish people. I believe I am right in saying that this was the impression created by his speech. It will be my task to show that such an impression is entirely erroneous.

The Catholic Church, not alone in this country but in all countries, has always claimed and insisted on certain prior fundamental rights in the control of education, and it has ever been exceedingly jealous of any interference with these rights. No responsible person or body, in this country at least, will dispute or fail to acknowledge that claim. But we must be certain as to what the claim actually is. In many countries during the latter half of the last century—and indeed, I might say, down to the present day—controversy has raged over the question of religious control of schools and religious teaching in the schools, and there has been much bitterness and much contention as a result. Happily, we in this country, or perhaps I should say in this part of the country, have been spared such controversy. Many things have operated from time to time to cause dissension among our people, but through all our trials and troubles there has always been, among Catholics and Protestants alike, but one opinion on the question of religious education and its place in our educational system. There is unanimous agreement among all our people that religious instruction, in accordance with the religious beliefs of the pupils and their parents, must be given in all primary schools. Education is of the spirit—it has to do with the soul of man, the cultivation of the mind, the gradual drawing out and development of the child's God-given faculties. It concerns itself with the human personality in the wide sense—the proper upbringing of the child and the training of his character as a Christian and a citizen. All true teaching must be animated by that spirit. It is in this spiritual field that the Church claims to have the fullest and most complete authority, and here it will brook no interference from any quarter, State or otherwise.

When we talk of a school, we sometimes have in mind the material building—four walls of bricks and mortar— wherein education is being imparted. But the building and its surroundings are the accidentals and externals—the mere material adjuncts to the school proper. We could have a school in the middle of a desert, in a tent or in an open park, in a ditch or beside a hedge, as we had in our own country in years gone by. We must, therefore, clearly distinguish between what might be called the religious, moral and spiritual side of education and the purely material side—the externals, the buildings in which education is imparted, the administrative machinery, and such like. There is, I assert, no inseparable bond between these two sides, and I hope to show that no such inseparable bond is claimed to exist between them.

Rev. Dr. Corcoran, S.J., the distinguished Professor of Education in the National University, in the course of his minority report as a member of the Vice-Regal Committee on Intermediate Education in 1918 made the following statement:—

"The most essential issue in the Catholic nature of Catholic schools is full Catholic control of the choice of teachers, retention of teachers and removal of teachers."

The Church claims, and none disputes its claim, that in order to ensure that not only religion, but the secular subjects as well, should be taught in the proper way—that all the teaching should be animated by the proper spirit and sentiments—it should have control over the teaching personnel— that it should have the right to select and appoint, and when necessary remove, the teachers. That right has been fully conceded in the case of all primary schools under Catholic management in this country. No responsible person or body, and least of all the teachers themselves, dispute or question that right. Indeed the teachers would be among the first to oppose any attempt to take away that right from the managers. I make that statement very deliberately and with full regard to my position as an official of the Teachers' Organisation of 26 years standing. Addressing a teachers' congress in Belfast on April 22nd, 1930, Most Rev. Dr. Mageean, Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, spoke as follows—

"What I say here about the impossibility of separating in practice the religious from the secular side is true of education in itself; it is not necessarily true in the administration of education. Let me make this point clear by an example.

Questions dealing with the upkeep and repair of the school building, with sanitation, heating, lighting and cleansing of the school could be in the hands of a committee, subject to the education authority. On the other hand, the determination of the religious programme to be taught in the school would fall within the province of the Church authority.

The teacher is partly the concern of the State and partly the concern of the Church; for the addition to imparting knowledge the teacher plays a large part in the religious and moral development of the child.

The situation could be met, I think, by the ecclesiastical authority appointing the teacher, subject to the proviso that the State has the right of insisting that the person appointed should have the proper academic qualifications or the approval of the education authority.

Questions of text-books could be solved in the same way."

Here his Lordship made it clear that he made no claim to the control of such matters as the upkeep and maintenance of school buildings. He did claim a right in the matter of the appointment of the teachers, and of the school programme and school texts—in other words in the religious, moral and spiritual side, as against the purely material side.

I referred a few moments ago to a commission which sat in 1918, of which Dr. Corcoran was a member. In the same year, a commission presided over by the late Lord Killanin examined the position of primary education. One of the greatest Churchmen of our day, the late Cardinal O'Donnell, was a member of that commission. So also was the then secretary of the Catholic Clerical Managers' Association, the late Very Rev. Canon Macken, P.P., of Claremorris, who represented the Catholic managers on the commission. The other Churches were likewise represented. Here is an extract from the unanimous findings of this commission signed by, among others, Cardinal O'Donnell and Canon Macken:

"While we hold that the work of teaching in primary schools in Ireland is a national service, and that the assistance heretofore given from State grants towards the original capital expenditure on the erection of school-houses should be continued, there are, in our opinion, directions in which localities may well be called upon to evince their interest in the success of the State service, by contributing by a local rate towards the expense of primary education.

We therefore propose that it be obligatory on county councils and county boroughs, in conjunction with the Board of National Education, to appoint school committees on the same lines as school attendance committees are at present constituted. Their duties and powers to be as follows:—

(1) The enforcement of school attendance enactments throughout Ireland.

(2) The maintenance, repairs, heating, cleaning, and equipment of national schools unless adequate provision has been otherwise made.

Before expending money in the maintenance, repairs and equipment of non-vested schools, the owners of the buildings should enter into agreements with the school committee as regards the use of the buildings during certain hours and for a certain number of years for primary education purposes, so as to warrant the committee incurring such expenditure.

It should also be optional for such local committees to undertake the following charges:—

(1) The payment of the moiety required from the locality in order to secure the medical and dental treatment of the pupils in the schools, and to secure the provision of meals in necessitous cases. Also the payment of the local moiety towards discharging the annuity on the residence for the principal teacher.

(2) The provision of school books and requisites in necessitous cases.

(3) The provision, where necessary, of plots of land for the purposes of horticultural instruction, and also the provision of sites free of cost to enable managers to erect teachers' residences where not already provided.

The expenses incurred in exercising these powers and fulfilling these duties to be met by a county-at-large or borough rate. In cases of dispute in the distribution of the local rate for any of these purposes the matter should be referred to the Commissioners of National Education for their decision."

These recommendations, I would remind Senators, were made when we had an alien Government here in 1918 or 1919.

