Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1942

Vol. 27 No. 5

Building and Upkeep of Schools—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Seanad Éireann 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.—(Senator Thomas J. O'Connell, Senator William Cummins.)

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

I cannot recommend An Seanad to accept this resolution or the principles underlying it. As Senator O'Connell has stated, this is not the first occasion on which this matter has been debated in the Oireachtas. I do not understand what circumstances have occurred in the meantime which suggest to him that the situation is more serious now than it was when the matter was last discussed; nor do I understand why the Senator thinks there is likely to be any change in the policy of the Department of Education as explained to him on the last occasion when he raised this matter.

As Senator Mrs. Concannon said, it is a rather unusual way to deal with a matter which is not entirely one for the State or for the Oireachtas. There may be very good reasons for opening a discussion on important changes. It is useful that we should have reviews of important aspects of educational policy from time to time, but if we are suggesting definitely that changes must be made of a character affecting the present control of education in this country, we shall have to consider the views of important authorities not represented—directly, at any rate—in the Oireachtas.

The Senator suggests that my remarks last July, in reference to the question of school buildings, made him feel that this matter should be reopened. He thinks that, perhaps, I have given a wrong impression in my statement and he wishes to correct that. The statement was perfectly simple and clear and left no room for doubt. I was not trying to postulate principles in this matter—it is largely a question for other authorities to postulate principles in regard to fundamentals in education—but what I did say was that we had a system in operation over a very long period of time. That might seem to condemn it in the eyes of some observers but, before we interfere with that long-established system, we must be satisfied that it is inoperable and also that what we seek to replace it by will be a distinct improvement, will be accepted generally and will work with ease. Senator O'Connell has not, I fear, addressed himself to these aspects of the question. He has lightly assumed that important changes can be made and that there is not likely to be any dissent from the motion that he has put before the House. I think he should have produced some evidence in support of his contention that such a change is not likely to meet with objection.

Even before that stage was reached, it would be necessary to prove to the House and to the country that the present system has broken down. In my opinion, it has not broken down. It is working fairly satisfactorily. I emphasised, when I referred to this matter before, that the system was not perfect. What system is perfect? What system can be devised that will ensure that there will be no delays when more than one party is concerned? There are, undoubtedly, systems in the world which do not brook of delay, but one of the advantages of this system is that there is time for consideration. There is time for discussion, and, as a natural result, you have certainly delays, particularly when you have more than one interest concerned.

Now, the Church stands in a peculiar relation to education, more especially in this country where the vast majority of the people follow the philosophy of the Catholic Church. That Church has laid down certain principles with regard to education and I suggest it is only the authorities of the Church who are in a position to interpret these principles if and when they see fit to do so. It is not the function of the Minister for Education to interpret them, nor does it seem to be the function of other lay authorities. The system is fundamental to educational progress and there is serious danger, no matter what some critics may think, that if it be interfered with, instead of having progress and orderly development, we are going to have quite the contrary. We start off by having objections and finally contentions. Later we find we have confusion, and, possibly, chaos because you cannot make progress in education unless you have harmony. You have to have peace —you have to have goodwill. You have to plan your programme over long periods of time. This system has been described, as I have already stated, not so long ago by a Catholic prelate as not being far from the ideal, and that is a general belief so far as the Catholic authorities are concerned. The managers have certain rights and they are anxious to safeguard these rights and maintain them, and, in the world at present, there is no doubt but that changes affecting the Churches' position, either in regard to education or any other matter of social policy, are likely to be very closely scrutinised. We are not living in normal times. We are living in times when revolutionary changes are taking place, and he would be a very wise man indeed, who would dare to prophesy the state of the world after the present war. I do not think, therefore, that this is a matter that can be treated lightly. It is a very important matter. I agree that it is most important that we should do everything possible to provide proper schools for our children, but we must be quite sure that the existing system and the existing machinery are failures and that our desires cannot be secured under the present system of things before we contemplate radical changes of the nature the Senator proposes.

I do not think there has been any evidence given—I have not seen it and it has not been brought under my notice, and I have not been convinced by what I have heard during the course of the debate—that there is any measure of substantial support for the proposal in the motion. I do not think there is popular feeling at all that the present system has broken down. On the contrary, I think that the importance of maintaining the present system is recognised. It is recognised now probably better than in more recent times. Under a foreign Government we jealously watched our rights in these matters. Then the slightest move indicative of interference in matters which affected the Catholic position was likely to be jealously attacked, or, I should say, the position was likely to be jealously defended against any inroads. We have now a certain amount of experience under a native Government, and I entirely fail to see why we should assume that that thing which we would have fought against and contested most strongly if a foreign or alien Government attempted it we ought now try to bring in of our own free will without, as far as I can see, having even good reasons or reasons that might appear to be good to advance in support of it.

I have been in touch with the Church authorities for a good many years and I am fully convinced, and I can assure the House, that the ecclesiastical authorities generally realise the importance of this whole question; that they realise fully and completely the necessity for keeping our schools in proper order and condition and of having bad or defective schools replaced at the earliest possible moment. The managers' representatives with whom I am in touch are also alive to this position, and I think it would be a mistake if we were to regard the isolated cases that have been mentioned in the House as typical of the condition of affairs as regards school buildings generally. Undoubtedly it is most aggravating, particularly to parents, to see schools continue in use which they consider are an eye-sore, sometimes unfortunately insanitary and which, in the opinion of the medical authorities, ought to be replaced. I think I can assure Senators that that matter is receiving careful attention, and they should not be misled into believing that because there are individual cases—perhaps a number of cases—of neglect that that is typical of the general position.

I should like to give credit to managers for the splendid work they have done. A good many cases could be cited by me to show that managers have made super-human efforts, that energetic managers are by no means in a small minority in this country, and that they have shown by their efforts and the splendid work they have done that the system can give excellent results. If there has been any neglect there may have been reasons. Managers may have difficulties in raising money. It may be sometimes that the illness or age of managers affects their capacity to get work done but these are matters that have been gone into and are being gone into by the authorities concerned.

Rather disparaging remarks were made yesterday evening as to the amount of progress that had been made and, one would imagine from the statements that were made, such as: "Why not get the school building programme completed in two years?" that all one had to do was wave a magic wand and get all this work done in a very short time. That of course is impossible. I am quite satisfied that good work has been done during my term of office. Grants involving an expenditure of more than £2,500,000 for school buildings have been made during the past ten years. The whole building organisation of the country has not been concentrated on schools. During a great part of that ten years there was a very extensive house-building programme going on and there is a limit to the amount of work that can be done under any system. There is a natural limit. You can spend more money and provide more staff and the Government is always willing to do that and have shown their anxiety to do it but when you reach a certain point the amount of the return you get is in the nature of a diminishing return. I think everybody understands that.

Mr. Baxter

Was that money you mentioned spent on national schools or does it include technical schools also?

Mr. Derrig

On the national schools. The number of managers involved in this work show that they are by no means a small minority. As I said, you have these active and energetic managers, and I think they are in a majority if the present figures are any indication, because during the period I speak of the grants which were sanctioned by my Department covered 375 new schools, the enlargement of 162 and the improvement of 2,286 so that over 50 per cent. of the schools were involved in these figures. During the term of office of the last Government you had something under 2,000 schools similarly attended to, so that, for the two periods the great bulk of schools have had money spent on them. The number of new schools built is not as great as one would wish, but I explained to the Seanad that when normal conditions come back it is expected that a comprehensive programme of school building will be undertaken. That programme will take a period of years. I should think it will take ten years unless circumstances are entirely favourable and there is such an improvement in the method of administration that there may be larger sums than we now contemplate to be spent.

The Board of Works has been spending, for the past four years for example, well over £200,000 a year. That £200,000 a year means that the Board of Works at a particular time has to have grants reported to it from my Department amounting to double the annual programme. In order to carry out an annual programme of £200,000 or £250,000 expenditure on schools, the Board of Works has to have on its books sanctions for grants amounting to £400,000 or £500,000 as the case may be.

Mr. Baxter

Why is that so?

Mr. Derrig

The reason is that it takes a lot of time. It is the same with land division or anything else. You have to do your preparatory work. You have to get all the preliminaries worked up to a certain stage before the actual technical work of building can be undertaken. That is the position. It will take, in my opinion, ten years, and it will take an amount of money in the neighbourhood of £5,000,000 to cover that programme. When I say that, I want it to be understood that I am making allowance for the fact that for the next three years or possibly for the next five years the number of bad and condemned schools that we have and which require to be replaced is probably going to be increased. I am also assuming that the amount of work that will be done during the period between now and the end of the emergency, and even after it, is going to be very limited indeed. Some of the Senators spoke as if it was quite an easy matter to get schools built under present circumstances. Of course, it is extremely difficult, and we have not been able to proceed with important new schools which are ready to go ahead. There is no use in Senators treating this matter in that fashion any more than there is utility in coming in here and telling the House that, owing to some action or inaction of the Minister for Education, children are suffering from lack of heating facilities in certain country schools. I had a communication only yesterday from the district of which Senator Baxter spoke. With one exception, the managers there had taken advantage of the Government grant for heating and cleaning. So far as I remember the terms of the communication, the money had been paid to them. If loose charges are to be bandied about——

Mr. Baxter

Was the Minister referring just now to the grants for last year or this year?

Mr. Derrig

Last year. The grants cannot be paid until the end of the period. They are paid only after the accounts are submitted.

Mr. Baxter

I was referring to conditions at the moment.

Mr. Derrig

I asked the Senator, when he wanted to make charges about bad schools, to let me have particular cases. He failed to do so. When he makes charges of neglect by managers or by me, I intend to pursue the matter. I shall not allow a position to exist in which Senator Baxter or anybody else can make public statements of this kind without supporting them by evidence. Talk of what happens in a bus is not sufficient and should not be mentioned here. If there is definite evidence of neglect, let it be communicated to me in the proper way. Surely, we have not reached a stage in which the Seanad will be simply a debating society to be used on certain occasions for bringing in conversations in the country as to this thing or that thing not being right. There is a definite way of dealing with this matter. There is definite responsibility in connection with it. The authorities concerned are taking a keen interest in the matter and, if Senators want defects remedied, there is a way of doing so.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister put a question to me before about the bad condition of schools in my county. I know that the Minister has reports on these schools in his Department and he had only to go there to get the information he required. Repeated visits have been paid by his inspectors to the schools I had in mind.

Mr. Derrig

That is not sufficient. If Senators have particular cases in mind, they are failing in their duty if they are not prepared to let me know the names of the schools. When they complain of schools not being properly heated or of their being in an insanitary condition, I would, naturally, assume that their interest was more keen if they had taken the trouble to make representations to me during the years I have been in charge of the Department.

