Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hayes

It might be appropriate on this section to make some observations upon the general policy pursued in vocational schools by the Minister. Section 2 invites us to agree to a proposal that the maximum rate which may be levied by local bodies for vocational education should be raised and it is to be noted that an increase in the rate also involves automatically, owing to the system, an increase in the central contribution. Section 2, in effect, is a proposal that the local and the central expenditure upon vocational education should be increased or, at any rate, that it should be made possible, on the initiative of local bodies, to increase it.

There will be general agreement that, if vocational education means an increase of education over the age of 14 years and an improvement in the equipment of our people, boys and girls, men and women, for their occupations and for their leisure, more money could be spent profitably and should be spent on it. However, I would like to ask the Minister to tell us the purposes which he has in view in vocational schools, the spirit in which he thinks the work should be carried out, what difficulties exist and what success he thinks has been achieved. More particularly, I might be allowed to advert to something in which I take a peculiar interest and about which we have had some discussion on the Second Stage of this Bill, namely, the rôle which the Irish language and Irish language teaching is expected to play in vocational schools.

I agree entirely that every possible facility and inducement should be given for the study of Irish and for the realisation of what that study means and what there is behind it. When I say that, I would like to make it clear that, particularly in vocational schools, where you are dealing with people who are to a great extent their own masters, Irish should certainly not be something which is a drag upon people but something which is of added interest, both in the school and in their lives outside the school. I wonder whether that actually is the case. My doubts are rather strengthened than dissipated by listening to the Minister on the Second Stage of the Bill. Apparently, he refuses to discuss at all any question of the difficulties which surround the teaching of Irish and appears to fall back upon the abuse of people who suggest that certain things are wrong.

Avoiding the personal issue altogether, I would suggest that what is wrong is that the Minister, by deliberate choice, which we are perfectly entitled to discuss, has placed the inspection of vocational schools in the hands of a person whose qualifications are in oral Irish and in scarcely anything else. The Minister appears to think that the most important thing in the vocational schools is the spreading of a knowledge of oral Irish. I stress the word "oral", because there are a great many aspects of Irish, apart from the mere speech. The Minister seems to me to have chosen, and to be supporting, a policy of pushing willy-nilly, by methods which are not the best and which are neither polite nor attractive, the Irish language in the vocational schools. The Minister spoke of memoranda which are circulated to inspectors and which inspectors are expected to follow. Those of us with experience of administration and of life know that memoranda are very often deceptive things. The individual and the individual's conduct are more important than memoranda issued from headquarters. I should like to learn from the Minister whether he really believes what he appeared to say on the last occasion. I do not want to advert to it from my own personal point of view. I expressed certain doubts and the Minister's answer to me was that I was playing political tricks and that I had hoisted the white flag.

I think that nothing is more dangerous to the progress of Irish in the vocational schools, and other schools, and in the country generally, than the attitude of smug complacency which seems to say: "We are doing everything right and anybody who questions what we are doing is a coward and is showing the white flag." I take it that the "white flag" is really a euphemism to cover up a charge of cowardice. It seems to me that that is not the position. I should rather regard it in this fashion: a man finds his mother in danger of death; the doctor attending her is a man in whose skill, knowledge and past treatment he has no faith. He thinks that another doctor should be called in and other measures taken. Surely a person in that position would not be accused of hoisting the white flag. That is precisely the position as I see it. A great many things are happening which show that the Minister is not prepared to face the difficulties of the situation. He accused me on the last occasion of saying that we should "speak English and be dacent". That is just childish. I do not know whether or not the Minister really believes that the reading of a dull, impersonal, official statement— perhaps a translation from English— is really furthering the cause of the Irish language. Quite frankly, I do not believe it is. I do not believe that, if such a performance were to be carried out every day and if others of us were to emulate it, it would have the slightest effect in retarding the accelerating decay which is overtaking Irish, for example, in the Minister's County of Mayo, nor would it have any effect in exciting interest in the Irish language either in vocational schools or elsewhere.

The Minister spoke last day on a matter which is very relevant to this section and I wonder if he would give us some more information about it. The House may not be aware that Irish teachers in vocational schools are in a peculiar position. It used to be necessary for them to have the Teastas Muinteóra Gaeilge—a certificate as teacher of Irish. That is not now sufficient. What you need now is the Teastas Timthire Gaeilge—a certificate as organiser of Irish. Teachers of Irish in vocational schools are expected not only to teach Irish in the schools but also to organise what are called Irish activities outside the schools. That is a very serious burden upon the teacher, for which he sometimes gets no extra pay and for which he may not be fitted. We all know that a man or woman may be a very excellent teacher in a class-room but a very poor hand at organising things outside such as ceilidhthe, public meetings and feiseanna. It is my experience that a person who is extremely good at that out-of-door business may not be a good teacher at all.

Under the Minister, we have deliberately embarked upon a policy which imposes a particular burden upon Irish teachers and which is endeavouring to mould that teacher of Irish in the vocational schools, no matter what his or her previous qualifications, in a particular way, by a particular course, done in the summer over a period. Will the Minister tell us who are the people who conduct this course? What is the aim of the course, and what are the subjects taught in it? It should be understood that an honours university graduate of any college is not qualified to teach Irish in the vocational schools until he has done this particular course.

In his extraordinary attitude on this particular matter on the last occasion, the Minister was good enough to misrepresent what I said about that matter. I did not object to university graduates being improved. Anybody who is a university teacher, like myself, is bound to say, if he is competent, regularly to his class: "When you get your degree, it is only tosach eolais—the beginning of knowledge; you are only beginning to educate yourself when you have got your degree." I should be the last person to object to university graduates getting extra training or knowledge but they should get that extra training or knowledge from people who are capable of dealing with them and it should be possible to say precisely the kind of knowledge they are being given. If a man—in this case, man, as it is said, embraces woman—is a native speaker of Irish and has a first class honours university degree, he is still not capable of teaching Irish in a vocational school. He must get an extra qualification. Would the Minister tell us what the nature of the extra qualification is? If it is merely training in what is called the direct method, that is one thing but if it involves training in organising ceilidh the, it is a different thing. I do not want to enter into the question but ceilidh dancing has no more to do with Irish than Morris dancing. There is a certain connection between the Gaeltacht and step-dancing but ceilidh dancing and Irish have no connection and except during the Gaelic League period, the two things were not allied. I do not see why teachers should be committed to those two things.