I shall quote one further extract to show that in this matter of education the distinction or division between the spiritual and the material side does exist and is, in fact, recognised and provided for by the Church itself. This extract is from the Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri—The Christian Education of Youth, by His Holiness Pope Pius XI, an authority which, in such a matter, is beyond question. The extract I propose to quote is taken from the paragraph headed “Relations Between Church and State.” The first portion of this paragraph deals with the boundaries which limit the respective activities of Church and State and refers to the words of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII on the subject. It points out that some subjects may be the concern of both authorities, though from a different point of view. Then it goes on to say:—

Now the education of youth is precisely one of those matters that belong both to the Church and to the State, "though in different ways," as explained above. "Therefore," continues Leo XIII, "between the two powers there must reign a well ordered harmony. Not without reason may this mutual agreement be compared to the union of body and soul in man. Its nature and extent can only be determined by considering, as we have said, the nature of each of the two powers, and in particular the excellence and nobility of the respective ends. To one is committed directly and specifically the charge of what is helpful in worldly matters; while the other is to concern itself with the things that pertain to Heaven and eternity. Everything, therefore, in human affairs that is in any way sacred, or has reference to the salvation of souls and the worship of God, whether by its nature or by its end, is subject to the jurisdiction and discipline of the Church. Whatever else is comprised in the civil and political order rightly comes under the authority of the State; for Christ commanded us to give to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's."

These extracts and the statements by prominent Churchmen which I have quoted make it quite clear that changes in our primary system which would concern themselves only with such external and material things as school buildings, their upkeep and maintenance—changes which might imply the handing over of such administrative details to local committees and the imposition of a local rate—that any such changes would not be inconsistent with fundamental Catholic principles and would not, as might be gathered from the Minister's speech to which I referred earlier, do violence to Catholic ideals or to the religious sentiments of our people.

I have thought it necessary to dwell at some length on this in order to dispel any misconception that might arise, and to forestall a possible argument that here in this motion we are asking something which, if granted, would be an invasion of the rights and privileges claimed by the Church under what is known as the managerial system. On the contrary, this is a proposal to relieve managers of an obligation with which they find themselves burdened—one which they are not in a position effectively to carry out, because they are not provided with any powers to enable them to carry it out. They are, in fact, asked, and expected, to make bricks without straw.

I come now to the first proposition in this motion, viz., that the total cost of the erection, reconstruction and equipment of schools should be provided from State funds. School building in this country has always been carried on—in fact is still carried on —in a haphazard and desultory fashion. In the early days of the system, many schools were built by private individuals, often by the local landlord, and they remained the private property of the individual who built them. These are known as "non-vested schools". Nowadays the State provides at least two-thirds of the cost of erection, and the school building is vested in local trustees—usually, in the case of Catholic schools in the Bishop of the diocese, his Vicar-General or some person specially appointed by him, and the local parish priest, who is the manager of the school. Let us see what the usual procedure is when it is decided to build a new school. I should say here, of course, that the existing school may be condemned for years before the decision is finally taken to replace it. That is no uncommon experience; there are 300 of them in that category at present. The manager must provide a suitable site. He gets no financial assistance from the State or the local authority to enable him to lease or purchase a site. The site chosen has to satisfy the Board of Works, and if the manager believes the site is suitable and the Board of Works think otherwise a controversy arises that may go on for years.

Let us assume, however, that the question of the site is settled—the manager has somehow or other raised the necessary funds to provide it. The Board of Works will then, in consultation with the Department of Education, make an estimate of the cost of the new building. If the money voted for school building in that particular year is not already allocated—and this often happens—the Department of Education informs the manager that a grant equal to two-thirds of the estimated cost of the building will be made available, provided he is prepared to put up the balance. Let us see what this means.

A school to accommodate 100 pupils would cost, even pre-war, something in the neighbourhood of £2,500 or £3,000. The manager, in addition to providing the site, would in that case be expected to provide £800 or £1,000 as his share of the cost. Now I ask Senators to visualise the ordinary rural parish—with its population of small farmers and agricultural labourers. The manager is expected to raise within his parish this capital sum. He can do so only by way of appeal for voluntary subscriptions. In nine cases out of ten the manager will say he is unable to provide the local contribution, and here begins another battle between the manager and the Department. There is provision in the rules to enable the Minister to grant, in case of necessity, a bigger proportion than two-thirds, and a process of bargaining is set on foot between the manager and the Department, something like what goes on at a local fair —only that this particular haggling may go on for months, or even years, before final agreement is reached.

I do not think I can give a better description of what happens in such cases than was given by Mr. O'Neill, Secretary of the Department of Education, in the course of his evidence before the Committee of Public Accounts in April of this year. He was being examined as to the circumstances in which a school was closed for 16 months, during which reconstruction work was being carried out. I quote from page 16 of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and Minutes of Evidence which was ordered to be printed in July, 1942. The date on which the evidence was given is April 30th, 1942.

I quote questions 136 and 137:—

"136. Chairman—Can you give any information as to that, Mr. O'Neill?

Mr. O'Neill: It was really more a Board of Works case than ours, because the chief delay arose in the section dealt with by the Board of Works. In the beginning, there was a great deal of haggling over the grant. That occurred in our section of the case, because the manager wanted us to contribute more than we were willing to. We were haggling for about four months. After that, as I have said, it was a question of the Board of Works having difficulties in carrying out the reconstruction. We kept on asking the Board of Works to expedite the business. I can give you a time-table if you wish.

137. Chairman—Is there any staple basis for grants or does every school which comes up for repairs become the subject of a bargain between the Department and the manager as to what proportion of the cost will be defrayed by a grant from the Department?—No. There is a regular scale. We give two-thirds and the manager gives one-third. That is the normal thing that applies in general practice. Where you have a necessitous parish, however, in a congested district in the west particularly, where a manager may have nine or ten schools and a very low rateable valuation, then he asks that we should give more and that he should have to raise less. Sometimes he asks that he should not be required to give anything at all. It is there the haggling comes in. In this case the manager wanted only to give one-sixth. In justice to the taxpayer we did not think that we could give him five-sixths, and so we haggled for a few months and finally came to a bargain."

That is Mr. O'Neill's description of what took place in that particular case. Four months' haggling before the bargain was finally made—that is before the work was even put up for contract! One can only imagine how long it took to decide that the reconstruction was necessary at all before the actual haggling began.

I shall give one other instance to show the delay that can take place before a school which is declared dangerous and injurious to health can be put into a proper state of repair. Some time in 1934, the M.O.H. for County Kildare called attention in his annual report to the condition of one of the schools in his area. Nothing was done about it. Three years later —in 1937—he reported as follows:—

"This building is, generally, in a dilapidated condition. The floor is in disrepair and is a serious danger to children owing to the possibility of accidents. The fireplaces are in disrepair. The walls and floor are dirty. It is, evidently, many years since the walls were distempered. The end wall shows a large area of dampness; the wall over one window is dangerously cracked. There are slates missing from the roof and the exterior plastering is in disrepair. There are signs on the wall which indicate rain coming through roof. The roof of the cloakroom is in a dirty condition. The desks are of the old, obsolete type. The closet walls are dirty and this structure is insufficiently lighted and ventilated. The eave gutters are missing and defective. The surplus water from yard flows into schoolroom. These premises are in such a condition as to be a nuisance or injurious to health. They are, in my opinion, definitely unfit for use as a school in their present insanitary condition. I recommend that this school be not used until it has been put into proper repair and condition."