It was suggested that it is extremely difficult for managers to provide the necessary funds to enable this work to be done. As the House knows, at least two-thirds of the cost of building new schools or of replacing old schools is provided by the State. In necessitous cases, we give more than two-thirds. In the congested areas and in the poorer rural districts, we give substantially more. It could be argued that, at present, the national Exchequer is bearing almost the entire cost of primary education, allowing for the salaries of the teachers. The amount contributed locally is not great. The managers know that and managers who want to get work done have very little trouble in coming to terms with the Department. I am not going to be forced into a position in which I shall have to give additional money because there has been neglect over a long period—money over and above what I would give to a manager who has attended to his business at all times and who is doing his utmost to keep his schools in proper condition. Every possible assistance is given to such managers, and these managers fulfil their responsibilities admirably.

I have particulars of some cases here. In the case of a rural school, the manager raised £1,800. There is no town in his parish—it is purely rural— but he raised the one-third proportion of the cost. In the case of two other schools in a northern county, the manager raised £4,000—the full local contribution. In the case of another northern parish, the manager, in order to carry out certain improvements in the schools in his parish, collected £564, which was, of course, only a proportion of the cost. In another area in the midlands, a manager collected £1,100 to carry out large improvements to two schools. In the case of a parish in the poorer part of County Wicklow, £329 was subscribed towards a scheme of improvement and, in another case in the same area, a sum of £622 was subscribed, being one-third of the cost of building a new school. In another case of which I have a note, the manager carried out a very large building programme and showed himself to be exceedingly energetic. He built a church costing £10,000, another church costing £5,000, a ball-alley costing £900, and carried out very substantial school works, building three new schools and repairing two or three others. In view of the great work he had done, we tried to give him every assistance. Despite all that work and the huge debt that must have been incurred, this manager was able to raise a contribution of £1,534 for his school-building programme.

There is a case in County Cork where the manager raised £1,600 for two schools, in Leitrim where the manager raised £760, in Westmeath where the manager raised £950, and there are three cases in Donegal where the managers raised £700, £700, and £600, respectively, in very poor parishes. As regards the case mentioned by Senator Counihan, I need not go into the circumstances of the parish. It is a rural parish and I do not believe that it has a big population. Like most areas in which there are a certain number of large farmers, it has, probably, a large population of poorer people—labourers. In that particular parish £830 was raised as a contribution to the building of the school. Now, these are examples of work that is being done by energetic managers. While all managers may not have been as good as these, and I am not claiming that they are, I am showing what can be done by good managers. I am showing that money can be raised if they set about it properly, and I am showing that the people are interested in this matter and that there is no question whatever but that in all areas of the country, whether south, west, midlands or north, you have examples of cases where managers exerted themselves and have been able to get very substantial contributions from their parishes. In the vast majority of cases the manager is anxious to get the work done. We try to meet him. We tell him we have a limited amount of money, but we certainly do not wish to haggle with him. We have never held up a school for the sake of £50 or £100 or anything like that. We have always tried to meet the managers, once the work was there and once we felt the manager was in earnest. But the initiative has to be taken by the manager.

I think that this question of local contribution is of importance. I am entirely against the idea that all the work which is done locally should be transferred to the National Exchequer. As has been pointed out by Senators, that will necessarily involve greatly increased expenditure. The work may be better done, but if it is better done it is going to cost very much more money, and I doubt whether, even if there were general agreement, which is impossible, on the necessity for the measures that Senator O'Connell proposes, the rural ratepayers would look forward to relieving their neighbours in this manner. The rates have already gone up very substantially in rural areas. They have gone up 25 per cent., 30 per cent., and even 50 per cent. in some cases.

Mr. Baxter

Are you not doing it for technical education?

Mr. Derrig

That is a different system, and we are not doing such an amount as is imagined for technical education. There was a new Act brought in in 1930 when an endeavour was being made to extend continuation education through the country and the rural areas. That phase is probably almost at an end. Nothing had been done to provide up-to-date technical schools since the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction first came into being here. A great many of them were carrying on in very temporary premises and in view of the general necessity for providing post-primary education in these areas, and particularly having regard to the need for training the youth of the country to industrial pursuits, it was necessary to give them new buildings. The amount of money is not at all so great, although it is substantial, because it is a limited problem as compared with this question which we are discussing now. I have explained that it is the policy of the Department, immediately conditions permit, to go ahead with the least possible delay and put schools into the best possible condition, first to replace the bad cases, the condemned schools which are so unsound that everyone agrees that they are in fact not fit to be used as schools; and secondly, until such time as they can be dealt with, to put the remainder into a condition of repair. Some of them could be put into reasonable repair at a comparatively small cost, that is if we are thinking in pre-war figures, and there would be no loss from the educational point of view, nor, I believe, from the point of view of the health of the children in having them in these schools for a short period until arrangements can be made after the emergency to deal with the whole situation. There is another type of schools, schools that are reconstructed, that have had substantial repairs, the main fabric being quite solid and the foundations good. These could be maintained in use for quite a considerable time. However, we have to make allowance for the fact that very little can be done now as the present situation is likely to continue for a period of years.

What we can do is to have ready for action all cases that require attention. That is being done. They will be ready for action immediately the emergency ends. If at all possible, those that require attention will be attended to even before then. What it is possible to do and what is being done is to make plans now so that intensive and concentrated effort can be made immediately work can be resumed. The aim is to improve the general condition of the schools and to complete the matter within the limited period of time, say, ten years, so that at the close of that period such progress would have been made that all that would need to be done afterwards from year to year would be nothing more than replacing normal wastage. Extracts from medical officers' reports are not in themselves sufficient to give a proper picture of the situation. I am quite candid and quite deliberate when I say that some of our medical officers of health have very high standards. They are quite right to have high standards, but they ought to have regard to the practicability of putting them into operation.

Take, for example, the question of water-flushed closets. It is impossible, except in isolated cases, to provide a water-flush system in rural areas. You have to have certain conditions present. You have to have water available under pressure. It is generally the case, I think, that you have to have an area of running water sufficient to take away the effluent after the filtration takes place. We have tried, where possible, to provide that water accommodation, where the cost was not excessive, and wherever the managers have put up cases to have water systems installed we have tried to meet them, but in certain cases the costs would have been absolutely prohibitive.

It is an ideal which I hope will eventually come into being, that all rural areas will have water laid on, but we must have regard to rural conditions. Senator O'Connell recently, I think, indicated that progress would have to be made with regard to home conditions and the teaching of cleanliness to the children, and even with regard to rural sanitation generally before we can be quite sure that the diseases of the type he refers to which are in danger of being spread can be eliminated. I think that the Senator said recently, it appeared in the School Weekly at any rate, that not 1 per cent. of our farm houses and cottages have even the most primitive sanitary accommodation, and that hedges and ditches may be the most potent sources of infection. Until we improve that situation and have water supplies available in rural areas, I hope Senators will realise, it is very difficult to deal with this problem, except in the way in which it is being dealt with at present.

It can be dealt with satisfactorily. The existing arrangements can be made quite satisfactory and hygienic, if the instructions issued by the Department in circulars from time to time are carried out. If the managers and the principal teachers of the schools see to it that the children are instructed how to use the sanitary accommodation, how to keep these places clean, that is to say, if the proper method of using the closets and the grave dangers that might arise from misuse are impressed upon them, much danger would be avoided. If these precautions are taken, and if the instruction is carried out, as I am anxious it should be carried out, and as I have asked the managers and teachers on more than one occasion, then I think there will not be the danger that Senator O'Connell seems to indicate, from the schools. There is unfortunately a small number of schools where the accommodation is bad, and there is also a still lesser number where there is no sanitary accommodation. I intend again to take up the matter of providing proper accommodation in these cases, and I hope that I shall be successful. Certainly, if the position could be improved by installing water-flush closets, that would be the proper solution, but I fear that until there is a great change in rural conditions in that regard, ordinary earth closets will have to suffice. We must take it that they are the normal methods of sanitation.

I thoroughly agree with Senator O'Connell that, as suggested in the School Weekly, the question of the danger of infection, the danger of disease from pollution by flies or otherwise, and particularly the danger of uncleanliness in the closets, should be explained frequently to the children. It should be explained to them—definite instructions have been issued in consultation with the medical authorities—as to how these earth closets are to be kept so as to make them as free as possible from the danger of spreading disease.

As regards the question of Polymelitis—I think that is the correct technical name—I do not think that we could know at present what is the cause of it. I understand that a medical body is examining the question here. I think that we should wait until we have an authoritative decision from them, if they are in a position to give a decision, as to whether the situation is as bad as described by Senator O'Connell. The disease is a very grave one, but it is not to-day or yesterday that it has occurred here. It has been here before. Even in New York, which, it is said, is the most sanatised city in the world, there have been epidemics of this disease. It is also the case that while some members of a family get the disease others do not. I understand that a good many doctors think that the danger lies in carriers, that there are certain persons who carry this disease. However, I know very little about it, and it our medical specialists who are examining the matter can aid me by their findings in improving greatly the nature of the sanitary accommodation in the schools, I shall be only too happy to get any assistance I can from them.

I think, a Chathaoirligh, I have dealt with the main points that were raised. As I stated at the outset, I feel that it would be a mistake for the Seanad to accept this motion. I think that it would give rise to grave objections and would not improve the position. Under the present system State and Church are working in harmony. As I have said, I have very good reason for believing that this matter is going to be examined very carefully, and I hope to have the full co-operation of the ecclesiastical authorities in carrying out the post-war programme I have envisaged.

The matter has not been submitted to them but it is hoped that it will be submitted to them at an early date. I hope to have their complete cooperation in a large programme of that kind. My attitude in this matter has been that if there are imperfections in the existing system, let us see what is the reason for them and let us try to have them removed. If there are particularly bad schools in regard to which nothing is being done, let us examine the matter home, find out why something is not being done and, if it be necessary, let us discuss these matters with the ecclesiastical authorities fully and frankly. I have found them very ready to listen to any representations I have made to them in the matter and, as I have assured the House, I am quite certain that when a programme is put up to them for replacing bad schools after the emergency it will be given every consideration. Their only anxiety, I believe, is to collaborate and they are just as anxious as anybody in this House, or as I am, to see that a high standard is maintained. They fully realise that managers have their responsibilities and duties and that the neglect of even a comparatively small number of managers would be reason for complaint and a cause for very serious criticism. The system has on the whole worked very satisfactorily over a long period of years. There is just as much anxiety on the part of the Church authorities to get rid of these bad schools as there is on my part. Therefore, I think the motion is quite unnecessary; the discussion has not served any useful purpose and the House may rest assured that everything possible is being done to deal with the situation.