Would the Minister tell us what precisely the objects of this summer course are, what he hopes to achieve by it and why it is that, while a teacher of domestic economy or a teacher of French have only a particular job to do, a teacher of Irish is called upon to do a completely different job? We may be told—and I agree—that the Irish language is in a peculiar position. According to the Minister, we must not damp down enthusiasm. What the Minister is setting out to do is to create enthusiasm. I said on the last occasion, and I should like to repeat, that officers of the State or officers of a local body cannot recreate the spirit behind the Irish language movement. The Minister said:—

"Tá na múinteóirí seo ag cur spioraid nua san ghluaiseacht."

I do not believe that. I do not believe that this machinery is the right machinery for doing that. If propaganda is to be done for the Irish language it should be done in an entirely different manner. I hope to show that by some examples, if Senators bear with me.

In the vocational schools, in particular, you are dealing with people who have left secondary schools and done a full Irish course. If they have not had impressed upon them at their secondary course anything about the Irish language except that it is a school subject and that they ought to be rid of it as soon as they can, then there is something wrong with that system and it cannot be remedied by forcing, outside the system, in the vocational schools. I think it was Senator Hawkins who expressed what is a very commonly held and very sincere but not a correct view, as those of us who are judges in the matter are well aware, when he said that people learned Irish in school until the age of 15 or 16 and should then be able to receive education through Irish. That just is not so. Perhaps it ought to be so, but it is not so. Neither is it the case that a person who has passed the leaving certificate examination or who has got honours in that examination, or who has passed the matriculation examination, is able to receive instruction through Irish. They need not necessarily be able to speak or to understand any Irish at all, as our system at present works, so that there is a good deal of difficulty in the matter.

Surely the Irish language is like poetry. It should be an enjoyment and you cannot force enjoyment on people. You may help them to enjoy poetry and you may explain poetry to them and you may read poetry to them, but you cannot make them enjoy poetry, if they are not that kind. The same thing exactly applies to Irish. There are two legs upon which the whole movement rests and the vocational schools have a unique opportunity of keeping in touch with both of them. One of these is the Irish language in the Gaeltacht. What is being done, for example, in Dungarvan that is any assistance to the Irish language around the town of Dungarvan? What is being done in Macroom that is of any assistance to the Irish in Ballyvourney and CulAodha, where I spent some time this autumn? I do not think anything is being done. The other is that you must have a sentimental interest in the language, and I use the word "sentimental" advisedly. No such thing as pursuing an examination, or a job, or a monetary reward will be a substitute for that spirit of love for the Irish language for a purely sentimental reason which a great many people had and still have.

The Minister ignores certain difficulties. He refuses to talk about them. Take, for example, the invitation to speak Irish here. It is all very fine if you bring in a prepared statement, read it out and hand it to the reporters, but if you speak Irish naturally and vigorously in this House, or in the other House, or anywhere else, it is very difficult to get that Irish reported, and that is no reflection upon the Official Reporters. It is just an unpleasant fact. I tried to grapple with it for a number of years. Fifteen years have elapsed since I last grappled with it in 1932 and very little progress has been made. There is no use in the Minister telling me that I am hoisting the white flag when I state the facts. Certain reporting can be done, but it is a matter of very great difficulty.

Incidentally, I do not know whether the Minister knows that an adaptation for Irish of Pitman's shorthand has been with the Gúm, which is part of his Department, for a couple of years and has not yet seen the light. That, if it is by a practical person, and I think it is by a practical person who understands reporting, would be of great assistance. It would be worth while considering what could be done about that situation. If you make a speech in English, you are reported; if you make a speech in Irish, you are reported also but not so well, and there are great difficulties in the matter.

Another difficulty about the Irish language is that it is a hard language and perhaps the greatest difficulty of all is that the Irish language you want to teach in the vocational schools is the language of a rural population, and indeed was never anything else. The Irish language was never the dominant language of what we know nowadays as towns and cities, and what we are trying to do now—and it offers great difficulties but there are certain things we could do about it, particularly in the vocational schools—is endeavouring to revive that rural language in a country which is becoming less and less rural and more and more urban. If you cannot excite interest in the rural way of life in the pupils who go into the vocational schools, you have no hope of exciting their interest in the Irish language itself, if it is merely a matter of verbs and nouns, syntax and grammar.

One of the things which would be of great assistance, if it were available for vocational schools—it does not exist at all in this country in Irish or in English—is a book like a book I have before me at the moment in French called Au Village de France: la vie traditionelle des paysans. That is a book which shows the traditional life of the French peasantry. It has any amount of illustrations and it begins with a map of the year showing that from November to the middle of March a great deal of time is spent indoors story-telling, singing, and so on, which is exactly the position here, Lá Samhna go dti Lá 'le Pádraig, showing the seasons, the work and, by illustrations, French interiors in various places, the tools they work with in the fields, the festivities they have, their costumes and their marriage and religious customs. If we had a book of that kind in Irish, instead of a variety of indifferent translations, it would be an immense assistance in giving what people often talk about, a rural bias to our education. That is what you call a real rural bias—to tell them something about Ireland and not about the heroes—not about Owen Roe O'Neill or Brian Boru, but about ordinary people and how they lived and how to a great extent they still live.

That is the kind of book that might excite interest. There is no such thing available in Irish or in English. There is a book by a Belfast professor or lecturer, named Evans, called Irish Heritage and another book by a Harvard man, an American named Arnsberg, called The Irish Countryman which is good, but neither is so useful in schools as this book. There are similar Welsh books and a whole series of French books. If these things could be done in Irish or in English, they would incite an interest out of which the Irish language would certainly benefit, and I suggest it is the kind of thing that should be done. It is much better than any scheme which involves embarrassing teachers because they do not know Irish—I want to be quite frank about it—I think that is foolish and bad—and much better than forcing people to teach through the medium of Irish, in spite of the Minister's memoranda, and when they are not willing to do it, because teaching, above all other things, is something you must be willing to do. You must be willing to do it, and, if you are unwilling, it does not matter what you are supposed to be doing, you are not doing it right. The whole thing will have to be based upon the notion that you must have excited an interest and not that you must bully or be bad-mannered.