Then began a series of communications between the manager, the Department of Education, and the Board of Works, and in which even the Kildare Board of Health and the Local Government Department took a hand. Yet, in December, 1941, four years later, the medical officer of health felt compelled to report as follows:—

"I again beg to call attention to....school, which remains in a condition injurious to health. I have repeatedly, in the last few years, reported this matter to the board, but no definite action has been taken to secure a remedy. In a State professing Christian ideals in its Constitution, it is a paradox that children should be compelled by law to attend daily in such hovels which are masquerading as national schools, and which are endangering and undermining the health of the citizens of to-morrow. The neglect to repair and maintain old schools, and failure to provide new ones, is in sharp contrast with the board's action in repairing old cottages and providing new ones despite war conditions. Following this report, an assurance was received that the conditions of this school would be improved, and at time of writing repairs are at last actually in progress—seven years from time of first report on what was among the worst schools in County Kildare."

I need not dwell further on this aspect of the case, but when Senators know the circumlocutory methods and the interminable delays connected with this question of building schools, they will not be surprised to learn that only 334 new schools were erected in the ten-year period, 1932 to 1942.

Mr. McEllin

What is the average for the previous period?

Mr. O'Connell

I do not know. It might have been less.

Mr. McEllin

Why did you select the 1932 period?

Mr. O'Connell

Because the Minister mentioned these figures here on the occasion of the debate last July. I hope that the Senator will not think that I am drawing any comparison between the work of this Government and of the last Government in this connection. I think that the position was better in the past ten years than in the previous ten years. I do not want to make political capital out of this matter.

Mr. McEllin

That is all right, but the selection of dates was unfortunate.

Mr. O'Connell

The figures were given by the Minister on the occasion of the debate in July. That is why I mentioned 334.

The Minister told the Seanad here last July that according to his figures, which were not up-to-date, 600 new schools were required, and that 300 of these could be regarded as being in the "very urgent" category. There are about 5,000 schools in the country, so that approximately one-eighth of them need to be replaced. This, I may add, is an extremely conservative estimate. If the present rate of 30 new schools a year is to continue, when does the Minister hope to finish the work? How many schools will require urgent replacement or reconstruction by the time these 300 are finished with?

The Minister said that £2,500,000 was expended on school buildings and reconstruction since 1932; but, on his own showing, that amount was entirely inadequate to cope with the problem. If that problem is to be tackled in a serious way, the first step is to short-circuit the present cumbersome procedure. The two-thirds and one-third regulation is not imposed by Act of Parliament, nor has it even the force of a statutory rule or order. It is a hundred-year old rule, carried over from the old National Board—one that could be altered in the morning by a stroke of the pen. Money for school building is capital expenditure. It could, and should, be raised by loan, and its repayment spread over a long series of years. As it is now, one generation of parents in a parish is expected to contribute one-third of the cost of a building which will supply the needs of at least three generations. The State is in a better position than any individual manager to raise money on favourable terms, and if the total cost is provided by the State all this haggling can be cut out and the work can be put in hand immediately it is decided that a new school is necessary. Managers will be only too glad to cooperate with the Department if they are relieved of the necessity of providing a local contribution.

Here I might refer to a possible objection that will be made both to this and to the second proposal in the motion. The managers and the ecclesiastical authorities attach considerable importance to the question of ownership. The schools, as I have stated, are, in the main, the property of local trustees—parochial property, that is— and some people may say: "How could the State build schools which they may not own, and how can a local authority expend money on property which belongs to someone else?" Whenever such a problem is posed to me, I always call to mind an incident which happened in my own family some years ago. One of my girls, aged about four or five, got a present of a male puppy. She told her mother that she would call him "Nell". "Oh, but," her mother objected, "you couldn't call a little boy-dog ‘Nell'." The child thought for a moment, and just said "You could"; and that was all that was about it, and "Nell" he was called. And when someone now tells me that you could not spend public money on what is, legally, private property, I just say "You could". It is conventional to think otherwise, of course, but let no one say that it cannot be done if we wish it done.

Not only that, but in this very case of school-building it is being done at present. I stated that, in certain cases of necessity, the Department is satisfied to accept a smaller contribution than the usual one-third. In the very poor areas the manager may not be asked to contribute anything. The total cost is provided by the State, but it does not, because of that, raise any question of State ownership. The school building is vested in local trustees, and is, and continues to be, parochial property, just in the same way as if the manager had contributed the full one-third proportion of the cost. I should point out here that, before a grant is made by the State towards the erection of any national school, the manager or trustees must execute a deed in which they give a very elaborate undertaking to the effect that the building will always be used as a national school, that it will be subject to the control of, and to inspection by, the Department of Education, that the programme taught therein must be approved by the Department, and that if these conditions are not observed then the money granted by the State must be refunded by the trustees. What more security than that is needed by the State?

The Killanin Commission, in the extract which I quoted earlier, suggested that the owners of the non-vested schools should enter into agreement with the local authority as regards the use of the buildings for primary education purposes, in order to warrant the local authority expending money on repairs and maintenance. They did not suggest that they should be transferred to the local authorities. And it must be remembered that, though the schools are, and remain, private or semi-private property, they are used for a public purpose for the benefit of the community as a whole, and technicalities or conventions as to legal ownership should not stand in the way of doing what is necessary to render them suitable for the purpose they are intended to serve.

It cannot, therefore, be urged as an argument against this motion that its implementing would involve a transfer of the ownership of the schools either to the State or to the local authorities, because all that is asked here can be done, and should be done, without raising any question of a change in ownership.

Here, perhaps, I might refer to another point that is sometimes put forward by those who profess to see a danger in these proposals. The fact that the manager contributes a certain proportion of the cost of erection or up-keep of the building, it is said, establishes a legal claim which would confer on him a certain security in case a Government ever desired to take all control of education out of the hands of the Church—to establish a purely secular system and oust religion from the schools. Now, every sane man knows that any legal claim thus established would not be worth a thraneen if the circumstances which are envisaged in the suggestion arose here. If one could possibly visualise the advent of a Secularist or Communist Government here who were determined to take over the schools and oust the teaching of religion from the schools, does anyone think for a moment that such a Government would allow a legal technicality like that to stand in their way? They could pass an Act of Parliament in 24 hours that would wipe out every legal title and transfer every school in the country either to the State or to a local authority, and in that case, one of the strongest arguments that such a Government might put up would be the condition of the school buildings and premises. They might well make that the pretext for taking all control of education out of the hands of the managers.

Little argument will be required to recommend the acceptance of the second portion of this motion. To save me the necessity of reading them out, I have circulated to Senators some typical extracts regarding the condition of the schools, taken from the most recent reports of the county medical officers of health.

These are by no means exhaustive, but I think they are sufficient to show that a state of affairs exists all over the country which constitutes a positive danger to the health and wellbeing of the community; and the question will arise, "Are we going to allow that state of affairs to continue and, if not, where is the remedy to be found?"

The Medical Officer of Health for County Sligo has summed up the position very succinctly in the course of his report for 1939. Here is what he says:—

"There is such a mass of evidence accumulated to prove the evil effects on young children of unhealthy environment that no one can dispute it, yet for lack of funds, or inability on the part of managers to get from the controlling authority such funds as are available for urgent repairs, young children must according to the law receive their education under conditions decidedly injurious to their health.