Dr. Rowlette

In the debate on the Second Reading of the School Attendance Bill, I expressed some doubt as to whether the Oireachtas ought to insist on children attending schools which they could not attend without incurring grave danger to their health. I am sorry that this debate did not take place before the debate on the Second Reading of the School Attendance Bill because I think if Senators had studied the document which Senator O'Connell has kindly circulated, a good many of them would have hesitated, as I did, in giving support to the School Attendance Bill. I have been thoroughly disappointed with the speech the Minister has just made. He has made no attempt to meet the case that the health of the children is being sacrificed, day by day and month by month, in a large number of schools throughout the country.

He spoke of these schools which are insanitary as being isolated conditions. If he had studied the document which Senator O'Connell had circulated, he would have seen that they are not isolated conditions and that in the few counties, the reports from which are given, these conditions are quite common. I am familiar with that fact because I have been in the habit of studying the reports of the county medical officers of health. In every report I read, except in a few cases in which the matter is not mentioned at all, I find that the conditions are quite as bad as those described in the reports which Senator O'Connell has given us. He has given us extracts from nine reports, but I think he could have given us similar extracts from 27 reports if he had the opportunity or the time to study these reports. In report after report, we find the same conditions and faults as the Senator has here described, and the statement is frequently made that many schools are unfit for use and should be replaced. I have a sheet in my hand and I wish to draw the attention of the Seanad to a few points. On the second page of the paper there is a reference to County Longford, where 30 schools were inspected and eight were reported as "satisfactory". That is just over 25 per cent., and that is, presumably, what the Minister referred to as "isolated conditions". In County Roscommon 30 schools were inspected in 1940; 26 were reported as being defective in one or more particulars, and four were reported as being entirely satisfactory. Is that "isolated conditions"? It is the satisfactory schools that come under the "isolated conditions" heading. Out of 27 schools inspected in Roscommon in 1941, only two were satisfactory—approximately 8 per cent; 17 showed lack of proper maintenance of out-offices, which, no doubt, refers to the lack of sanitary accommodation. In County Tipperary, North Riding, in 1941, many buildings were unfit for use as schools. The report states:—"Year after year each county medical officer of health urges in his report the speedy replacement of unfit schools, but the tempo of replacements has not increased." It goes on: "Only a Spartan could remain in one of these schools in the winter months, and it is inhuman to expect teachers or children to expose themselves to icy draughts in such conditions. The medical officer has complained on several occasions that he cannot expose the children properly to make complete and thorough examinations. The great majority of the children need medical attention."

The Minister complained that Senator Baxter was making complaints from his own immediate information and said that the facts should come before the Department. Does the Department not see the reports of the medical officers of health? Does the Minister not consider that they bear out twenty-fold the facts that Senator Baxter has put before him? I could go on, page after page, but I do not wish to weary the Seanad with repeated complaints, from county after county, from the medical officers of health. They are the people to give evidence and the evidence lies there. I repeat the quotation: "Each county medical officer of health urges in his report the speedy replacement of unfit schools, but the tempo of new replacements has not increased." The Minister has made the plea—with which I make no quarrel—that replacements take time. The children are having the seeds of ill-health sown and that requires time, and they are given the time. They are growing up unhealthy and subject to disease, and they are not youth of the country that we should be proud of—and could be proud of, if the educational and health authorities were doing their duty.

The Minister says he cannot see any public demand for it. That was the argument that Senator Counihan also used, as if the demand for any reform ever came from the general public. The demand for reform always comes from people interested in a particular line of social work. When it has been put forward, the public take it up. There is no excuse for carrying on the present scandalous condition of things by saying that there is no public demand. That is only exposing the Minister's lack of conscience and his lack of responsibility to the country, for which he undertook responsibility.

One of the greatest advances in public health administration in this country was the institution of the medical inspection of school children. That was one of the last pieces of legislation which an alien Government conferred on us—and probably one of the most useful it ever conferred. It has failed largely in its object, because of the conditions in which the schools are kept. Even the actual work of the medical inspector of school children is, in many cases, hampered by his inability to examine patients in the surroundings in which they come for examination. Senator Baxter made one remark, early in his speech, that seemed to me to be a thoroughly statesmanlike remark. He said that what any parent desired for his children and, perhaps, the most important thing—apart from spiritual welfare— was sound health. I think everybody in the Seanad will agree with him on that point. It is a principle which cannot be overlooked. The Minister says it must wait—that it must wait until the Department has time to consider things, that it must wait until there has been discussion and consideration of it—consideration of a system which is very long-standing and which stands self-condemned.

I have nothing whatever to say about the managerial system. I am not familiar with its working—and I approach this question entirely from the point of view of the health of the school children. I cannot believe that the managerial system would be endangered at all by the provision of suitable school buildings. Whether the buildings are to be provided and the repairs carried out in the particular way that Senator O'Connell urged, I do not know; and it is not a point on which I venture to trouble the Seanad with my opinion. I am certain, however, that the present conditions are scandalous and are not being met by postponement after postponement— until "discussion takes place" and until "there is public demand"—and other evasive talk of that sort, to which the Minister has treated us for the last half-hour.

I remember some 30 years ago, when the chief officer in charge of education under an alien Government was asked to take some notice of conditions affecting school children—the education of children in matters of health, his reply was: "We are not concerned with the health of the children: we are concerned with their education." I thought that the day had gone by when any public official in this country would take that attitude; but, except for a few sentences of lip-service, that is the attitude taken by the Minister before the Seanad to-day. The more things change, the more they are the same.

The Minister has said—among many other things with which no one quarrels—that some of the essentials of progress are peace and goodwill. That may be, but surely the health of school children is one of the essentials. It is quite as essential as peace and goodwill; and if peace and goodwill cannot be maintained while the health of the children is being attended to, then peace and goodwill must go. The governing consideration of this whole question is in what way the health of the children can be preserved. I cannot believe that the Oireachtas or any other authority has any right to demand of parents that the health and, possibly, the lives of their children should be endangered by sending them to some of the schools in the country which have been described in the reports of the medical officers of health. These conditions are not isolated cases—they are common in a high percentage of schools in the country. I am not suggesting that many of the schools are actually dangerous. I agree that there are many reforms put forward by hardworking medical officers of health which are not practicable at the moment.

The Minister admitted that the conditions in some of these schools would not be regarded as ideal, but I feel he did not pay adequate attention to the scandalous conditions reported by the medical officers of health. He did not seem to have had in his mind what occurred in County Mayo a couple of years ago when humane parents of children in a particular district refused to send their children to school because the school was not fit for them. Of course, they were breaking the law as approved in the Bill we discussed the other day, but who will say that they were committing a sin in trying to preserve the lives and health of their children by refusing to send them to a school building which was unfit to spend a day in?

I have spoken warmly on this subject because it is one in which I have taken a great deal of interest for many years and on which I have taken care to inform myself from the reports of the county medical officers of health. I had intended to support Senator O'Connell's motion, although I do not pretend at all to have any knowledge of the best financial means of dealing with the issue. I will support it in so far as I desire to impress on Senators that the situation is a very serious one and that it cannot be postponed by considerations of its being a long continued system, and so on.

Nothing I have heard from the Minister relating to the managerial control of the schools, in so far as the matters with which the managers are specially concerned, is likely to support the Minister's attitude in the slightest degree. No attack has been made by Senator O'Connell on the managers in my hearing or by anyone else who has spoken. It is recognised that many of the managers have great difficulties and they have done their best in difficult circumstances.

Wherever the funds come from, it ought to be a relief to the managers to have some of the burdens with which they have struggled for a long time lifted from their shoulders. Some have been able to get over the difficulties; others, through no fault of their own, have not. There has been no attack either on the managers or the managerial system, and I cannot see how provision of public moneys, as suggested by Senator O'Connell, can interfere with the status, power or influence of the managers. As I say, I am not familiar with the managerial system, but nothing has been said by the Minister to convince me that there is any substance in that part of his argument. That is all I have to say— I may have said too much.

Professor Tierney

I could not agree with the Minister that this debate has served no useful purpose. Whatever one may think of the rights and wrongs of both sides of the argument, it must be agreed that, merely by drawing attention to the state of affairs that prevails in so many parts of the country, Senator O'Connell has done very useful work indeed, and even though it may not be found possible to accede to his request, in any case, having drawn the attention of the Seanad and, through the Seanad, the attention of the public at large to the importance and, in some respects, the danger of this whole question, Senator O'Connell has done a great public service.

I do not know that I should go so far as to agree entirely with the terms of the motion, and in that respect I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister. Personally, I am always frightened of schemes which imply the taking over by the centralised State of burdens that have for a long time past fallen on the people in particular localities. There are very many dangers inherent in such a course as that. There is, first of all, the danger that the public spirit of the people in these areas may become entirely atrophied because they may be inclined to depend entirely for things they ought to have enough energy and intelligence to do for themselves on some distant authority whose actions in the nature of things must be slow and cumbrous. There is a great danger that if you extend that sort of public provision too far, you will end up by doing more harm than you will do good. I have the feeling that what is needed rather is a loosening up of the machinery and of the methods that have been employed up to the present in the building and reconditioning of national schools.

As Senator O'Connell very thoroughly showed, the old system is an inadequate system. It has been handed down to us, almost in a perfect state from the late 19th century and the attitude of the 19th century towards questions like this, and especially the attitude of public departments under the British Government, was very different from what the attitude of a native Government might be. I have a feeling that the machinery is such that it puts a premium on the kind of haggling Senator O'Connell referred to. Senator O'Connell would be satisfied if the Department of Education could take a lead in this matter rather than wait for the initiative of the local manager. Managers, in certain cases, could be gingered up to doing more than perhaps they are in a position to do at the moment because of financial fears and so on. Everyone who knows anything at all about the subject is aware that managers in distant rural areas where funds are very hard to raise are faced with enormous difficulties in undertaking the provision of the larger sums that are sometimes necessary for the rebuilding or the total building of national schools, but if it was clear to managers that less difficulties would be met by them in their attempts to get help from the Government under the scheme even as it exists at present, I think that quicker progress could be made than is being made now.

Another difficulty, apart from the one I have mentioned, is that Government action in these matters is apt to be much more expensive than the operations of the local people themselves. It is very doubtful if the cheaper schools built by local labour would not be quite as satisfactory as the excessively palatial buildings put up by the Board of Works in out of the way districts. I have a case illustrative of that aspect in my own experience.

A parish priest, now dead, came to me when I was in the Dáil. He told me he was going to have a consultation with the Department about the building of a new school in a certain part of his parish which I knew well. He told me he was going to put a particular case to the Department, and his case was this: previously it had been the custom in that part of the country for the manager to employ a local contractor either to build or repair his schools. By doing that, the manager was able to get the building or the repairs done for the two-thirds grant which the Government give, and this manager wished to go before the Department and ask them to put their cards on the table, so to speak, and do the same thing for him—give him all the money he required in the form of the two-thirds grant. He pointed out that if they did that, he would be able to get the school built for two-thirds of what it would cost if it were built in the way the Department proposed. I may say that such a proposal shocked the Department tremendously. Ultimately, the school was built by the Board of Works under some kind of centralised contract. The result was that a palatial school was put up, a school which, in my opinion, was far more elaborate than the conditions really required. I have a feeling that a great deal of the building done by the Board of Works in the circumstances of that case and with that machinery is too elaborate, and that you could get equally good results in less time and with less cost if the machinery could be limbered up a little, if the haggling and the delays could be done away with.