Our whole vocational system, particularly in rural areas and in all the towns, should have more to do with folklore and folk culture. It would be much better if the teachers, university graduates or others, were given a summer course by people who are experts on folklore than by people who are experts on Irish dancing. In other words, they should be told what the real Ireland is like and it is surprising how many people do not know what the real Ireland is like and surprising how many people, even from a country town close to the real Ireland, do not know about it. Recently an American came over here to do a film on Ireland and he showed considerable intelligence by taking the traditional folk view and putting himself in the hands of people who understand that view and that position.

There are two kinds of things we have not got in spite of the money we are spending and in spite of the extra money we are now going to spend. I was talking this summer, when down in Dunquin, to Peg Sayers, an old woman who is responsible for a book and responsible for the telling of a great number of Irish tales. She is a very remarkable person. She has a wonderful voice, yet in spite of all our talk about Irish you cannot bring a gramophone record of her voice into a class of Irish students and say: "There is an example of real Irish, of a living, quite remarkable type." The same thing applies to certain people in the parish of Ring, and the same thing applies to certain people I met in Cul-Aodha in West Cork this year. These people will last a very short time more and no matter what kind of flag the Minister hoists or what kind I hoist, nothing will stop their going into the grave, and when they go into the grave nobody will have the language that they have. Surely, it would pay, and would be well worth doing, to have a gramophone record, not an ediphone record, of those people's voices, so that the teacher could have it at his disposal and so that he could say beyond all doubt what was the real language.

For example, a very great Irish scholar, an Englishman, was introduced to the Irish language by reading Amhráin Grádha—"The love songs of Connacht", by Douglas Hyde, with the English on one side and Irish on the other. A man came to me lately saying that he wanted to learn Irish, and I could not think of anything better for him to start with than that book, one of the earliest books published since the Irish revival started. That is another thing that we have wrong with us—the objection to the use of English as a weapon to improve Irish. It should be used, and could be used, and, to my mind, you could easily have books graded with Irish and English. We have nailed our colours to the mast without thinking. I have not, but the Minister seems to me to have, and it is quite possible to be wilfully blind and to go on saying that you are doing the right thing.

I understand well what the Minister is doing. He is doing what his predecessors did, 25 years after the Treaty which the Minister took occasion to sneer at on the Second Stage of this Bill. The Minister is doing precisely what his predecessors decided should be done when civil war was raging in the country. I do not think that any imagination has been shown about it or that any improvement has been effected. Mind you, the Minister has been in office 15 years, and this thing has been going on for 25 years. The Minister now blindly refuses to talk to anyone about it. His attitude is that he is responsible and will answer to nobody for it. But surely certain types of appointments indicate a certain attitude of mind on the part of the Minister, and my position is that that attitude of mind may be very harmful. There are things on the Minister's side and on my side, too, and one is a friendly population. People are willing to have the revival of Irish. You have great goodwill amongst parents and teachers, but you must have imagination and you must have something which will show the people a vision. As the poet said: Gile na gile do chonnac ar shlíghe i n-uaigneas—"the poet saw the brightness of brightness on the lonely path". A great many people ten, 20 and 50 years ago, and later still, saw a particular brightness in the path before them and it gave them solace and enjoyment: it gave them great joy indeed in their lives, but what is being done in a great many schools is that the vision is being obscured, so that the pupils cannot see the vision at all. What the Minister needs is to see whether he is on the right road, where he is travelling to—as we say in Irish: "Dá mbeadh fios againn bheadh leigheas againn". If we knew what was wrong we could effect a cure.

The position with regard to the Minister is that the moment anyone says a word to him about the whole business he thinks he is being personally attacked. He is not being personally attacked, but people are entitled to doubt whether his policy is the right policy. The Minister is foolish, to put it no further than that. Instead of discussing the matter to be discussed, he falls back on debating points. I would like the Minister to consider the whole matter from that point of view and to let us know something about the position of Irish teachers in vocational schools and what he expects them to do: whether he feels that there is any enthusiasm outside the paid teachers for the Irish language. If there is not, the situation is very bad indeed. I would like him also to tell us what kind of teaching there is at the summer courses for Irish teachers. There are other points about the whole question generally that I could deal with, but I would like to have that particular point cleared up if I may.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I do not know whether, in accordance with the etiquette of the House, I should intervene at all in this discussion. Perhaps the proper thing would be to leave the matter entirely to Senator Hayes and to the Minister. I, however, cannot help rising to make some comments on some of the remarks that have been made by Senator Hayes. I admit, at once, that I do not know what the position is in Dublin. Perhaps the picture that Senator Hayes has been painting for the last 20 or 25 minutes is the correct one with regard to Dublin, but I have no hesitation in saying that, as regards a great deal of the country outside Dublin, he has not represented the position as it really is. One would gather from his remarks that Irish is somehow or another being forced down the necks of both teachers and students.

I think I remarked on the Second Reading that not enough pressure was being exerted to bring Irish into its proper place in the vocational schools. I repeat that statement. It is not that too much force is being used or that too much energy is being expended to get Irish into the schools, but that, in fact, not quite enough is being done to give the Irish language its place in these schools. I happen to be a member, for a great many years now, of a county committee of vocational education. Not alone am I a member of the committee, but I am fully aware of what goes on at the meetings and fully aware of what the committee desires in regard to the language and in regard to vocational education generally. I am familiar with the results achieved in the schools because, not that I wish to do it, but for many years past at the express desire of the committee I, in company with the colleague in the university—the lecturer in education —go around each year to every one of these schools. In that way, I have an opportunity of judging the work done in them. I have an opportunity each year of interviewing hundreds of the pupils who have been attending these schools. I am expected to evaluate their work and their answering in what—believe it or not—is a rather stiff examination, and to report back to the committee on their work.