For at least nine years the school child must spend on an average six hours a day in school. They are the most impressionable years of the lives of 90 per cent. of the children, and the influence of the school environment on the health, character and future home of the school child cannot be over-estimated. Surely then the school building should be designed to improve the health, leave a favourable impression and inculcate a healthy mode of living.

The teachers alone suffer more than the children because they have to spend almost one-third of their lives in schools belonging to a bygone age. Only those who can adapt themselves to living and teaching under the most adverse conditions can hope to complete the school year with a clean bill of health."

In connection with the upkeep and maintenance of school buildings, the Department of Education have formulated certain rules and regulations, or rather they have carried them over from the old Commissioners' rules. Here is one of them:—

Rule 49 (I). "The duty devolves upon the manager of making arrangements to ensure that each school under his charge is kept in proper repair, is properly furnished, that the internal walls are whitewashed or distempered as required, that at intervals the rooms are washed out with carbolic soap or other disinfectant, and that the school is made comfortable by being properly lighted, cleaned, ventilated and adequately heated in cold weather."

And here is another:—

Rule 45 (5). "When the school premises are vested in trustees it is the duty of such trustees to keep the house, furniture, etc., in repair, and should the trustees fail to carry out their obligations in this matter the grants to the school may be suspended."

In other words, the Department may cease to pay the teachers' salaries. For they constitute 99 per cent. of the grants to schools. If a manager for any reason fails or is unable to carry out the duties enjoined on him in these rules the only penalty which the Department are in a position to impose is the suspension of all grants to the school, which is just a euphemistic way of saying, "We'll no longer pay salaries to the teachers in that particular school."

I must not forget to mention that to enable the manager to carry out the onerous duty imposed on him, the State provides what is called a heating and cleaning grant. The manager is expected in the first instance to find the necessary funds to supply fuel to the several schools in the parish, and to keep the school premises and out-offices in a clean and sanitary condition. When, several months later, he submits details of this expenditure, and supplies vouchers, etc., he may, if he manages to comply with all the complicated regulations governing the grant, receive a refund on the basis of £1 for each £1 expended, but only up to a certain limit, and that limit depends, strange to say, not on the number of rooms to be heated or their size and situation, nor on the extent or nature of the sanitary requirements, but on the number of pupils who attend the school. In the vast majority of the schools, in the rural schools especially, the heating and cleaning grant is entirely inadequate, and there is ample evidence in the medical officers' reports that many schools are sorely wanting in regard to both heating and cleanliness.

Incidentally, I might say that a week or two ago, in the Dáil, the Minister informed Deputy Byrne (Junior) that the State grants were equal to one-half of the certified aid in cash or kind contributed locally. If that statement is correct, then the regulations must have been changed very recently, because the official rule on the matter up to this year was, and as far as I know still is, as follows:—

"Where aid is provided in kind, the total amount of the grant under all heads shall not exceed the total amount of cash expenditure incurred on the heating and cleaning services."

One of the criticisms of the scheme, both by managers and teachers, was that allowance was not made for contributions in kind—turf or wood supplied by parents, for instance.

However, even if the present State grant were doubled or trebled, I hold that unless special machinery is created for its distribution on the basis of necessity things will remain unsatisfactory. If these grants are made on the basis of attendance, or even in accordance with the size and number of rooms, etc., all sorts of inequalities will arise. In some cases a grant arranged on any such basis will be more than what is required; in others it will not be nearly sufficient. There must be some local administrative machinery to see that each case is dealt with according to its needs, and my view is that the proper people to undertake this work, and to be held responsible for it, are the local public health authorities.

Each year the medical officers of health furnish reports to the local health authorities on the condition of the schools in their area. But the board of health can do nothing about it. The owner of a private house which is declared to be dangerous or to be a nuisance and injurious to health can be compelled to remove or abate the nuisance and put the premises into a proper sanitary condition. If he fails or neglects to do so, the board can do the work itself and hold him responsible for the cost of doing it. So far as I know, there is no such power in the case of a school —at least I have never known it to be exercised. All that can be done is to obtain an order to close down a school, and while there have been threats of such closing in a few instances I have never known any case in which the health authorities actually carried out the threat. No doubt the board would consider it a great hardship on a manager to do any such thing.

My solution—the solution urged in this motion—is that the obligation now placed on the manager by Departmental regulation should be transferred by legislation to the public health authorities. These should be charged with the duty of seeing that every national school in their area is kept in repair, that it is periodically painted or distempered, that arrangements are made for adequately heating the rooms and cleaning and scrubbing the floors, that the playgrounds are drained and gravelled, and above all that the out-offices are regularly attended to and kept in a proper sanitary condition. I want to make it clear that I do not attach any blame to the managers for the present unsatisfactory position in regard to the maintenance of these buildings. I have said on many occasions elsewhere, and I say it now, that they have been saddled with an impossible burden. Very many of them have made heroic efforts to discharge the obligations imposed on them, and for this they deserve the highest praise; but there is no use shutting our eyes to realities. No one will get up here, or I expect elsewhere, and say that everything is satisfactory.

There is more reason than ever now, not only for uneasiness in regard to this matter but for positive alarm, because of a dangerous and insidious enemy that has lately made its appearance in our midst. I refer to that dread disease known as infantile paralysis. This scourge has been, as you know, endemic in the United States for many years.

I cannot say whether there is any connection between its appearance here at this juncture and the advent of thousands of American citizens to our shores. Be that as it may, America has spent millions in fighting the disease and in research work in connection with it, but they have up to the present found no infallible remedy in the case of those whom it claims as victims. They have, however, made some important discoveries in connection with it. Up to three or four years ago it was believed that it was a respiratory disease, and that the source of infection and of transmission to others was through the nose and mouth—that persons sneezing or coughing transferred the virus to the surrounding atmosphere, whence it was breathed in by others to make its way through the nasal passages to the brain. That was the accepted theory until quite lately. Now it has been definitely established that the virus is contained in the bowel discharges of infected persons, and this to a much greater extent—more than twice the extent, it has been stated—than in the respiratory organs. It has further been established that flies coming in contact with these discharges can transfer the infection to human beings.

The medical experts were for long puzzled over the fact that the incidence of this disease was much greater in villages, small towns, and rural areas than in large centres of population. Here was the probable solution. Sanitary conditions in the large cities are less liable to constitute a source of infection in the manner referred to than in the more backward places. Relate all this to the sanitary conditions in our rural schools, and we at once realise the gravity of the danger with which we are faced.