I am glad to hear that the Minister has a review of the whole matter in prospect, and I believe that if there were active co-operation between the Government and the Church authorities in the different dioceses, and if attention were focused on cases in which action is urgently needed, there is nothing in the system as it exists at present that should prevent progress being made. What really is needed is not to do away with that system or to take refuge in complete State provision, but to make better use of the system as it exists.

In regard to the other part of Senator O'Connell's motion, I think we ought to make a distinction. There is a great difference between the heating and lighting of schools, and their cleaning, especially in regard to sanitation. Sanitation is the main question on which public attention should be focussed, and about which something should be speedily done. As far as the heating of schools is concerned, I am not sure that you are going to get in the long run a more satisfactory method than the contribution of fuel by parents and children. I am not sure that any other system would be as cheap or efficient. There are a great many in the Seanad who have had the same experience as I have had, of going to school in the morning with two sods of turf. That system worked quite well. Where people have the interests of their children and of themselves at heart there is no reason, under normal circumstances—apart from the case Senator Baxter mentioned—in a country district why the present system could not be carried on efficiently.

Lighting is largely a structural question. There is very little necessity to contemplate elaborate lighting arrangements. The question is largely a structural one, but even some of the most modern schools put up by the Board of Works might be said to be deficient in that respect. Many of these buildings have systems of lighting and ventilation that are extraordinarily cumbersome and old fashioned for this age and I feel that they could have a much simpler system.

I agree with Senator Baxter that the situation should be examined by a single authority, that the Department of Education should have an expert architect who would produce a standard type of rural primary school which might be built in the cheapest way with local labour and under local contract. I do not see that there could be any insuperable difficulty in that. I believe it would be much more efficient than the present system of see-saw between the Department of Education on the one hand, the Board of Works on the other hand, and the managers as the third party. Complicated responsibility is for the most part the cause of the trouble.

I would also like to sympathise with what Senator Baxter said about the resthetic aspect of school building. This may seem a small point to some but is a matter of enormous importance to the future. It applies not merely to school buildings but to some of the other building activities of Government Departments. Parts of the West of Ireland have been ruined by the activities of the Land Commission in putting up imitation suburban houses in country districts and presenting the people with a kind of cross between a police barracks and a picture house as the standard for ordinary dwellings, when there was already in existence an excellent type of rural dwelling which only needed to be improved and, if necessary, modernised, in order to be made perfectly suitable. The same applies to the national schools. I think that not enough attention has been devoted to making the school building a real part of rural surroundings. That again is a point on which you can only get results if there is direct contact between the Department of Education and the architect who is advising on plans for schools and who is under the direct control of the Department.

I am afraid I cannot agree with Senator Baxter when he makes a grievance of the fact that the children have to do their part in the cleaning of schools. I cannot see what grievance that is. Many of us remember doing that work when we were young and I do not know that it ever injured health. It certainly could not do harm if there is any sort of sensible organisation and proper supervision. It is good for the children to be taught how to clean up schools, and it would be a good thing if they applied what they learned in that way in their own homes.

I would appeal to the Minister to pay more attention to the reports of medical officers of health on the question of sanitation, idealistic though they may be. It is really a serious problem, and it is not confined to schools. It is fraught with great danger, especially in country districts, when dealing with crowds of young people. If some means could be found by which the conscience of the rural people would be awakened to the need for more attention than they seem to give to it, it would be a great step in advance. Here again the complication of responsibility is a bad arrangement. It is a very bad thing to have county medical officers of health making these reports year after year and apparently having no authority and no power to carry out their suggestions. The reports are published and are available not only for ourselves, but to foreigners. They have a very bad effect on opinion in the world at large, and yet nothing apparently can be done. It is really a matter of organisation and attention, and I suggest that the Department of Education should adopt for a short time the rôle of propagandist by trying to get other bodies interested besides the managers or the teachers. Some good might be done in that way. It concerns everyone, and perhaps it is a matter to which the parish councils all over the country might devote their attention. I do not suggest that elaborate measures should be devised or that you should consider providing every school in Ireland with a water supply.

Everybody knows that that is utterly impossible. No matter how long a period we allow and no matter what state of prosperity we envisage, there will never come a time when we shall have streamlined schools, with water supplies, electric installations and so forth. We cannot expect these ideal conditions. What is really wanted is more vigilance and care. The responsibility for seeing that these things are attended to should be laid on some single body. If that were done, you would get an immediate improvement. There is no danger to health in the conditions that prevail in the country generally. The real danger arises when you have numbers of children crowded in a school where no proper sanitary accommodation is provided. What is wanted is something simple—a supply of lime, for instance—and more attention. The great trouble is unawareness of the danger and of the necessity for constant attention. If the Department would bestir itself and secure some direct means by which this matter would be attended to, a great step forward would have been taken.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

Senator O'Connell's motion may be divided into two parts. As regards the first part, I am in entire agreement with him. Article 42 (4) of the Constitution lays down quite definitely that the State shall provide for free primary education. That would apply to the teachers and to the buildings and it might also be argued that it would apply to maintenance. I do not understand why managers should be called upon in any parish, and particularly in the poorer parishes, to raise these very large sums or to haggle about how much they are to pay when they desire to build a new school. For that reason, I am entirely with Senator O'Connell in his suggestion that the State should accept that responsibility. In fact, it seems to me that, the moment the Constitution became law, a Bill should have been brought into the Oireachtas implementing that provision and enforcing on the Ministry which happened to be in power the responsibility for building whatever schools were found to be necessary after applications by the managers.

I join with previous speakers in saying that there is no quarrel whatever in this House with the managerial system. It works as well as it possibly could under the circumstances which obtain and which the Minister has described. I cannot see that the taking over by the State of responsibility for the provision of schools should in any way interfere with what the manager is going to do.

As regards the second part of the motion, I am, again, mostly in agreement with Senator O'Connell but I am not quite sure as to whether the maintenance should actually be undertaken by the local authorities or by the parish. I feel that, under the Constitution, that is a definite responsibility of the State but I am not going to argue that. Like Senator Rowlette, I am deeply concerned as to the state of these schools because not only have I read the memorandum which Senator O'Connell has put before the House— a memorandum compiled from official documents which cannot be denied— but I have seen a number of these schools myself. I often go and have a look at a school to see how things which have been mentioned stand. I think that the most important defect in all the schools—new and old—is the absence of playgrounds. Where they exist, they have an appearance of sadness and dreariness. Some of the surroundings of the old schools are really frightful—mud and stones and misery, all combined.

The want of cover is a very important consideration, particularly in the wetter districts. Take, as an example, the Kenmare district, where, over 14 years, the average rainfall has been 69 inches and in which there are 216 wet days in the year. By "wet days," I mean days during portion of which rain fell. That means that the children do not play on a number of days. They do not go out at all. If some sort of cover were built on to the walls so that the children could amuse themselves during the break, it would make a great deal of difference.

As regards the heating question, I cannot agree with Senator Tierney that everything is quite happy in this respect. I do not think that the medical officers are altruists. They are medical men going about the country, and they know the conditions the people can afford. They lay very considerable stress on this matter. The carrying of the two sods of turf may present no difficulty to children living near the school but, where children live a long distance from the school, it is a misery to have to carry two sods of turf on a wet day. In my district, which is a turf district, the families who can afford it send in a rail of turf to make quite sure that the heating is not what I might describe as intermittent.

In regard both to the mental and bodily development of children, the years devoted to primary education are really the most important years of their lives. Discomfort in the school of any sort or kind will reduce the value of their primary education. A child attending school constantly will put in 1,800 hours in the year. The value of that education will be reduced by discomfort by 50 per cent., and it will also affect the preparation of those young people who pass on to the secondary schools and universities to a very considerable extent. Coming to the question of sanitation and hygiene, I put on one side the question of water. Although you could have pumps and put the children to pumping the water, I do not think that is necessary provided that the conveniences which do exist are kept clean and that proper disinfectants are used. In no single case which I have seen in the last week was there any attempt to provide any disinfectant of any sort.

There is a very considerable point about this hygiene, apart from the liability to disease which has already been talked about, that the absence of proper hygiene and sanitation does not impress on the young people the necessity for maintaining it in their homes in after life. As other speakers stated, we know there is need for improvement. There is no use pretending that everything is perfect in the country. It could be greatly improved by the young people who are now growing up if they were trained. A very great advance has been made in developing primary education. A number of schools have been built and a certain amount has been done as regards maintenance. In fact, the Estimates show an appropriation of £9 per annum for each school. That is, 3/6 per week. During the summer for many months none of that money is required, so you have about 7/- per week for heating and cleaning during the winter months.

What I feel about this is that the Minister might go a little quicker in some directions. The Minister told us that other buildings have got to be built besides primary schools, such as houses. I want to be broadminded about this and admit that there are other forms of education which have to be catered for, but I feel that this is the most important form of education. The children cannot get full value from higher forms of education unless their primary education is sound. I understand that £250,000 is in the Estimate this year as purely for new buildings. I may be wrong in this and, if so, the Minister can correct me. In this emergency a great deal could be done with a considerable part of the £250,000 in reconditioning or temporarily improving the older schools, so that they would be in a better condition over the next ten years instead of spending £250,000 on new buildings. However, as regards educational buildings, at the risk of getting the normal reply we have an example in the £110 which was spent on Ballyvourney, and the £3,000 which is being spent for adult education during the past years—money that might have been allocated to what I call the foundation of our national life of the future.

Primary education is most important in the life of our young people as a whole, and any other education is rather of secondary importance. As much money as can be spared for education should be definitely allocated to it at the expense of other things until the conditions under which education is being carried on have been made as perfect as possible, without extravagance or luxury.

Mr. O'Donovan

Listening to debates in this House, I usually hear opinions expressed against any extension of State control no matter to what branch of rural or city life it was intended to apply. This motion is really intended, if it were acted upon, to widen the scope of State control, at least, to the cleaning, lighting and heating of buildings in which the children of the nation are taught. Only one Senator to-day has objected to the extension of State control as far as it applies to the subject we are debating. All seem very much inclined to extend the power and control given to the central authority. I think that the extended control given to the central authority in this matter would not be to the best advantage of the country. If not only the buildings, but the heating, lighting, cleaning, the provision of the meals for school children and the provision of books were to be handed over to the central authority, it would debar local people, whose children are being taught in the schools, from having practically any interest in the educational facilities within their purview. I do not think it would really be the best solution to have the central authority to take over the whole managerial system—I use the word in the widest sense—the equipment and practically everything except the actual teaching.