I do not know if there is any committee in Ireland that is more strongly in favour of the use of the Irish language than the committee of which I have the honour to be a member. One thing I have no hesitation in saying is this: that the use of the Irish language for teaching purposes in the Gaeltacht, in the Breac-Ghaeltacht or in the Galltacht has not, by any means, interfered with the standard of education in these schools. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the boys and girls from schools like Ballinasloe, Mountbellew and Portumna, doing their work in the Irish language to whatever extent they do it, and doing their examinations wholly in the Irish language, can acquit themselves just as well as the boys and girls from the Gaeltacht and the Breac-Ghaeltacht. I do not think that the boys and girls of East Galway are particularly gifted, but they are very industrious and they attend to their work well. It is clear that teachers and parents are interested in the students and in the work, but I think what is typical of East Galway is typical of the rest of the country, granted that the officials and the teachers take as much interest in the pupils as do the officials and the teachers in County Galway.

One would think, if this campaign of forcing the language on teachers and pupils were such as Senator Hayes suggests, that it would be difficult for us to get teachers at all. As a matter of fact, in County Galway we are in the happy position that, generally speaking, we have no difficulty in getting teachers, except, perhaps, in one subject, and that subject is rural science. Anybody interested in the problem can easily see why there is a dearth of teachers in rural science. It is because of the immense competition there is from various sources for the services of graduates in agriculture. I can assure you, however, that the fact that these teachers will be expected to teach in Irish in the Gaeltacht or in the Galltacht, does not deter them from seeking employment with our committee. This year, in spite of difficult conditions obtaining during the harvest and well after the harvest season, we were in the happy position of knowing that the numbers of pupils registered in our schools and classes showed a considerable increase. Surely, the new pupils coming in must have known of this tyranny of the Irish language, and it does seem strange that they have come into our schools and classes in such numbers.

Sometimes one hears comments on the work done in the vocational schools. People will have to remember this with regard to these schools, that there are two types of pupils attending. I have tried to designate these two types. For want of better terminology, I described one set as being of the examination type and the other set as being of the non-examination type. You will get boys and girls who will show excellent results in penmanship, in spelling, in memorising poetry and prose, and you will get other boys and girls and, no matter what you do with them, you cannot get them to do much more than reasonably write and spell. But put the boys to the bench and they will acquit themselves most creditably. The work they will do at the lathe, at the anvil, with the plane, is nothing less than astonishing after one or two years. That same type of boy, if he goes out and is asked to write a letter or spell and does not acquit himself as one would like, will be immediately branded as being a dunderhead or, what is most unfair, it will be held that the school is not doing the work it ought to be doing; in other words, that the school is failing. More than likely the reason ultimately will be that the pupil got most of his instruction in the Irish language.

Senator Hayes referred to the qualifications of teachers. We discussed that the last day. I have a pretty good idea of what a graduate in commerce is expected to know and is expected to do at the end of his course. I have a pretty good idea what a graduate in arts is expected to know and to be able to do at the end of his course. I know the value of the work. I only wish that the public in general and the business community in particular would realise, just a little more than they do, the immense asset these graduates would be to them if they but used them. But, whether in business or in teaching, I am satisfied that for this particular work of vocational education something more is required than we are able to get in the universities. Senator Hayes indirectly indicated to us what he would consider the ideal teacher.

Mr. Hayes

That would be a long story, would it not?

Liam Ó Buachalla

It would be.

Mr. Baxter

There would be a number of exclusions.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Nevertheless, Senator Hayes indicated pretty clearly what he considered would be an ideal teacher and he went on to indicate what he would consider an ideal textbook. So far as I know, the efforts of the Department in the last five or six years have been directed to obtaining, as far as is humanly possible, that ideal teacher that Senator Hayes would wish us to have. They have been given special courses—sometimes long courses, eight or nine months, while there were other courses lasting six or seven weeks—covering subjects such as rural economics, local history, archæology, how to study and evaluate local customs, the importance of folklore, the importance of collecting it and how to collect it. They have been given instructions in the value of the drama, how to encourage it, how, even granted they are not all excellent producers, they may make a reasonably good job of producing a drama. They have been instructed as to the importance of a feis or an aeridheacht and how to set about organising one. Surely, these are most commendable activities, and surely any graduate coming out with a primary degree or with masters' degrees, intending to take up teaching in vocational schools or classes, must be the better for instruction and guidance in subjects of that kind. Perhaps Senator Hayes's difficulty is that we have not gone far enough towards achieving the ideal, but at least we can say truthfully that a good deal has been done; a good deal has been attempted and achieved to make available as suitable a type of teacher as it is possible to procure, everything taken into consideration. It is not that we have not been trying to do it. But the difficulty is that we have not achieved as much as we should like to achieve. If that is Senator Hayes's difficulty, then I am at one with him.

I should like to correct him on one point. He says that these teachers are expected to go out and organise lectures. Part of their extra training is the organisation of lectures suitable to rural areas and also suitable to urban areas. He indicated that the teachers did not get anything extra by way of remuneration for having to undertake these extra duties.

Mr. Hayes

They do, I think.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Yes, they are entitled to some monetary encouragement, and the results of the encouragement held out to them are certainly something as to which I feel very happy. I have attended many of these functions—exhibitions of arts and crafts and art exhibitions—organised by these teachers. I have attended drama organised by them. I have attended lectures organised by them. There is no doubt whatever but that they are entitled to our best thanks for what they have achieved and what they are achieving.

It is a misquotation.

Mr. Hayes

Surely the Senator means craftsmen, not producers.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Craftsmen in particular. I cannot let it go, because I had taken it perhaps for granted always that Irish was the language of these craftsmen, and I refer to the craftsmen in particular. What is important is this, that their technical skill was so great, their industrial efficiency was so great, that the only way to defeat them, the only way to destroy these craftsmen and their industries was by the promulgation of laws of the most severe kind forbidding them to practise their crafts and forbidding the country to take part in any export involving their products. The only reason I have for referring to it is this—I would be glad to think that Senator Hayes never had intended it— that the Irish language was not a language suitable to discussion of matters in which craftsmen or technicians would be concerned. I would say that the weight of history is against him on that.