Think of the open pits cleared out, at best once a year, at worst at intervals of several years or not at all. Think, too, of the want of sanitary convenience in 99 per cent. of our farm houses and rural cottages, and of the carelessness of people in such matters. Only then will we realise how little prospect there is of permanently stamping out this dread disease. Where America, first in the world, I would say, in matters of sanitation, has failed, what hope have we who are so blissfully indifferent and neglectful in these matters? I feel that our people do not realise the extent of the danger facing them. I doubt if the health authorities themselves realise it. I believe that such public announcements as have been issued from time to time have lulled the public into a false sense of security and relief—I would be sorry to think that this was deliberate. We are told the number of deaths. How many have made a complete recovery, or how many of those attacked are fated to live on for years as helpless cripples? Little has been said of the abortive form of the disease—practically indistinguishable from an attack of influenza or a common cold. These attacks may be thrown off without leaving any ill-effects, and without developing any paralytic symptom; but nevertheless the person so affected may be an unconscious carrier of the virus of the disease, and a source of infection for others—infection which may develop into the worst form of the disease. We have an enemy in our midst that we may not get rid of for many a long day. I fear that unless drastic measures are adopted this dread plague will affect increasing numbers of our population. That is why I think the proposal in this motion is so terribly urgent.

I dread to think of what may happen next summer when the ubiquitous fly is again on the move. I believe we could face an armed invasion with greater chance of success and with less latent danger to our people. I am, therefore, much more concerned about the second proposition in this motion than the first, because the danger that I foresee is imminent.

Even if everything I ask here is done, and done without delay, it will not, I fear, rid us entirely of this plague, but it is the first obvious and most urgent step by way of limiting the incidence of the disease, and it is equally obvious that it is only through the machinery of our public health authorities that the danger can be adequately tackled. It must, of course, be accompanied by a widespread campaign to educate the public as to the danger, and the steps they can take to lessen and prevent its spread. I ask Senators, therefore, to join with us in urging as firmly and strongly as they can the acceptance and the immediate implementing of this motion by the Government.

Mr. Cummins

I formally second the motion, reserving the right to speak at a later stage.

Mr. Counihan

Senator O'Connell has given a very clear and explicit explanation of the conditions obtaining in our national schools, and has made a very forcible plea for his motion. I must, however, honestly say that I feel there is no great demand from either managers or the public for the implementation of this motion and the carrying out of the suggestions which Senator O'Connell has made. The whole demand has come from the teachers. The Department, to my mind, are doing practically all that the motion suggests should be done, but Senator O'Connell wants to go the whole hog. He wants to strip both managers and the people of any particle of responsibility which they may have for the maintenance and erection of schools at the present time. Senator O'Connell asked Senators to visualise what happens when a demand is made by a local school manager for a grant for building or reconstruction of schools. I shall give the House and Senator O'Connell an example of what happened in the parish in which I live. In that parish we had three very dilapidated schools. We had for some years very aged managers and nothing was done to the schools. They were allowed to get into a very bad state of repair. Some five or six years ago —I think it was in 1936—a young, energetic curate came to the parish and the manager asked him to take up the question of the reconstruction and renovation of the schools. He first called in an architect, got the schools examined and an estimate for the rebuilding of one school and the reconstruction of two others. After receiving the estimate, he called the parishioners together. It was the blackest year of the economic war, a year in which neither the farmers nor the agricultural workers had much money. The wages of agricultural workers at the time were in many cases less than £1 per week. Senators can therefore see that no parish in the West of Ireland at the present time could be in a worse position to meet a charge for building or reconstructing schools.

After that meeting it was proposed that as no big subscriptions could be got from anybody, there should be a weekly collection of 3d. from every household. That suggestion was agreed to and collectors were appointed. In a little over a year the whole amount required for the building of one school and the reconstruction of two others was collected. There were no playgrounds attached to the schools, but local landowners gave an acre of ground as a free gift to the manager for playgrounds in the case of two of the schools and the Land Commission gave an acre for the third school. The position as Senator O'Connell correctly stated is that in all cases three-fourths of the cost is subscribed——

Mr. O'Connell

Two-thirds.

Mr. Counihan

Two-thirds of the cost and, in some cases, five-sixths of the cost is given by the Department. In fact in some cases seven-eighths or the whole of the cost is given. If that is so, I cannot see why such a small amount as one-eighth, one-sixth or one-third, as the case may be, cannot be subscribed by the parish. What we have done in our parish can be done in every parish in the country where the manager will carry out his job. I think the Minister will agree, if he makes inquiries, that in our parish we have three up-to-date schools, schools as good as anybody wishes to find in rural parts, built at very little cost to the people. The people are very proud of these schools and they want to keep them as their own property. They are proud of their property and they do not want to hand them over to another party.

Mr. O'Connell

Nobody suggested that.

Mr. Counihan

I have even greater objection to the second portion of the motion in which the Senator suggests that the responsibility for heating and decoration of the schools should be handed over to the public health authority. We all know what it would cost. It means that the local rate-payers will be taxed for that, taxed to four times the extent the work would cost if done under the present conditions. We all know that when repairs such as the putting on of a slate is done by a public authority, it costs ten times as much as if it were done by the local handyman.

In that case the parishioners of different schools districts would be taxing themselves unnecessarily for something they could get done at one-fourth of the cost.

I agree with Senator O'Connell that there are many schools a disgrace to the public, to the parish, and to the manager, but I suggest to him and his colleagues that they devise some means whereby managers who are lax in performing their duties would be made perform them, or whereby authority could be taken from those managers who neglect their duties to the alarming extent that the Senator has mentioned. That would be a much more sensible way to attack the question of proper sanitary and other accommodation. The Senator has suggested that the State and the local authority should take over the responsibility, but I do not think the country is very anxious to change the present system. Probably it would mean getting in the thin end of the wedge, to oust the managerial system and the authority of the local people in the ownership of their schools.

Mr. Baxter

I would like to compliment Senator O'Connell on his great industry and the orderly manner in which he made his case to the House. It is a very good example for all of us in any work we have to do here; it shows us the value of having in this Assembly, on a subject like this, a man who really understands it, and who can approach it, not in a narrow way, but—looking at the whole broad subject and the vastness of the problem— in the only possible way in which it can be approached and solved. We must be clear in our minds as to our aim in this matter of education. This is the sort of subject about which we can have a free and frank discussion which need not arouse any Party feeling. We should have a sound basis on which to carry out our plans for the future. The Minister for Education and the thoughtful people in the country who want to do the right thing for education and by our educators should be clear as to the aim and how it is to be achieved.

I have said here before that, if I were asked as to the first thing I would like to give the children of this country, I would answer "good health". That is the first thing— sound bodies with, of course, a clear understanding that they have souls to save. If that is a commendable aim, we have to look at the whole problem of education from that angle. I am satisfied that the problem never yet has been approached from that point of view. If it had been, we would not have this unsolved problem to-day. One is not to find fault with the present Minister for Education or with any of his predecessors. This is a heritage of the past. Naturally, it is only just now that we are getting clear of the fogs and mists that have fallen over our own minds about this whole matter of our school buildings. It is time we got clear and time we moved faster. I would have hoped that the present Minister would be somewhat more revolutionary about it. He has had a grand opportunity, and it is time that we should be much more forward.