I must say that the medical officers' reports as they have been circulated for our perusal, are certainly alarming. If they are to be read literally, it indicates a very serious condition of affairs in reference to many schools. I could understand that a medical officer inspecting a school could classify it as having some defects, and that the defects might be very slight. It would then appear that while many schools were defective they might be defective only to a very small extent. Even with all that, there is a very large percentage of schools indicated as being practically uninhabitable and condemned. Now I think the medical officers' reports are an indictment of the managers who are controlling these schools, and of citizens living in the neighbourhood. I must say I speak only from my own observation and I cannot speak from any inner knowledge, but my feeling is that once a child leaves school in the country, until he is a man or until he has children going to school, he has no practical interest in the school—how it is equipped, how it is built and ventilated, or how it is heated. He takes very little interest in it until he has children of his own to go back to the school and even then he just looks upon the school as an institution and takes very little interest in it.

The fact that there are these numerous reports in regard to unsatisfactory schools is an indictment of somebody. I think it is an indictment of the managers who are in control, and the people living in these districts. I have often heard it said when one passing along the road sees a neglected school, that the manager is disinterested, that he is old and is not taking sufficient interest in the management of the school. If that be so, I think it is no harm this debate has taken place because, to put it as simply as possible, a "shaking up" is due to the people who have been negligent as far as the maintenance of schools is concerned.

I agree with Senator Tierney that the initiative should come from the central authority, the Department of Education. The Minister said that the first step ought to be taken by the local people, that is, by the manager or somebody from the district concerned; but really it seems to me that speeding up should be insisted upon from headquarters, as Senator Tierney suggested. If we had a better social spirit or a better sense of responsibility amongst the people generally, I think many of these complaints would be rectified automatically. It seems to me that the supervision, examination and maintenance of the schools at a proper standard should be one of the functions of the parish councils, which we heard eulogised so much just a year ago, and which seem to be fading into thin air just now. We want a proper civic spirit carried to the end of our land. I think that Muintir na Tíre, the parish councils and local committees of that kind should interest themselves in seeing that local schools are properly maintained, lighted and heated.

I am afraid that in rural districts— and, indeed, in the city the same remarks would apply—we do not take much interest in our schools or go very often inside them to see how they are equipped. We all like to see a new school after it has been built, and we must all admire the splendid buildings that have been erected in recent times in the city area. It has been stated that some of these buildings are palatial. I think that even in rural districts the local school should be an outstanding building even if it cannot be classified as palatial. It should be a distinctive building in the rural area or small town.

I should like again to say that the medical officers' reports as to the unsatisfactory condition of schools are certainly disquieting when one remembers that children have to spend so many hours of their young lives in buildings that do not conform to decent standards. The difficulty as regards lighting in these buildings in the country is obvious although artificial light would only be necessary after the pupils had gone home. If there is sufficient natural light in the schools, there is no ground for complaint and I think the designs of our modern architects and engineers leave no ground for complaint on that line. As regards heating, I think the practice nowadays is to make a contribution towards the cost of fuel rather than actually to bring fuel to the school. As regards the cleaning and dusting, if these duties were to be taken over by the central authority I think it would lead to great difficulties.

Mr. O'Connell

That is not suggested in the motion.

Mr. O'Donovan

The motion suggests the extension of control by the central authority over practically all these functions.

Mr. O'Connell

Not for maintenance.

Mr. O'Donovan

All these matters would be divided between the central authority and the boards of health or the local authority and you would have the people of the district, whose main concern it should be, practically disinterested. These are the residents of the districts, the parents of the children.

Mr. O'Connell

Does the Senator suggest that people are disinterested in the public health of their own district?

Mr. O'Donovan

That is the suggestion I do make, that I am afraid that once people leave school, they do not go inside that school again until their children are growing up and can attend the school. That is why I agree with Senator Tierney that there should be a "shaking up" from the central authority of the people who are responsible locally for the maintenance of schools throughout the country. The question of school meals, which is a very live problem, has not been mentioned. That has involved difficulties with the teachers and the net result of exending the control of the central authority would be that, apart from the fact that the Government had to supply funds to provide these meals, the central authority would have to be responsible for all details connected with supplying these meals. There is also the question of supplying school books.

My point is that you would have too great a control by the central authority and too little interest shown by the people living in the immediate vicinity of the schools where their children are being taught and where, in many cases, they were taught themselves. You must have a greater sense of responsibility amongst parents who live in areas served by these schools. If a manager is not taking sufficient interest in the equipment and care of a school, it is the duty of the parents and of residents of that district to point that out to him. As the Minister has said, the first step must be taken by the manager and the parishioners should see that that step is taken. The suggestion has been made that the Department of Education should take the first step if it has not been already taken by somebody else. I think that a very good suggestion and then, perhaps, we would not have so many reports from medical officers, year after year, complaining of the unsatisfactory condition of so many rural schools.

One last remark in connection with water supplies and sanitation. To my mind, a water supply is more easily provided in the country than is proper sanitation. I think that a proper water supply should be available in every school—I mean a supply for the purpose of washing, as well as for drinking. I speak from experience, having seen young children going out to play on the playground, or on the road where there is no playground, and coming back with their hands and faces in a soiled condition. It would be a great training for them in afterlife, if they were taught to wash their hands and faces before coming back to school and a proper water supply for that purpose should always be available. If they came to school in the morning with soiled faces, it would be a good thing if the teacher made them go out and wash themselves.

There are some districts where they could not put in a pipe system but where there could be a water-carriage system for sanitation and where, with very little difficulty, an efficient water supply could be obtained, in the vicinity of the school, for drinking and washing purposes. The water-carriage system of sanitation would be the optimum for any large school and in any thickly populated district; and when there is a water supply in the town through the board of health it would be easy to have the water-carriage system available in the school, if it were in the vicinity of the sewerage system of that town or village. There has been extensive improvement in water supply and sanitation to towns and villages throughout the country. Though I cannot speak with actual knowledge now, I feel that schools could be connected, in many cases, with such water-carriage systems by very little expenditure.

Senator Tierney made some very valuable remarks in this debate in connection with the rural districts. The fact of lime being available should provide one of the most effective ways of dealing with dry-closet sanitation. These are questions in which parish councils, guilds of Muintir na Tíre and other local committees should be interested. They could urge the Department of Education to take steps —which should be taken—to improve the existing buildings and provide any facilities urgently required. On the other hand, it should be possible for the central authority to take the initial step or to force the local manager— if he has been negligent—to discharge his duties as supervisor and manager of a local school.

Professor Magennis

An old lady was heard expressing piously her gratitude to the Almighty Giver of all goods: "Wherever," she said, "there is a big city, God Almighty has sent a big river to supply it with water for sanitation." By the way, it never has occurred to anyone to make that an argument for the existence of God. It is recalled to me by my friend Senator O'Donovan's talk about the water supply. Would it never occur to anyone to erect the schoolhouse where the facilities requisite for the proper type of school could be provided? I know of country houses, privately occupied, where hydraulic rams are used to get a very adequate supply of water from comparatively small rivers. That is the starting point for the reform that, in conjunction with the motion before the House, I should like to have an opportunity to advocate.

Several of the speakers, including Senator Tierney, may be forgiven for their comparative youth in regard to this problem. A good many of the evils of which we are complaining to-day existed long ago, and many reports and protests appeared frequently in the pages of the newspapers, and still the evil is here confronting us now. I was brought back to my youth by my friend's remark: "If all these things are as they are described, then it means that somebody must be indicted." And who? Here, for a moment, the Senator's vigilance was relaxed, when he said the managers were to be indicted. I remember when the late Dr. Starkie, who was very prominent in the educational world as Resident Commissioner, made precisely the same attack before the Royal Society meeting in Belfast. One of the immediate consequences was a controversy—wild as it usually is when it arises amongst our people. The Catholic population were divided immediately into "Catholics" and "Starkie-ite Catholics"—shortened into "Starkies".

The managers are not to blame, and never were to blame, and no one who is acquainted with the problem and its difficulties would ever dream of blaming them. Senator O'Donovan put the proper culprit into the dock, when he was looking for someone to indict: it is the people—the fathers and mothers of the children. I do not think I am fair in calling them the proper culprits, because the tradition has been carried on, generation after generation, of hostility to the schools. It has a double origin—one part of it is that the schoolhouses and school life made the majority of the school children hate the schools and look upon the teacher as the enemy—and the archenemy was the Minister for Education and all his minions centred in the capital. It is an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact. The school is a purgatory —a place or state of punishment where some souls suffer for a time before they can be sent to work to earn wages. On the other hand, there is the evil tradition—the origin and purpose of primary schools. They were founded here with the expressly deliberate intention of anglicising and proselytising the Irish people. The hostility which that campaign aroused has survived to some extent to the present day. The people do not like the schools sufficiently to build them alongside their churches and entirely out of their own funds.

Since I last spoke on this subject— it was in the Dáil—there have been ever so many superb schools set up throughout the country. The late Canon McHugh, for instance, was at pains to set up splendid schools. If anyone wants to see what a schoolhouse can be like, he has not much of a pilgrimage to make. He can go to St. Mary's, in Haddington Road, and he will see there a magnificent schoolhouse which was built almost entirely out of the pocket of the Bishop of Thasos. The expense in that case was borne almost entirely by one man, filled with enthusiasm for education and knowing, as he did, that it was part of the salvation of the people that their children should be properly brought up in housing appropriate to the imparting of education.

After all these years, it is not too late to blow my own horn by claiming for myself the credit for having introduced medical inspection of schools. I regret it is not yet done on a more comprehensive scale, even to include secondary schools. But what is the use of inspecting some of the schoolhouses I have seen in Connemara? I made it my business during one summer holiday to go around the schools in a large part of Connacht and what I saw there was infinitely depressing, and the unfortunate thing is that nobody was to blame.

It is a very encouraging and inspiriting experience to sit here and see interest in education and the schools revivified. There are so many things that we have to do. So many demands are made on those entrusted with the reconstruction of the nation that it is hard to know where to begin, or how to carry on, and I think, when we take that into consideration, that there is hardly anyone to blame. The blame is in history.

At the present moment it is surprising to learn that so many millions are being spent on the actual provision of schoolhouses. I took down a note from the Minister's speech that it would take ten years after Peace and an expenditure of £5,000,000 to cover the programme. I do not think there is one man in a hundred thousand in this Twenty-Six County State who has any idea that so much has been done or that so much of the money raised by public taxation is being expended in that direction. One of the Senators who has spoken aroused opposition in me. He talked as if we were to continue dotting the country with little unwholesome school buildings.