You do not know. You can hit it off with them.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is my opinion. Senator Ó Buachalla, on the last occasion when he was discussing this matter, said, I think, "Ní thuigeann Micheál Ó h-Aodha an scéal seo," which meant I did not understand this whole thing at all. Perhaps I do not but I have used a few languages besides English as media for teaching. You can learn the French language anywhere. You can learn it in the country. You can learn it in the town. You can learn it in the parish priest's house, in a Jesuit's house, in an atheist's house, anywhere you like. You can pick your company. If you want to be really good at the Irish language you must be the kind of man that can sit down in a country kitchen, and if you cannot do that, you cannot learn Irish. What is the good in telling me? Do not I know?

Mr. S.T. Rúane

I desire to express my whole-hearted approval of the intelligent and intelligible analysis made by Senator Hayes of the whole system and to associate myself with the request he made for information as to the qualifications of the teachers who are considered qualified to give instruction even to such Irish-speaking university graduates as are not considered qualified to teach in vocational schools if they have not a Ceárd Teastas.

While I have no doubt that instruction through the medium of Irish may be fruitful in many places there are cases that I know of where such instruction to the material that forms certain classes at vocational schools would be absolutely useless. In some towns vocational school classes are made up partly of children, or adults, who never put in a complete year's attendance in a national school and very many of whom leave the national school without getting the primary certificate. Some form of examination is held before these pupils are put into classes in the vocational schools but I do not know how they can be classified with the other pupils who are sufficiently advanced to receive the instruction that is provided for them in the curriculum of vocational schools.

There was a point made by Senator Ó Buachalla, if I understood him correctly, that jogged my memory as to an incident that occurred in Co. Mayo many years ago during the term of office of the first National Government. Senator Ó Buachalla, stressing the efficacy of instruction through the medium of Irish, made the point that children who answered the papers in Irish, as a result of their answering, secured very high marks. I hope I have not misunderstood him. I was a member of a primary scholarship committee very many years ago. We were analysing the results of an examination held for the purpose of awarding scholarships from primary to secondary schools and it was pointed out by the secretary that a large proportion of the failures were in geometry. One member of the committee was a national teacher who had three or four candidates in for the examination. He pointed out that the candidates from his school answered the papers through the medium of Irish and that they all passed. That observation made several members of the committee sceptical as to whether the marking had been bona fide or not and a resolution was passed asking that the papers, in English and in Irish, be submitted to a sub-committee set up to examine the marking and that pending the report of this sub-committee the matter would be left open. The reason for that resolution was that many members of the committee were of opinion that the children who answered the geometry paper through the medium of Irish were passed even though in many cases they had not proved a proposition whereas those who answered through the medium of English were failed because perhaps they had omitted to quote authorities for their deductions. The reply received from the Department of Education was that they could not submit the markings. The matter was left there and since that there are many people of the opinion that the marking was not fair.

In regard to the question of manual instruction by vocational teachers, I know cases where the instructors are capable of teaching through the medium of Irish but who do not do so because their pupils would not be able to profit by it. In such cases a discretionary power should be left with the teacher who, after a short time in any particular centre, will be able to decide whether instruction through the medium of the Irish language or through Béarla would be more fruitful. It would appear that one of the essential qualifications of executive officers, and teachers especially, responsible for the administration of vocational schemes, is ability to organise social functions of an Irish-Ireland kind. I thoroughly agree with Senator Hayes that there are very many people who are 100 per cent. effective in the organisation of such functions but not quite so effective as teachers, and vice versa.

I have often to deplore that the enthusiasm for Irish study that was evident many years ago is not so marked to-day. Anything that can be done to restore enthusiasm would be worth any money spent on it. I believe that much could be achieved by the expenditure of a little money. I think a splendid idea was put forward by Senator Hayes—and I am sure the Minister will give it very serious consideration—in suggesting that records should be made of the native tongue as spoken by many native speakers who are fast dying out. These records will live whereas without them, there will be no evidence after these old people have died out, of how the language was spoken by people who naturally and habitually used it. With the aid of such records it would be possible to instruct pupils, some of whom had never an opportunity of hearing a native Irish speaker, to speak the language as it was spoken when it was a living tongue.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Thaithnigh cuid mhór den oráid a rinne an Seanadóir Ó hAodha liom. Bhí sé éifeachtúil tuisgionach. Is dócha go dtuigeann sé cuid mhór de na cúiseanna agus stair an scéil, fé mar atá gluaiseacht na Gaeilge agus múineadh na Gaeilge faoi láthair. Is dóigh liom go bhféadfainn a rá go bhfuilim i bhfad níos sásta lena chaint an trathnóna so ná an uair dheireannach a bhí sé ag chaint anso. Rinne sé casaoid i dtaobh cáiliochta na ndaoine insna cúrsaí seo atá ar siúl do mhúinteóirí Gaeilge—cúrsaí samhraidh a thug sé orthu, ach do réir mar is éol domsa tá ceann acu ar siúl faoi láthair agus bhí ceann acu ar siúl ar feadh an chuid is mó den bliain, sé sin an príomhchúrsa a bhí ann chun daoine a oiliúint agus cáiliocht a thabhairt dóibh a theastódh uathu chun bheith ag múineadh sa cheardscoil. Ba thuigthe óna chuid cainnte gur saghas lèse majesté don Roinn bheith ag ceapadh go gcaithimid, i gcás daoine a h-oileadh ins an Ollscoil, oiliúint eile a thabhairt dóibh sara múineann siad Gaeilge sa cheard scoil. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an ceart aige in aon chor. Ní dóigh liom gur ionann múineadh Fraincise nó múineadh Gearmánaise i gceard scoil i nÉirinn agus múineadh Gaeilge i gceard scoil i nÉirinn. Ní hiad nithe céanna atá i gceist, ní h-iad na cuspóirí céanna a bhaineann leis an dá rud agus ní dóigh liom gur leor an múineadh céanna.