We came into possession of schools that were nothing better than hedge schools. We accepted, in greater part, the traditions passed down from the old Board of Education. We changed the methods and altered the school programmes. We changed a considerable number of the subjects but left many of them as they were. Senator Counihan looks at what could be done about school buildings in a very prosperous parish in County Dublin, with its magnificent land and its very well-off people, even in the days of the economic war, when he told us frequently that he was a poverty stricken man himself. He told us now what could be done in a rural parish where local land-owners could hand away a good acre of lovely land to become playgrounds for schools, and where you could get three such landowners in the parish.

Mr. Counihan

Two; the Land Commission gave one.

Mr. Baxter

I thought it was the manager who gave one. However, I am thinking of the generosity of these landowners. Surely that is not typical of the Twenty-Six Counties? It strikes me that he was a strange economist who determined that every house- holder in this parish was in an equal position to pay 3d. per week. I do not see how it was that Senator Counihan could pay only the same contribution as was paid by his workman.

Mr. Counihan

I did not say what I paid.

Mr. Baxter

At any rate, that was the scheme the parishioners planned. I think there was a good deal of Communism in it; there was rather a Socialist approach to the whole problem. They seemed to think that each householder had equal responsibilities. It seems to me that we must look at the country as we find it. There is no need to stress the situation with which the Minister made us acquainted recently, when I raised this matter here in reference to the conditions in my own county.

Senator O'Connell has kindly circulated a report giving a picture of the position generally and the problem to be faced. There are two questions raised. The first is that the State should erect these schools. Senator O'Connell has outlined the present scheme and has pointed out very effectively the arguments against it. There are parishes where the present scheme is in operation but, even in the comfortable parishes, there is a great deal of haggling before you can get the school built. You may get a school built which is most needed and which serves the greatest number of children and where it is most obvious to the eye of the traveller; but in the very same parish there are more remote schools which, as I said here before, are not habitable for the animals belonging to the men who send children to the schools. That is the difficulty about the present plan of the Department. If the Government had a plan to make available, in a particular year, as much money as would build all these schools, I do not think Senator O'Connell or any of us would mind in what fashion this money was dispensed.

But this scheme as at present administered has been going on over the years, always leaving us with a residue of bad schools and, mind you, bad schools, very frequently with good teachers, while, perhaps, only a couple of miles away there is a new school which makes the old one look more odious in comparison. So far as we can judge from the Minister's policy, his methods are not going to be changed. That is not satisfactory and cannot be satisfactory.

I am convinced that in many parishes an impossible problem is set to the managers. I have come into contact with managers who made visits to the Department in Dublin at their own expense—some of them old men— and saw them going home very disconsolately to impoverished conditions. They will tell you: "How can I go to the people? You know their conditions —they have not the money. I have no halls to help to raise the money, and even if I had, a great many of the people have not got it, and those who are the poorest are the people with children to send to the schools." There are inequities in a situation like that which no manager can overcome, and, as far as I can see the problem ahead of us, a new method must be devised if our aim is to give the country the new schools it requires. We ought to give the country all the new schools it needs within two years, and the total cost, as the Minister has stated, could be borrowed at 1 per cent. It would not be an extravagant demand, if you look at the return from the angle of the benefit it would confer on the health of the future citizens of the State. I believe that the value would really be incalculable. It would be much better to spend capital investments on new schools than to put money into new hospitals to house some of the children who would probably have had seated in their young frames the germs of diseases that would only become obvious in later life.

Most of us are familiar with conditions in the schools of to-day. Senator O'Connell did not say everything about them, and neither did Senator Counihan. We know that young children have to sweep and clean out those schools because there is no proper provision made for it, although there is evidence of tuberculosis and malnutrition. We are aware of that from the reports of the medical officers of health. Young children—some of them not too comfortably clad nor too wellfed—are attending these schools, and, perhaps, late in the afternoon when they are tired out, they are most susceptible to picking up germs when cleaning the schools for the morning. No one can regard that as a satisfactory condition of things. There is also the problem of the badly-maintained schools. You may have children leaving a tolerably airy house to go to a badly ventilated school. Within an hour, they have used up more of their energy than other children, accustomed to these conditions, would use in half a day.

Further, the planning of our schools has not, I think, been given the consideration it deserves. Senator O'Connell referred to what we might call the sanitary conditions of our schools. They are really dreadful, and I wish Senator Counihan would go to see them for himself. He tells us about these schools in Dublin, but he ought to go to see some of the schools in the country. I know what they are like.

Mr. Counihan

Conditions in the schools I saw are as perfect as they can be.

Mr. Baxter

Every school in the country ought to have a water supply attached to the sanitary arrangements in such a way that they would not be in the abominable condition we now find them. Apparently, in fact, no one can be made responsible and again, on that matter of a water supply, conditions in some of our rural schools are appalling. Children get thirsty during the day—I remember being like that. We had to go practically a mile to get a can of water and carry it back to the school when ten gallons would be required instead of a four-quart can. I do not know if things have changed very much since then. How many of us can cast our minds back and recall what conditions were like in our early youth? We could, nowadays, in our late youth, or early middle age, see how much arrangements have changed, or ask the teachers what conditions are like to-day. In a great many places I know they have not changed. We are building new schools without completing the job. We should keep the complete health of the children in mind.

My view is that the State ought to provide the money—no one can provide it as cheaply or in the same orderly way. I do not think it is a job for the managers going around to their parishioners. There are, of course, parishes where money is more easily obtained than others, yet in the fertile fields of Meath you will find schools as in Connemara where a considerable amount would have to be spent to put them into proper condition. Looking at it from any angle, I cannot imagine managers having any objection to the provision of suitable schools for the coming generations. I believe it is essential that the State should do it, because the old system is unworkable in a great many parishes, particularly in the poorer parts of the country. In the poorer parts of the country in other days we had a greater number of children going to school and the heavier burden was accordingly imposed on the parents if they were to fit into the Government's scheme.

That is partly the problem as I see it in connection with the erection of school buildings. Under present conditions and policy, it will take us too long to get the new schools we require. From the point of view of the lowest grade of society in this country, it is terribly important that the children should go into buildings that would be pleasant to look at. If children are going into what looks rather like a nice home to which they do not belong, I am convinced that they look and wonder how they should behave. They begin to think of their feet—a relic of the old Eastern custom of leaving shoes at the door. That is due to some peculiar sensitiveness which reaches the minds of children. If the children are going into a proper building that can be maintained properly, it is much easier to inculcate habits of cleanliness. You have nothing but a picture displeasing to the eye. It does not matter so much about the children's hands or their boots or anything else. The point is that we are going to improve the standard of our people as a whole. We have an obligation to try to raise up the most lowly in that matter. It is much better to start by bringing them into pleasant buildings, where the walls are pleasant to the eye, where you could have pictures for them to look at, so that there would be something attractive for the children to see when they raise their eyes from their desks. I think that the good effects of doing this on the children would be immense, and the teachers would not have to take them out two or three times a week to tidy their person, as has been the case in some schools.