Forty years ago or more, I showed how the number of schoolhouses could be reduced and it is easier to carry out that reform now than it was in those days. The schoolhouse can be one of the sources of disease. There are two diseases to which our climate is incident. I look upon rheumatism as a national disease. It costs us more in days lost by workers than would build palaces of schoolhouses in every county, and, to a large extent also, it is the source of tuberculosis. If we had large central schools in chosen positions, and a motor bus collecting the children from the outlying districts and bringing them home again, they would arrive into school dry shod and with dry clothes. Everyone knows the difficulty of imparting education to children standing shivering in sodden clothes in unwholesome, badly ventilated schoolrooms, apart altogether from the state of fatigue and discomfort that defeats the efforts of the best teachers. No teacher can teach a pupil who is ill at ease or whose mind is preoccupied with something else. That is a notorious fact. One must be comfortable in order to listen to a university professor in a university college. Unless the teacher has got the pupil in the appropriate condition for the reception of knowledge, his teaching is wasted.

Look how many things we could do in the big central school. It could be laid out on fine lines. You could have so many classrooms for the proper distribution of the day's curriculum. You could also have surroundings which would exercise a wholesome influence on the pupils by making them determined on having their own homes laid out on similar lines. You could have it well equipped with a school library, with all the appliances that are so useful, for example, the cinematograph projector, and the teaching of geography and allied subjects through its exhibition of the activities of the different peoples, their industries and civilisation. You could have all these things, and, above all, a chosen staff of the best teachers because, the amount expended on salaries being proportionately less, better salaries could be paid.

I do not look forward to a future in which every little village has its own schoolhouse. Rather, I look to the time when the State will recognise that the education of the children is the foundation of the State—I am not speaking exclusively about religious or moral training. Undoubtedly, the greatest asset the nation has at any particular era is the child and youth population, and you must learn to look on them in that light. Not merely the parents of the children, but other civic-minded people of the State, are trustees for them, for their future health and education and general well-being. We cannot expect to have a good citizen of a good State after leaving him to grow up anyhow.

I began by differing in some respects from the Senator who preceded me, but he laid his finger on the spot when he referred to civic virtue. What we are lacking in, and I do not think anyone will deny it, is not civic spirit, but the proper direction of it. We are as patriotic as anybody under the sun. We are full of civic spirit, yet know not how it is to be applied, nor how we are to harness it to get the last ounce of value from it. We have not tried to do that, and it should be one of the subjects in the schools. Children should be taught what it means to be members of a State and what the State has a right to expect from them in virtue of what the State and the organised community does for them. It would be very hard to persuade people that we are interested in carrying out the terms of the Constitution if they find themselves obliged to get the only training to fit them for life in the world in ill-equipped, insalubrious schoolhouses.

Senator Tierney began by saying that this is everybody's business. Undoubtedly it is and it should be brought home to Mr. Everybody that it is his business, and that he should be prepared to be interested and to pay for it. I do not see that the managerial system could in any way be interfered with if this great charge of providing well equipped and ideally organised buildings were a charge upon the State. The management of the courses, the supervision and employment of the teacher, all these things could still be a local duty and a local interest. They are not at all irreconcilable to me as a great enemy, according to the measure of my power, of undue interference on the part of the State. I have inveighed against bureaucracy until I am sick of inveighing against it or any shadow of its approach. Someone who said that Communism was just round the bend of the road was answered promptly by somebody else saying: "Let us see that we keep it there." If someone were to say that bureaucracy is around the bend of the road then let us all do our best to keep it around the bend and allow it to get no further. Bureaucracy is only a disease of the rule of Departments. We have the Department of Education and through that there is State control. That State control can work in a beneficent way for the local imparting of education. Inspectors can be very helpful as specialists in education, and instead of going out as spies reporting on the teachers, making enemies of teachers by classifying them in ways that affect their salaries, they could be most useful in promoting a high level of education in their districts. That would be State interference, no doubt, but it would be State interference only in the good sense of friendliness, of helpfulness. It would be benign and friendly interference.

What we have got to do is to make education popular. We have got to get the teacher to realise that the whole Nation is with him instead of the teacher having at teachers' congresses to fight for his salary, to fight against reduction of the salary and trying to better his position. We, especially through the Legislative, should do something to make the teacher feel that we look upon him as next to the priest—next to the minister of God. He is one of the nation builders and I do not see why he should be condemned to spend so much of his life under uncongenial circumstances. Just as the young pupil must be put in a proper state of mind to receive education, so you must also have the teacher satisfied and contented in order to get his best work from him.

I am delighted to know that after 21 years or so an active interest is again being taken by members of the Oireachtas in the provision of educational instruments of nation building. It seems to me that the State is not interfering unduly when it does for the individual what the individual cannot do for himself. The State is made up of communities, with the initial cell the family. Families in the townland and families in the parishes cannot under present circumstances raise money to build proper schools, even if the builders and building material were forthcoming. Their interest in the schools could be fomented and preserved if they made a local contribution towards it. All the citizens who are going to benefit by having the level of their fellow citizens raised and who realise that they are thereby improving and bettering themselves would be quite willing to have national taxation devoted to the provision of schoolhouses and the maintenance of them in repair.

Mr. Hawkins

I have only one or two points to make on this debate. The first is that we all agree that it is necessary to have in each parish a good school, properly ventilated and with a proper water supply and all the other necessities which would make it what a school should be. I notice that one speaker said that in the matter of school buildings the manager should be blamed, another said the Government should be blamed, and someone else said that it was the people who were to blame. We also heard extracts from the reports of county medical officers of health. Of course, it is very little use to have a medical officer making a report and then saying: "I have made my report and no further can I go."

If a county medical officer of health reports that the house of an ordinary citizen was insanitary or that the dwelling was dangerous, the next step is that the local authorities, now the county managers, serve a notice stating that that person has got to vacate the house and, if it is not put into a proper condition, it must be demolished. Probably we would be able to solve this difficulty in regard to schools, or at least to take one step forward in that direction, if county medical officers of health made a recommendation that certain repairs should be made or that some necessity should be supplied to a school and be empowered to serve an order on the manager or whoever was the responsible authority to have the work carried out, it would be better. When that is not done, that is where the big snag lies.

Senator O'Connell suggests that the Minister for Education or the Department should take over the erection, and the local authorities the maintenance and inspection of schools. I do not think that that would solve the problem or that it would do all the things we were told were necessary. The first thing we should aim at is to get the people and children in the parish to have respect for the schools, to regard the school in the parish as their school. My suggestion would be that every county council would set up these parish councils—not as they are presently constituted but as more or less elected bodies of the county councils—to form school committees. I would not be inclined to give them a lot more power over local administration, such as old age pensions and other things, but it would be a good thing if you had a committee of local people, of fathers of families in a parish who would take some interest in the schools and who would meet quarterly or half-yearly. They would see what was necessary in regard to schools and what contributions should be raised in order to have necessary repairs carried out. If it was a question of a new school the Department would, taking local conditions into consideration, make the necessary grant.

We are inclined to place too much responsibility on the central authority. We want the Government to do this, that and the other thing from central funds. While we want that, we talk a lot about Governments taking to themselves excessive control. We want them to give but we do not want to give anything ourselves. In a number of places, there is a difficulty in providing school accommodation. The manager will tell you in some of these cases that he would have built a school years ago, but that he found it impossible to get a site. To make a start in this matter, the manager or Department should have power to acquire the necessary land. When the Minister takes this power to himself, I suggest that he should obtain sufficient land to enable a teacher's residence to be built beside the school. It is very regrettable that in a number of rural areas, three or four miles from a town or city, the principal teacher and his assistant reside in the urban district. They travel out—formerly by motor and now by cycle or horse transport—each day, open the workshop, work for the number of hours prescribed and return to the town or city, taking no further interest in the parish or in the children of the district. That is bad. Attached to every school in a rural area should be a teacher's residence, so that the teacher would be part of the parish. It has a bad influence on young people to realise that the teacher, whom they look up to as one of the best educated persons in the parish, is not content to live in the parish. We used to talk a lot about the flight from the land. Here is an example of it. In former years, the teacher occupied second place to the priest in a parish. If the people required assistance or advice, they went either to the parish priest or to the teacher. In many cases now, the teacher is not there to give that advice or to take part in organising dramatic societies or games for the children in after-hours. Senator Magennis put forward a more elaborate scheme— that the schools should be built in particular areas and that the children should be conveyed to those schools. That would be a very good plan, but I am afraid it is so elaborate that we cannot hope for anything like it in the near future.

Senator Tierney suggested that the Department should have standard plans for schools. I know a little bit about building and my view is that there is too much standard building and that too little consideration is given to the locality in which the building is to be erected. There is an old story that, during the British régime, when the railway was being built from Galway to Clifden, the plan for a station house was sent by mistake to the West Indies, and the plan for the West Indies building was sent to Clifden. That lack of suitability occurs not alone in respect of schools but in respect of all Government buildings. It happens even in the case of labourers' cottages. No regard is had to the particular area in which the building is to be erected. For that reason, I would not agree with Senator Tierney's suggestion that the Department should have a standard plan for rural schools, irrespective of the place where the school is to be erected. The question of a water supply to schools has also been referred to. It was stated that it was impossible to provide our schools with a proper water supply. With that I do not agree. So long as you are prepared to incur the necessary expenditure, you will be able to provide the water supply. In the cases of most schools, the water is obtained from the village pump. That pump is, as a rule, adjacent to the school and it serves not only the school but the village. Senator Magennis referred to the very bad schools be saw in Connemara. Generally, that is not the case. There are few areas in Ireland, taking everything into consideration, where schools are better served, so far as water supplies are concerned than in Connemara. There may be bad schools in Connemara, but they are not anything worse than in other parts of the country.

Senator Tierney referred to the red tape of the Department in getting a contractor to do necessary work instead of leaving the matter to the manager, who could have it done more cheaply by local labour. Anybody who wants a job done can always get it done cheaply, provided he is not particular about how it is done. But if State money is to be expended there must be proper supervision of the expenditure and in these cases there must be plans and specifications. Whether the work is done by the local authorities or the Board of Works does not make much difference.

Senator O'Connell suggested that the repairs should be carried out by the local authorities. In that case, also, plans, specifications, supervision and inspection would be necessary. I do not think there was much point in the argument that the work would be done more cheaply by allowing the manager to have it carried out in his own way. As regards the schools condemned by the medical officers of health, the difficulty seems to be to ascertain the responsible authority for carrying out the necessary repairs. It does not seem as if many people like to blame the managers. It is extraordinary that oftentimes you find in a parish that a school has been in a very bad condition over a period of years. Then, it comes about that there is a change. There is a new parish priest installed and in a very short time an attempt is made to build a new school. Well, one must certainly admit that the new manager had become a little active and interested in the school.