Mar gheall air sin, is dóigh liomsa gur gá na daoine a bheadh ar obair go speisialta ar Ghaeilge a thabhairt le chéile agus teagasc ar leith a thabhairt dóibh ar bhrí na hoibre, ar nós déantacht na hoibre agus ar ná cuspóirí atá le sroisint leis an obair. Is dóigh liom go n-aontódh an Seanadóir Ó hAodha liom ná faghann siad an oiliúint sin ar na cuspóirí sin insa ghnáth-shaol san Ollscoil. Múintear an Ghaeilge agus na teangacha eile dóibh agus bíonn gríosadh maith ann chuige, ar son an abhair féin. Ach ní théann sé thairis sin, chun na cuspóirí eile agus na críche eile do léiriú dhóibh.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Ní bheinn sásta leis sin mar mhíniú, ach sin scéal eile.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Is dóigh liom go bhfuil gá le hoiliúint ar leith do na daoine i mbun na hoibre agus gur chuige sin na cúrsaí. Níl a fhíos agam cad é an cháilíocht atá ag na daoine i gceannas na gcúrsaí. Níl róaithne agamsa ar na daoine sin agus níl fhios agam an bhfuil na cáiliochtaí oiriúnacha acu chuige. Fágaimse faoin Aire agus faoin Roinn an méid sin a mhíniú. Tá fhios agam gur gá an oiliúint seo chun dul i mbun na gairme sin agus an teagasc a múintear i nGaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm agus i gcleachtadh agus i dtaithí i saol na mac léinn agus i saol an phobail timpeall.

Tá gearán ag an Seanadóir Ó hAodha gur ualach é sin ar mhúinteoirí na Gaeilge seachas na múinteóirí Fraincise. Is ualach é, ach is rud ar leith múineadh na Gaeilge sa cheard scoil ná fuil i múineadh na Fraincise. Sé mo mheas ar an scéal nach múinteoireacht amháin dualgas iomlán na ndaoine sin ins na ceard scoileanna, nach múinteoireacht Gaeilge mar abhar ar leith é agus gan bacaint le haon rud eile. Caithfidh na múinteoirí dul i measc na ndaoine agus na rudaí is ciall agus is cionnfháth leis an obair ar fad a thaispeáint dóibh. Raghadh sé sin i bhfeidhm ar an mac léinn agus bheadh an múinteoir mar shaghas easbuig nó timire nó fear creidimh. Do réir mar thuigimse an scéal, is chun an oiliúint sin a thabhairt dóibh a tugtar na cúrsaí dóibh.

Thagair an Seanadóir do nithe eile agus is fírinne cuid de—ach bhréagnaigh sé é fhéin, nó sháraigh sé é féin sa chuid eile dá chuid cainte. Do mhol sé teagasc béaloidis agus staire a bhaineann le nithe a mhíníonn gluaiseacht na Gaeilge agus na fáthanna atá le múineadh na Gaeilge, agus teagasc faoi ghnó agus saol na tuaite; ach ina dhiaidh sin dúirt sé arís go gcaithfear claoi leis an nuashaol agus go bhfuil deire leis an sean-shaol. Táimid ag dul go mór i dtaithí, dúirt sé, ar shaol nach ionann agus sean-shaol na tuaithe é, le saol ná baineann le sean-oideas agus le sean-nós. Is baol gurb í sin an fhírinne. Do bheinn go mór i bhfábhar dul níos mó agus níos mó leis an nuachas agus leis na gluaiseachtaí nua atá ag pobal na tíre faoin dtuaith agus insna bailte móra. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil sé sin chomh soiléir dúinn nach foláir go dtuigfear sa Roinn é agus go ndéanfar beart dá réir.

Maidir le héifeacht na Gaeilge agus úsáid na Gaeilge mar mheon teagaisc, sin seana-phort go bhfuilimid tuirseach de. Is baolach liomsa go bhfuil ana-chuid daoine a chreideann go bhfuilimid ag ropadh na Gaeilge síos scórnaí na ndaoine. Is truagh ná fuilimid. Níl ann ach go bhfuilimid ag gabháil le leith-scéal ar bith chun múineadh na Gaeilge a chur ar leaththaoibh. Níl an tiomáint ann a bhaineann leis an mBéarla nó leis an Laidin. Níl aon chuid den tiomáint sin laistiar den Ghaeilge. Níl an tiomáint sin againn in aon phioc de shaol an phobail agus ní bhaineann sé le ceist an Oideachais amháin. Tá sé i saol na nuachtán, i saol na hEaglaise, san saol sóisialta agus mar sin. Is mar a chéile iad go léir. Sin í an fhírinne agus is truagh gur mar sin atá.

Maidir le teagasc a déantear trí Ghaeilg, tá rud ná tagartar dó, agus is rud é atá fíor i 90 faoin gcéad de na cásanna a luaitear. Ní múintear Gaeilge ná ní múintear trí Ghaeilge, má tá cúis le luadh ina choinnibh sin in aon chor. Aon duine a dheineadh iarracht duine a theagas trí Ghaeilge nuair ná fuil an teanga san aige, bheadh sé ina amadán. Níl mórán amadáin ins an Tigh seo—i gcursaí múinteóireachta, go háirithe. Tá fhios againn ná bíonn an Ghaeilge á brú ar dhaoine nuair nach féidir a leithéid a dhéanamh agus ná bíonn teagasc trí Ghaeilge nuair nach féidir leo glacadh leis. Níl a leithéid i gceist. Ní féidir é dhéanamh agus ní déantar é, ach tá sé ina phaidir Domhnaigh ag a lán daoine gur mar sin atá an scéal.

Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an Roinn ar cearr insna nithe sin, do réir mar a thuigim-se na rialacha, agus níl aon mhi-réasúntacht na mí-thuisgint ag gabháil leo. Má tharlaíonn go ndeineann duine amháin a bhotún, ní ceart an tigh ar fad ná an institiúid ar fad a cháineadh.

Aontaím le cuid mhór den méid adúirt an Seanadóir Ó hAodha agus tugann sé sin misneach dom arís go bhfuil an creideamh fós ann. Aontaím leis an moladh chun nósanna a athrú agus scéimeanna nua do thriail ach sa mhéid adúirt sé fáoi bhrú na Gaeilge, nílim ar aon intinn leis beag ná mór, mar ní dóigh liom gur fíor é.