I would like to make another point because I am aware of the fact that in parts of my county anyway this is a very serious problem. Senator O'Connell talks in the latter part of his motion about the upkeep of school buildings and premises, including repairs, heating, lighting, cleaning and sanitation. In the matter of the heating of schools I think there are different customs in different parts of the country but I know that the heating of schools now in parts of the country is for the teachers and the parents a very dreadful problem. I travelled up by bus to-day and behind me were people from my own county. The story they told me about conditions in part of my county—a part which runs between the town of Coote-hill and the town of Cavan—in regard to the fuel problem was really rather dreadful. There is no turf bog within miles of this area I speak of. They imported coal in the old days. Even in most of my county where we have bogs half of the turf crop was not saved. There is very little timber. Even in the homes of the children of that area at present the problem of fuel and of cooking is awful. The teachers in that area urge the children to provide fuel for the schools; either to take some with them or to provide the money for the fuel. The situation is that the children have not got the fuel to take with them and when they subscribe the money the fuel cannot be purchased because it is not available. I urge that the Minister should take note of this problem, investigate it and see how far it is representative of conditions over a fairly wide area of the country—probably not in my county alone but other parts of the country. I imagine it would be true of County Monaghan, partly anyway of Leitrim, and across the Midlands over to the Minister's own part of Ireland.

We are asking local authorities to do certain things in this matter. Our county council offices, our courthouses, our hospitals, our committees of agriculture and vocational schools are not without heating. Why? It may be that the cost was high, but anyhow the heating was provided for the local authorities, but it was nobody's job to do it for the schools. It was just left to the fates. The schools are without heating, and I am afraid are going to be without heating during this winter. The winter has not been very severe yet, but who knows what the months to come may bring. I shudder to think what might be the results in many parts of the country in the schools where some of the children may be rather badly nourished and with no heating for weeks or months. That is a situation that ought not be permitted to develop. If the responsibility was on somebody to do something about this other than the rather scattered responsibility that exists at the moment a situation like that could not possibly develop. I think we ought to face up to this problem in a new way, not in the kind of haggling bargaining way we have been accustomed to in the past, but to face it as a nation with faith in itself, with hope in the future, and with a conviction that it wants its new citizens to be brought up to life within its confines strong and vigorous in body and healthy and free in mind, to give them something that they can pass on to others that will come after them. You are not going to do that if your policy is to be a narrow haggling bargaining method concerning a few thousand or even a few million pounds.

This land is worth a good deal to us if it is worth anything. It is worth many hundreds of millions of pounds. We ought to take care that if we are going to pass something on that we will not pass it on to a generation much more decrepit than we are. I think the Minister should take his courage in his hands. I know he may say that we have not got the materials, but I know schools in my own county with quarries situated so close to them that you could throw the stones from the quarries on to the sites of the schools. We ought to try to adjust ourselves to the prevailing conditions. Schools were built in this country in the old days and magnificent work in stone was done in this country 100 years ago or earlier. I think that it is rather a tragedy that that art should be lost. Throughout the country you can see the magnificent bridges that were built under our railways.

I think that the old art should not be lost. I recognise that there are difficulties concerning timber, but I think we could get over the difficulties if we only had a definite policy and put it into effect. I do not subscribe at all to the point of view that because materials are unprocurable we need do nothing. We have a certain number of people unemployed, and I think a great number of the people in the building trade could be put to the building of schools and to doing the stone work. There are methods by which we could cover the schools too. In earlier days we covered buildings very well in this country. I think the Minister ought not to be frightened by the problem which is obviously deterring his Ministry from doing a good number of things that ought to be done —the problem of where the money is going to be got; what it is going to cost. I think the Minister, like a good many of us, has had valuable education on that in the last two or three years. We have money in the country and we have credit and it would be to our credit if we used that money to give us new and more beautiful schools because we will have better men and women as a result of it.

Mrs. Concannon

To a regrettably small House, Senator O'Connell has made a most valuable and enlightened statement. We all feel that the future of the race largely depends upon the conditions under which children spend their years of education. This State has adopted the principle of compulsory school attendance and we accepted the principle which tightened that up in the School Attendance Act of this year. That places upon us an obligation to see that children should not be forced to spend their years in schools that are a menace to their health and under sanitary conditions that are deplorable.

Senator O'Connell must have startled some Senators by his description of the state of some of the schools, but he did not startle others of us because the reports of the medical officers of health and inspectors had brought home to us the necessity for doing something in this connection. Having said that, I regret that the attempted approach to this subject has been through the medium of a motion in this House. I do not think that that is the proper way to approach this subject at all. Why do I say that? Because the proposal in this motion, portions of which appeal to all of us, involves new principles. These may give rise to suspicions which Senator O'Connell has endeavoured to meet. At all events, the motion would need to be discussed with the other parties concerned—those who may look upon themselves as having vested rights and vested duties which are more important than rights. Though we are all agreed that something must be done to get rid of insanitary schools and to see that the children whom we compel to attend school do not imperil their health and their future by so doing, the approach should have been by way of asking the Department of Education to bring together the managers of the schools, the trustees in whom the schools are vested and representatives of the teachers. In this way, some agreement could be arrived at which would solve the difficulty.

Senator Baxter was not quite fair to the Minister in suggesting that this was a matter of money. The difficulty is not entirely a matter of money. The Department will, I am sure, be as generous as possible, but the proposals in this motion are, in a way, revolutionary. They should not be pressed without our having heard the other side—that is to say, the managers' side, the Bishops' side and the trustees' side. That is, I think, important. We all want what Senator O'Connell wants. We are all shocked at the revelations about the schools, and we are all anxious to remedy that position, but it is for us to consider whether the passing of a motion in this House, which shows want of interest in the matter, is the way to approach the difficulty.

Mr. Cummins

The last speaker impressed me by the suggestion she made. If such a conference as the suggested between managers, the Education Department and representatives of parents and teachers could be secured, a settlement of this question might be arrived at. It is the duty of the State to protect the family and, in the protection of the family, the child will get its meed of protection. Paragraphs of the Constitution state:—

"The State recognises the Family as the natural, primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State."

The State has a very important duty to the children and, if that duty is not being performed from other quarters, it is for the State to see to it. Senator Counihan spoke of the work done in his county. I could contrast with that the want and absence of work in other counties as wealthy and as prosperous as the county referred to by Senator Counihan. As a result of years of hagling, even though the education authorities offered as much as £6,000, negotiations have gone on for seven or eight years—seven or eight years of penalty upon the large group of children accommodated in that school.