I think that the difficulty at the present time is that where a manager takes things easy, as many of them do, there is no authority to appeal to. The local people, of course, have not much say in it and, even if every father and mother wanted a new school, and was prepared to make a contribution towards it, there is no way in which they can make their voices heard, except, of course, that they can organise a strike as was done in Mayo. That is not done generally, and if anything like that is done there is always the suspicion that there is something more behind it than a mere demand for a school. I do not think it is good that we should always be giving more authority to the Central Government and asking them to do some of the things we should encourage the local people to do for themselves. The time has come when we should reconsider the whole matter, place more confidence in the people and try to do something that will encourage them to be interested in their village. One of the best ways of doing that would be to have parish committees. I do not mean the present committees, but committees that would be elected by the heads of the families or otherwise and that would have some authority.

If necessary, they would have power to levy a small rate or contribution. If the manager was one of those who did not take an active interest in the schools, then they would have power to petition the Minister or to take up the matter with the Department. At present it seems that no one can take the initiative except that the manager approaches the Department to look for a grant. I am sure that it very rarely happens that the Department approaches the manager. If the manager does not take the first step there is no school. Something should be done to remedy that position—either the Department should have power to take the first step and request the manager to take up the matter, or power should be given to somebody to take it up with the Minister.

Mr. Derrig

I think I should explain that when I said it is the manager's duty to take the first step I meant that with regard to the actual building of the school. If a school requires attention, the inspectors have instructions to call the manager's attention to it, and medical officers have, up to recently, called the attention of the manager to unsatisfactory schools. As far as calling the attention of the manager to the position is concerned the Seanad may rest assured that that is being done, but sending a manager a form is not exactly taking the first step. The manager has to put up a definite proposal that he intends to proceed with a new school. That is what I meant by the manager taking the first step.

Mr. Hawkins

Where a manager, after being requested to do so, fails to take action what is the position then?

Mr. Derrig

The board of health have powers when medical officers report to them that a school is insanitary. Not all schools that are condemned as unsatisfactory are insanitary. I suggest that some Senators are under a misapprehension in this respect. A school may be condemned as being unsatisfactory because it has insufficient playground space or because it has not the necessary amount of cubic space to accommodate the number of children.

It would not be correct to assume that a school classified as unsuitable is insanitary. I have not seen the report circulated to Senators, but if I had I would have gone into the matter. I intend to see that in future medical officers, if I can arrange it, will make a distinction in their reports between cases where they condemn a school as being insanitary and where they condemn it as being unsatisfactory.

Mrs. Concannon

I wish to ask the Minister a question with regard to sanitation in the schools and simple methods of sanitation, which is so important both for the health of the children and the health of the community, and also for the education and civilisation of our young people. It seems to me that the Army must have had in recent times an opportunity of garnering a great deal of useful information. Has the Minister or those interested in education and in this question of establishing simple sanitary systems in the schools tapped any of that experience?

Mr. Derrig

The position is that the school managers were circularised in 1933 calling attention to the matter of sanitation and their duty in that respect. It was a circular to managers of national schools calling attention to the work required to be carried out from time to time to keep the school in a proper condition and calling specific attention to the fact that public health authorities, through the medical officers of health, had certain responsibilities to carry out and that therefore action should be taken by the managers accordingly. In 1936, after consultation with the Local Government Department and the medical staff, a circular was issued giving specific instructions as to the manner in which earth closets should be maintained. I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I could let Senators, if they wish, have copies of the circular. In any case, specific instructions were given in it as to the way in which earth closets should be dealt with. I do not think, having got expert medical advice on the measures to be taken, that there is anything further that it would be necessary to get from the Army.

Mr. O'Connell

Before I deal with the points raised in this debate there is a matter arising out of something that the Minister has said. The Minister said that he had not seen the extracts from the medical officers' reports that I circulated. I gave instructions for them to be sent to the Minister.

Mr. Derrig

I got a copy of the Senator's speech but not the extracts from the medical officers' reports.

Mr. O'Connell

No, that is not it. This was sent at the same time that the extracts were circulated to Senators. I did not see the letter actually posted but I gave definite instructions that it was to be sent to the Minister.

Padraic O Maille

I got no copy.

Mr. O'Connell

Your name was not on the list. It was done from the old list.

Mr. Derrig

If it has been sent I have not received it.

Mr. O'Connell

I am sorry about that. I will send you a copy. This debate has been an interesting one from many points of view. I think it was Senator Mrs. Concannon, who at the outset expressed regret that we were discussing this matter in a small House, and that, too, is significant, symptomatic of the interest that is taken generally in educational matters. We have an instance of it in the newspapers this morning. Two of the three daily papers have not even one line of reference to the debate that took place on this matter last night. One of these papers devoted two columns with a leading article to the censorship debate. It is evident that The Tailor and Ansty is a bigger draw here, and possibly for the readers of the newspapers, than matters dealing with education, but that is, as I say, symptomatic of the whole position. There is no real interest taken in educational matters in this country. I went through five election campaigns as a candidate in my time and through a number of by-election campaigns in support of other candidates.

At meetings which I attended and other meetings which I addressed, meetings of my own Party or of other Parties to which I listened, while every possible kind of question, political, economic and general, was raised, never at one meeting did I hear any question or any reference to education; never did I hear anybody heckle a candidate and ask what he was going to do about schools and about education. It was none of their concern. That seemed to be the attitude. There is no public opinion on education and, therefore, when Senator Counihan and some others said—the Minister himself even said something like it—that there was no public demand for this motion as introduced here, he stated what was true. There is no public demand for it, but is that to suggest that we are to say nothing about it in the Oireachtas?

It was suggested by some of the speakers that this was a proposal to strip the people of any responsibility in connection with education. That is not the proposal. The proposal is to put responsibility on them but to put it upon them in a regularised way. The people have no direct responsibility now. Senator Counihan said the Department were doing everything that was necessary. I think it would take a lot to convince us that that is correct. He gave us an example of what was being done in a particular parish. He began by saying that the schools had been allowed to fall into a disgraceful condition and that it was because of the fortuitous circumstance that an energetic curate was appointed that things were made right. He agreed that some schools were in a disgraceful condition and he said that the managers—I took a special note of his words—should be made to do their duty. He did not suggest how, but we had a suggestion from Senator O'Dwyer as to how they should be made to do their duty. He said the Department had a weapon in their hands, that if the managers failed to carry out the duty imposed on them, the Department could refuse to pay the teachers' salaries. I am sure that Senator O'Dwyer, in the course of his historical readings, came across an institution known as the Whipping Boy. When princes and nobles were being educated long ago there was always a commoner educated in conjunction with them. In any case, he was made a sort of stand-by, so that, whenever the prince deserved punishment, the whipping boy was called up to receive the punishment.

It is related that there was a character named Barney Fitzpatrick, who served as a whipping boy for Edward IV, and there was a famous character named Murray, who fulfilled the same function for Charles I. Strange to say, these names are common enough amongst us nowadays, but in this case the teachers are to be made the whipping boys. It is the children, however, who will suffer if the schools are closed. If that particular penalty is enacted—and as I said in my opening speech, the only penalty the Department can inflict on a manager who fails to carry out his duty is to withdraw all grants from the school and let the school be closed—the teachers who are deprived of their salaries may number only one or two individuals, but 40 or 50 children will be deprived of education.

I have listened to many speeches and Ministerial statements from time to time, but I cannot say that I have ever listened to one which caused me more despair than that made by the Minister to-day because his speech was a counsel of despair. A number of Senators spoke in this debate, but none of them was prepared to say that things were satisfactory or even nearly satisfactory. The Minister went very near saying it, if he did not actually say it. He seemed from his attitude to resent the bringing forward of this matter at all. He referred to the fact that the question was debated on a previous occasion. If he had the same occasion in mind as I have—the occasion when I brought this matter forward in the Dáil when I was a member of that House—he was referring to a discussion which took place about 1927 or 1928. He asked what circumstances have occurred in the meantime to necessitate this motion. What wonderful improvement has taken place in the meantime, I ask? I think that is the answer to the Minister. How much further are we now from where we were in 1928 in regard to the matters mentioned in this debate—the sanitary condition of our schools? I shall give the answer from the Minister himself. Six hundred schools, he told us last July, required to be replaced, 300 of them in an urgent category. That is the answer, and that is why I think it necessary to bring forward this motion now. He said that I had assumed that there was not likely to be any dissent, and that I should have produced evidence to show that the change would not be resisted. I produced evidence to show why I thought there was no reason why it should be resisted. It was the Minister's duty, if he thought it would be resisted, to produce evidence to show that. He has not produced evidence to show that it would be resisted or that there is any reason for resistance to the change.

Again the Minister more or less repeated what he said last July, that the system was a homogeneous entity and that it could not be interfered with without dire results. He said that some distinguished ecclesiastic told him long ago that the system was not very far from being ideal. I cannot conceive that when that opinion was expressed the system that was referred to had anything to do with the matter we have discussed here, material buildings and their condition. The system, in so far as managers and the Church have control of the teachers and of the teaching in the schools, of religious instruction, etc., is not very far from being ideal. It is probably as near the ideal as can be reached, but no one would suggest, and I feel sure it was not intended to be conveyed to the Minister by this ecclesiastic, that the system under which school buildings are erected, and especially are maintained, is anything like ideal. Nobody could suggest that. The Minister says that these things cannot be done in a hurry, that school buildings cannot be erected in a hurry, that there must be time for discussion and consideration. I wonder what would he consider a reasonable time for discussion and consideration. I could give him an example of a case where a recommendation was made by his own Department, as long ago as 20 years, that a new school should be provided and it is not provided yet. I gave him an example of discussions and considerations that took place over seven and eight years. A whole generation of children, from the infants to the seventh standard, have passed through the school in the meantime, and the mark of that unsatisfactory building and of the unhealthy conditions under which they worked will remain with them all their lives. The Minister sought to make our flesh creep by saying that, if there were interference in the direction suggested, there would be contention, confusion and chaos. I do not believe that. I profess to know as much about it and, if I may say so with respect, to have longer experience of these things than the Minister. I am prepared to say that, whatever may be the view in official quarters, 80 per cent. of the individual managers would welcome this change. Seven years ago, in my organisation, I prepared a pamphlet in which this very claim was put forward. It was circulated to every manager, and not one protest was received from any quarter. On the other hand, many statements, letters and verbal messages came to me approving of it.

Mr. McEllin

What about the ratepayers?

Mr. O'Connell

The ratepayers always object to any reform which puts any addition on the rates. I am not surprised at that.

Mr. McEllin

I do not agree.

Mr. O'Connell

If the purpose for which the rate is struck is a good and proper one, it should be struck. In that matter of rates, Senator Counihan, towards the end of his speech, gave the real reason for his opposition. Under the present conditions, who is bearing this local contribution, wherever it is taken up? It is the parents of the children—very often the poorest people. The manager has no power to strike a rate, but he often makes a collection. The banks, insurance institutions and railway companies get off scot free, although they are big ratepayers in the district. I suppose that Senator Counihan is a fairly big ratepayer in his own district.