Mr. Baxter

From a slightly different angle I should like to make a comment or two on this section. The Minister is seeking under the section to increase the rate which may be levied for vocational education. From anything I have heard the Minister say, he apparently is satisfied that the expenditure on vocational education is justified because local authorities are to be authorised to levy a higher rate for this purpose from the date of the passing of this Bill. Such rate may be included in their estimates for the coming year. I expressed dissent from that point of view on the Second Reading. I have considerable experience of the operation of the vocational scheme and I think that seven out of eight of the members of the committee with which I am associated have doubts about the efficacy of the scheme as it is, not that there is any want of enthusiasm on the part of the people entrusted with the operation of the scheme. Why is that? I have heard other people with much less experience, who are very enthusiastic in their advocacy of the scheme. I heard Senator Ó Buachalla to-day, enthusiastic, it not in voice, at least in language, as to what was being achieved in the county in which he is a member of a vocational committee. I do not think anybody in this country would grudge the spending of more money on education provided they are satisfied that we are going to get value for that money—that, in other words, we are going to improve the mind and the skill of the people who attend these schools.

I should like to ask Senator Ó Buachalla now, in view of what we heard from him about the success of the vocational scheme in Galway, not only in arts and crafts but in the efficiency of the teaching, from the point of view of the way it is imparted, through the medium, I take it, of Irish, is there any evidence in that area of an increased vitality in the language movement or in the general life of the community? I have often tried to think out why it is that the thousands which we are spending in every county every year on vocational education is not showing better results. I should like to ask any Senator who has the responsibility of being a member of a vocational education committee, why it is we cannot see more work as a result of what is being taught in our schools either in the woodwork and carpentry classes, the domestic science classes or the engineering classes? Why is it that in the lives of our people there is not more evidence of the tuition which these students have received for the last 25 years? Would anybody suggest that in any sense life is more virile or is growing more virile as a result of this teaching? I do not think so. There is, on the contrary, more evidence of decay and weakness. I challenge Senator Ó Buachalla to deny that four-fifths of the boys and girls who passed through these schools in County Galway during the last 25 years have now left the country. The same thing is happening in my own county. That is really what is happening all over the country. Because that is happening under our eyes, we see no evidence whatever of a greater number of craftsmen in the community as a result of the teaching in these schools nor is there any evidence of an improvement in the general life of the community, as a result of the number of girls who have passed through the domestic science classes.

Are we approaching the problem properly if we do not try to discover why we are without evidence of results from the hundreds of thousands of pounds we have been spending throughout the country? That is the position in my own county and in the counties adjoining. In my opinion, that is one of the great disabilities under which the revival of the language is labouring. We are losing a great deal of our youth and vitality and there is not the enthusiasm left to go on with the job.

There is no justification for finding fault with the teachers. In my experience, they are sincere and earnest. Ninety-five per cent. of them put their backs into the job and give honest service. If our plan of vocational education is as fitted to the needs of our people as we claim it to be, why is it that, in so many of the classes, half the pupils drop away when half the session is through and that some of the classes have to be closed before the end of the session? Those who have experience of the administration of the vocational scheme must concern themselves with these problems. I do not propose to get into any discussion as to the effect of our methods regarding the Irish language in our classes, or on our classes, but recently it is becoming more difficult to secure the services of trained domestic science teachers. That is the experience of vocational committees and I suggest that that is due to the standard recently set by the chief inspector in education. I shall not pursue that topic further but I suggest that it is a matter which should be inquired into.

If I had to accept a judgment as regards the right lines along which to proceed with regard to the future of the language, I should take Senator Hayes's judgment before that of Senator Ó Buachalla. I do not think that Senator Hayes is any less enthusiastic for the language than Senator Ó Buachalla. It is well that that should be remembered because the language movement will not succeed by dividing its forces. I think that Senator Ó Buachalla does the cause an injustice by being too complacent. I have contact with national teachers and vocational teachers. Some of these national teachers went off at their own expense, when they were receiving very small salaries, in the early days of Sinn Féin, to Connemara and other parts of the Gaeltacht for periods of two or three years in succession and, when they came back, were the standard bearers of the language movement. All these teachers with whom I come in contact, although still enthusiastic, have their doubts about the future. The greatest cause of their doubt is the attitude of persons like Senator Ó Buachalla who refuse to see facts, who will not recognise that, despite the years of endeavour and despite the fact that thousands of boys and girls have come out of the national and vocational schools with Irish, there is little evidence of the language in the lives of the people and less enthusiasm than there was 25 years ago.

I do not know what the experience of Senator Ó Buachalla is in this connection but, in my county, we could fill a field with a feis 25 years ago whereas to-day you would not get as many people at a feis as you would have at an inter-parish football match. If you did not organise a football match or some similar attraction in conjunction with the feis, you would have nobody at it. Senator Ó Buachalla cannot pretend not to observe these facts. If you observe them and deny them to yourself, is not what I say true—that you are standing in your own light? I do not want to introduce into this debate anything but the spirit introduced by Senator Hayes and continued by Senator Ó Buachalla, An Seabhac and other speakers. I say that a very difficult and complicated psychological problem has to be faced by those who are enthusiastic about the language. I do not think that the attitude the Minister has taken up here in previous debates on this subject will make for an increase of enthusiasm for the language or for a greater knowledge of it amongst the people. I suggest to Senator Ó Buachalla that he take a lesson from Senator Hayes, have the courage to readjust his views, face the facts and get others who think like him to do likewise. We should then be on the straight path for a new effort to revive the language.

Mr. O'Dea

It was not my intention to speak until I had heard Senator Baxter. He spoke about the number of people leaving the country. Evidently, he thinks they will not come back. Therefore, he thinks we should stop all education.

Mr. Baxter

No.

Mr. O'Dea

That is the only meaning of his statement. We should have no primary education, if that is so. We should not educate people at all—all education must stop because there is a danger that people will go away and that the money spent on them and the teaching given to them will be lost to the country. That argument applies equally to primary and technical education. A great deal of money is being spent on the teaching of Irish in the primary schools and it has to be admitted, I think, that many of the young people do not keep up their knowledge of the language when they leave these schools; but there is one class of people who do not lose what they have been taught in the primary schools—those who go to the technical schools. I know a good many technical teachers and they are a very fine body of men. Every one of them I have met is a most enthusiastic Irish speaker and they organise debates in Irish on various subjects and do everything in their power to spread a love of the language. In that way, they do tremendous good for the language and I would say that these people must spread their enthusiasm amongst the young people whom they teach. I am quite certain that they elevate these pupils and give them a love for the language and for their country, and it would be a great loss if we were to depart from the system which has been adopted.