Nothing has yet been done. I know of a case where haggling has gone on for as long as 17 years and nothing has been done. I have in mind an old school, built after the Education Act came into force in 1832. Haggling was going on in connection with that school for almost 30 years. During most of that period, in a building 40 by 20, providing 4 or 5 sq. ft. for every child, three teachers were compelled to squeeze themselves into a corner of a room to make room for the children. That went on for about 27 years. Even where the Department are willing to make the grants, delays are continually occurring and that state of affairs will continue as long as the present system lasts. In one case, the report of the medical officer of health, made in 1937, condemned the location, the approach, the overcrowded condition, the playing space and the evidence of dampness in the rooms. Yet, nothing has been done. The Department are prepared in that case to advance £6,000 as their quota to the cost of the building. The conditions are appalling. The school, the report states, is situate in a back lane, is unhygienic, insanitary, a nuisance to the public health and a danger. The location is in a slum area. I suppose we must have schools convenient to slum areas, but this is a case where the removal of the school from the slum area would make very little difference in the journey imposed upon the children. Within about 100 yards of the present school, there are excellent sites. The cloakroom was not ventilated, says the report, and was damp, lighting insufficient and walls showing large signs of dampness. It is interesting to note that the same applied to schools in the course of the medical officer's report. One portion of the building he describes as a dance hall. The school not having sufficient room in its present building, they selected a dance hall convenient to the school as a section of it. This was never intended for day work. You all know that dance halls are utilised at night and the lighting in this room was entirely unsuitable. Another portion was called the cardroom of the building which was adjacent. It was used as a schoolroom by day and for a game of cards at night. I could add very much to the number of examples. Senator O'Connell referred to one that was taken over, I understand, practically by the Department. We want to give the child good health. If we want to do justice to the Constitution, I think immediate steps should be taken in this matter.

Recently a report was handed to me of the returns from 35 schools which were investigated. Of those, to 35 fuel was supplied, but in 23 of the schools there was no provision made for its utilisation. There was nothing for kindling. It happened to be a turf area and I do not know how they got the turf, possibly it was presented by parents. A heap of bad turf was thrown up convenient to the school, but no provision was made for lighting. In only six out of the 35 schools was there any provision made for periodical washing. Some of these schools I understand may not have been washed for years and in only six of them was any provision made by the managers. We could continue for hours speaking of the number of these requiring treatment but where is the money to come from? Where is the money coming from presently? The State advances a certain portion and the taxpayers advance the rest. Who are these people who contribute the money but taxpayers? Why not extend the system and let us put it on the taxpayers until this great evil, this national disgrace is moved from us? Senator Counihan says that this would mean stripping the managers of every vestige of their authority. That is not so. I think it was Senator O'Connell who made that amply clear. If Senator Counihan had been listening he would not have made that statement. There are non-vested schools and vested schools—schools vested in the State. That does not strip the managers of their authority. If there was any suggestion that this process might take place under a new Government then provision could have been made to give ample assurance to the managers that such would not take place. Of course anything can take place by a stroke of a pen in an Act of Parliament. I do not see what safety the managers have at present more than they would have by vesting the schools in the State and letting the State control the schools. There are other schools vested in the State, the technical schools. Much money has been spent on these institutions. Side by side with the technical school we may see a national school accommodating three or four or five times the number of students. The technical schools are cared for by the State and lighted by the State and vested in the State. There does not seem to be any great cause for complaint.

One Senator said that there was no demand from any source except from the teachers. The teachers have been making demands all their lives not alone in their own interest but in the interest of the pupils. Everybody knows that the result of their efforts is to some extent the important additions that have been made in many schools. I should not pass here without complimenting many of the managers who have at considerable trouble put up almost perfect schools and who are heating and lighting them. These are models. There are many of these but there are others who, perhaps through no fault of their own, living in poverty-stricken areas, cannot make the necessary provision. No matter what grant the State may make it will always be insufficient. We should have something on the style of the technical school committees, that would give an assurance to the managers that a local rate, and by no means heavy local rate, would be made to maintain schools. I urge the Minister not to counter this by a lot of enormous documents in the true stereotyped office manner, but to put his hand on his heart and say to those people who have spoken that he is not going to continue his inhumanity in respect of the schools.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I cannot agree with the motion, although I did not hear Senator O'Connell's speech. It would be a very unwise step for the Government to defray the whole cost of heating and maintaining these schools. The amount that falls on local people is very small, but it represents the very big principle that the local people should retain some share of responsibility in primary education. They cannot maintain their interest in it unless they make some contribution towards the financing of it. The cost that falls on the local people I believe is very small. It is a good argument in favour of the motion to say that the schools are being neglected, and that, despite the fact that the Department is willing to give large grants, it is often hard to raise the money locally. The schools are, therefore, neglected. But if the Department wishes they can force the local people to take action and build new schools by refusing the grant in respect of the teachers. In that way if the Department desires it can compel new schools to be built wherever necessary, and can insist on schools being properly maintained. The Government by taking over the whole charge would be taking one step in the process of secularisation, which has gone too far. It would be time we took a step in the opposite direction. No doubt the new schools are very useful from the point of view of providing accommodation, but I think they are not much better from the point of view of architecture.

From an architectural point of view they are not very much to look at. After all, the aspect of the building has an important influence on the child mind and the Department would be very wise to see whether they can improve the outer appearance of new school buildings.

Mr. Tunney

I am very glad Senator O'Connell has raised this question if for no other reason than that it enables me to bring to the Minister's notice the condition of the national schools in the parish in which I reside, namely, the schools in Finglas and St. Margaret's. Both of the schools have been condemned and are unfit for any child to enter. The school in Finglas is badly lighted. There is no sanitary accommodation, the result being that all people in the locality who can afford to do so, are sending their children to other schools. My own boys have never entered the school, and even if there were no alternative school, they would never enter it. In that case, there is a bus service which enables people to send their children to other schools in town. In that case also the difficulty which Senator O'Connell has mentioned does not arise inasmuch as the local people have done their duty. The parish priest has secured a site for a new school, but despite that fact, the old hovel is still retained there. The position in the other portion of the parish is somewhat different because there are no funds. I do say something should be done in the case of the Finglas school to provide a new building. The Department, I understand, has offered to give a very generous grant and whoever is responsible for the delay, it is a great disgrace. I am not blaming the Department because I feel they have done their duty, but I would appeal to the Minister to take some steps to make whoever is responsible proceed with the erection of a new school. As a matter of fact, on last Sunday the parish priest denounced every public representative in the country who was not prepared to take the necessary action to remove such a disgrace.

I would appeal to the Minister to do everything in his power to provide proper schools for the country. There are several hundreds, I understand, of these unsuitable schools. With regard to what Senator O'Dwyer has stated about the desirability of recovering a certain portion of the expense from the local people, are not all the local people taxpayers, and if the necessary funds were provided by the State, would the money not come from the same source in the end? Where is the difference? Certainly, the vocational schools all over the country are practically model schools, and for the sake of the small amount it would take out of the local rates, I do think it would be a step in the right direction to provide for these expenses out of some central fund. I, of course, approve by all means of leaving control in the hands of the present managers.

Mr. Quirke

As it is now almost the normal hour for adjournment, I suggest that the debate be adjourned on the understanding that the Minister will resume the debate on to-morrow.

Debate adjourned until to-morrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. Thursday, 10th December.