Mr. Baxter

Senator McEllin pays £5 or £6, too.

Mr. O'Connell

He always pays his rates cheerfully, if I know anything about it.

Mr. McEllin

A public benefactor.

Mr. O'Connell

Senator Counihan mentioned that in his parish a tax of threepence a week was put on all round, on everyone in the parish, and that he paid with the rest. If there were a rate in accordance with the rateable valuation, Senator Counihan would be paying a lot more than his gardener or labourer.

Mr. Derrig

He would be able to charge a lot more for the field, which he gave for nothing.

Mr. O'Connell

I suppose he would not give the field free if that were the case. It was Senator Counihan, I think, who stated that this would be the thin end of the wedge to oust the managers from the school. That cock will not fight nowadays. It was good enough to make a suggestion of that kind when we were under an alien Government. Who in this country wishes to oust the managers from the schools? No one wants to do that and no one should suggest it. It is not correct or proper to make a suggestion of that kind, and it is an insult to our people.

There was an objection on the ground of centralisation. Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that my proposal is revolutionary. It is not revolutionary: it is being done already as far as the first portion of the motion is concerned. Schools are being built nowadays the whole cost of which is provided by the State. I pointed that out in my address yesterday. There is nothing revolutionary in saying that all the schools should be provided in that way. In the case of some of the schools which were built in that way, what is happening at present? I agree with Senator Hawkins that in Connemara there are some of the best schools; the whole cost of erection was provided by the State and the local people were not asked to provide anything. But no provision of any kind is made by the State for repairs and the schools are allowed to fall into disrepair. The woodwork should have been painted every three or four years, or perhaps more frequently, in those damp districts in the West of Ireland. I, myself, saw a new school after ten years, where you could put a finger through the woodwork on the doors and window frames, as the manager was not allowed one penny towards the cost of repairs. Everyone knows that some repairs are always necessary, and if there were some authority to look after these things the life of the building would be extended considerably. When these things are not attended to for ten or 12 years, a big grant is necessary for the reconstruction of the school.

There was a question as to what managers could and what they should do. I wish to make it clear that I do not indict or blame the managers in any way. Cases were quoted by the Minister showing what some managers have done. Some managers have worked miracles, but they are not all miracle workers. They cannot be, under the conditions in some places. It is quite impossible.

Mr. Baxter

In some places, no miracle could happen.

Mr. O'Connell

In some places, it is impossible for them to raise money for some of the things they are expected to do. I will give an instance of what has happened, as shown by the Appropriation Accounts for 1939-40. A grant of £45,000 was voted by the Dáil as a Grant-in-Aid towards the heating and cleaning of the schools. Only £35,000 odd was expended. In the Appropriation Accounts, the explanation given for the discrepancy between what was voted and what was spent was as follows:—

"The saving——

and that word is significant—

——is accounted for by the number of cases in which managers of schools neglected to claim grants under the scheme."

What was the explanation of the neglect? We have it from Mr. O'Neill, the secretary, who was being examined before the Committee of Public Accounts and when this particular paragraph was referred to, the following discussion took place:—

"Chairman: Why do not the managers claim the grant under the scheme?

Mr. O'Neill: They have to raise the money themselves. In the western areas particularly, each manager has a good many schools. One manager might, for instance, have eight or nine schools and he finds it rather difficult to raise the actual amount that we require in cash, so that there are very considerable gaps in the claims. The result is that in nearly 10 per cent. of the cases mainly from those western areas mangers have not sent in claims. In the eastern areas and the well-off areas, there are fewer gaps as each manager has not so many schools and there is much more money. The scheme, however, is not working as satisfactorily as we had hoped.

Deputy Benson: Does that mean that the schools are inadequately heated?—I am afraid it does."

(Questions 343-344 Committee of Public Accounts, 1939-40.)

He said that in nearly 10 per cent. of the cases no claim had been made for the grant. On first sight it looks rather strange that the manager did not claim it. The reason he did not claim it was because he was not able to fulfil the conditions necessary to claim it. If a manager had to spend £40, £50 or £60 on heating and cleaning, he had to spend it during this particular winter and he might hope to get half of it back by next May or June if he had not exceeded the limit. Because he was not able to raise it, he knew there was no use in claiming the grant—he had not fulfilled the conditions of the grant because he could not fulfil them.

The Minister got rather indignant when he was replying to the statement made by Senator Baxter and he wanted to be supplied with the names of the schools. I suggest that he should take up the report of the medical officer of health. There he will find the names. I did not give the names in the memorandum I circulated but most of the reports have them. There are general statements but there are particular statements about each school, and while the Minister may think the standards of the medical officers of health rather high, surely there is ample evidence there that in many areas such conditions exist? They are not isolated instances —they are general all over the country. The Minister will have no difficulty in finding evidence that things are anything but satisfactory.

Mr. Derrig

I know that in some areas the medical officer has condemned, within two or three years, a majority of the schools in a particular county. I do not regard that as sensible or reasonable. I do not believe the position is that the majority or almost a majority of schools in any Irish county are unsuitable.

Mr. Baxter

What county is the Minister referring to?

Mr. Derrig

I am referring to the county I am familiar with.

Mr. O'Connell

It all depends on what you call unsuitable. I am referring especially to the sanitary conditions of schools and I say that in the majority of the schools in rural Ireland the conditions are unsuitable and dangerous to health. The Minister says that earth closets are the normal thing. They should not be the normal thing, even if it is not possible to provide other systems. There are such things as Elsan closets or closets of that type. Of course, all this costs money, but it costs money to maintain people in hospital and it costs money, too, to build hospitals. Of course, it costs money.

I do not know whether the Minister has any knowledge of the way these earth closets are cleaned out, when they are cleaned out once a year or once in two or three years. I have actual experience of seeing it and the practice has not altered very much since I was a teacher. The only people who clean these closets out are these wandering nomads — Senator Tierney's friends I should say. He expressed the view that he would like at times to be one of these, but I feel sure he would like to be far away from the place where these unsavoury tasks have to be carried out. I have seen this occur—a pit dug in the playground and the contents of these closets emptied into it and slightly covered over in the same ground in which children are supposed to play, and I have seen children sink into and being pulled out of it. I do not think the conditions are very much different from what they were in those days, according to reports I have got.

I am not particular about the terms of this motion. If anybody can show me a better way I will be more than delighted to accept it, but no better way has been proposed. The Minister is apparently content to let things go on as they have been going because he feels that they are not so bad after all. There must be discussion and consideration he says, but in the meantime, the health and the lives of the children are endangered. I do not care whether the State pays the whole cost or whether the local authority has to pay a portion of the cost, but I do say that the present voluntary system has broken down and there is ample evidence of that. If the suggestion of Senator Hawkins is carried out and if there are local committees appointed to look after these things, good and well. I suggest the proper people are the public health authorities. What does it mean? There should in connection with every school be a caretaker—someone who will clean the school and look after it and be responsible and paid for doing it. Every other public institution in the country, our technical schools, our court houses as was mentioned by Senator Baxter, and our gaols are all looked after, kept clean and at least sanitary, but our national schools, where 95 per cent. of our people spend a long period of their lives, are left to chance in a great many cases. Towards the close of his speech, the Minister said there was no reason for bringing the matter forward and it would do no good. I do not agree with him. I think there is every reason for bringing it forward. Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that it was the wrong method of approach, that there should be a conference. Who is to call the conference? Why has it not been called?

Mr. Derrig

Because I am in constant touch with the authorities concerned, and there is no need for conference when one is in constant touch.

Mr. Baxter

And is satisfied with the conditions?

Mr. Derrig

In reply to Senator Baxter, I have said to the House, and perhaps I ought to repeat it, that I am satisfied from the consultations I have had with responsible ecclesiastical authorities that this matter will be attended to, if it is possible, in urgent cases before the emergency is over, but certainly as soon as normal conditions return there will be a comprehensive policy in operation.

Dr. Rowlette

This problem existed before the emergency began.

Mr. O'Connell

The Minister devoted the greater part of his speech to the building question. As I pointed out yesterday I am very much more concerned with the maintenance and the sanitary condition of the schools. Even a bad building, even a building that requires to be replaced might be put into some kind of sanitary condition if steps were taken to do it. I am much more interested in that aspect of the problem, but the Minister dwelt very little on that in comparison to the building question. However, the Minister has now stated that he is in consultation with the ecclesiastical authorities, and he has hopes that something good is going to come out of it. I hope so too, but I do not think the fact that this discussion has taken place is going to hinder or delay that. I think rather the contrary, and I do not regret bringing forward this motion. I have no reason to regret it. It has been a valuable discussion, and it is right and proper that people who occupy responsible positions, such as members of the Oireachtas, should have the duty to discuss these things if they think conditions are such as they are.

Senator Counihan said that there was no public demand for this, but Senator Rowlette dealt with that point. There are a lot of things the Government do that there is no public demand for. There are a lot of things that they do in respect of which the public if asked would say: "Do not do it at all." I am sure Senator Counihan did not make a demand for compulsory tillage, and yet compulsory tillage is a good and proper thing. If the Government were waiting for a demand from Senator Counihan and his friends for compulsory tillage, I expect they would be still waiting. We have certain responsibilities as representing the people, and it is our duty to bring these things to the notice of the Government if we think that is necessary.

With regard to the actual terms of the motion, I am not tied in any way to them, and if there is an assurance from the Minister now that things are going to be improved very soon, I am not going to press this particular form of reform. But "I hae ma doots" that anything remarkable is going to happen. Senator Baxter referred to schools that require heating, and another Senator referred to the magnificent buildings recently erected in the city. I do not know whether the Minister knows what is going on in some of these schools at present. I am credibly informed that in some of these new big schools in the city fine provision was made for central heating and that sort of thing. One of the latest schools built was at Larkhill. That is a magnificent building, but another Department of Government has refused to supply the material for heating it. The Minister will contradict me if I am wrong in saying this: that while there is provision for central heating in these schools the children are shivering because the Department of Supplies has refused to supply anthracite.

Mr. Derrig

If I might intervene, the position was that some of these schools, including Larkhill Schools, had difficulties, but they have got an interim permit for the purchase of fuel, and that relieves the situation.

Mr. O'Connell

I am very glad to hear that, but it only shows what can occur. I do not want to divide the House on this motion, because a vote one way or another will not make any difference in this House. I hope that the discussion has served a useful purpose. I believe it has, and while many views were expressed one way or the other, I think it has brought home to many of the Senators that there is a problem to be dealt with. I hope that it has been brought home equally to the Minister that there is great urgency in regard to this question, especially in regard to the sanitation of schools. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.