Senator Ó Buachalla was puzzled by some of the statements made by Senator Hayes and I myself did think he said something like this, that it would be easier to teach a technical subject through French than through Irish.

Mr. Hayes

I did not say a word about French. I am always conceding that I know French.

Mr. O'Dea

I may have taken the Senator up wrongly.

Mr. Hayes

I did not say a word about French, except to refer to this French book. The only thing I said about French was that there was an excellent book in French on country life, with pictures, and that it would be good if we had a similar thing here.

Mr. O'Dea

I may mention, as Senator Hayes has spoken of an excellent book in French, that a book has been written by Senator Ó Buachalla called "Bun-eolas na Trachtála". I do not know if Senator Hayes has read the first volume of it. Five volumes have been completed, I believe, but only one has been published. That book deals with banking, insurance, office work and all sorts of technical subjects, and if any teacher has any difficulty in teaching a subject in the technical school, all he has to do is to read that book.

Mr. Madden

As a member of a vocational committee for years, I was very much impressed by Senator Ó Buachalla's remarks, but was more or less saddened to hear of the great results achieved in his county because I thought the committee of which I am a member was the best in the country. I am not ashamed to say that the vocational committee in my county and the work achieved by it has been truly wonderful. We have been so impressed by the value of these schools and the purposes they serve in bringing education to the youth of the country, so long neglected under the old régime, that we have built, in a few years, six or seven large schools in different centres. The committee decided unanimously that, no matter what lengths they might have to go to in order to economise for the protection of the rural ratepayers who have to foot the bill, and who are finding it very difficult to do so, there must be no economies where the education of our people is concerned. I subscribe to that.

Senator Ó Buachalla may be surprised to hear, in view of his eulogies of the work done in his county, that of the scholarships offered to the pupils of vocational schools in this State a few months ago, two were secured by pupils in rural parts of my county. Both the pupils got first place in all Ireland, one in arts and crafts and the other, a girl, in domestic economy. We have sent away quite a number of girls, giving them generous scholarships for instruction in domestic economy, and, before their term in the schools had been completed—I think it is a year —all these girls had secured remunerative employment for themselves. We felt that we have been so successful in settling in decent employment so many of these young girls to whom many avenues of work were not open that we increased the number of scholarships.

As a committee, appreciating the great services these schools render to the country and the advantage taken of them by the pupils and realising the good work done by them through the reports of inspectors, we decided at our last meeting—in a purely agricultural community, a purely dairying community, where the industry is rapidly declining—that, in spite of the severe hardship involved for those who have to provide the funds to maintain these schools, at a distance of six miles from each other so that the whole county would be studded with these magnificent schools with beneficial results to the rural community. I have been a strong supporter of that policy, because of the results achieved by the teachers and the pupils. I do not expect the system to be the acme of perfection. Nothing human is and we have to look at things as they are.

There is one matter which I raised at the county council recently. We have been giving a number of scholarships to farmers' sons, purely agricultural boys. These boys, having passed through the primary school and having secured their honours leaving certificate, won some of our scholarships. Some of them went into Hospital and others went to a very great school in Cork, the name of which I cannot recall at the moment. A number of others went to Mountbellow. All of them did well in the national school and were able to do the leaving certificate examinations through our scheme of scholarships. The tragedy that I am up against is to try to find employment for many of those boys who did an excellent course in our schools. Within the last six months I had one of them with me. He is a fine-looking lad, nearly six feet in height. He is a great chap socially, quite typical of our race. I should add that he did a course at the Albert College. He is at home now and can get nothing to do. He has not the price of a packet of cigarettes. I am trying, and I regret it, to get him away to join the Royal Air Force. He asked me to do that for him.

What I want to ask myself is this: Are we, as members of the county council, acting fairly to the ratepayers, and justly to those boys, by putting them, so to speak, on the rails, sending them a certain part of the journey with nothing ultimately at the end for them? Would it not be better if the ratepayers' money could be used in some other way to produce more tangible results for those boys? The point that I want to draw attention to is that many of those boys, when they get a technical training, go back to their homes. We know that most farmers have large families. Their aim is to educate their eldest sons, if possible with the help of scholarships, so that they may be equipped to go out into the world and earn a living for themselves. As I listened to Senator Hayes and Senator Ó Buachalla speak Irish, I felt almost ashamed that I am not able to speak the language as they can. Yet I think nobody here can deny that there is not that spirit of co-operation between the teachers and pupils for the spread of the Irish language that there was 25 years ago. In spite of all that is being done for Irish in the schools, I am afraid it must be admitted that the standard of education amongst our boys and girls coming out of the primary schools to-day is not comparable to that which prevailed in our day in the national schools.

I myself have reared a family of six. Three of them have got professions. One is a priest, and although they were taught Irish in school and, of course, had to do it for their matriculation examination, I have never heard one of them speak a word of Irish in the house. The position was quite different 25 years ago. There was great enthusiasm for the language then. One heard the children speak it on the streets coming from Mass in the mornings. We have a very good attendance at the domestic economy classes, the arts and crafts classes and the social science classes in our vocational schools, but there is one drag on the work of our committee and on our teachers, and that is the Irish class. That is the position in the County Limerick, a county in which we have one of the finest chief officials in the country. We have on our committee a great enthusiast for the language— the Very Rev. Canon Thomas Wall, a clergyman who, as Senators know, received very special attention from General Maxwell about 30 years ago. The greater part of his sermon at Mass on Sundays is in Irish. He, with other enthusiasts in the county, got together and planned a scheme for the promotion of Irish such as they thought would produce the results that Senator Hayes alluded to. They got from amongst our teachers one who had the fine characteristics of being a good teacher and a good organiser. After a great deal of effort and labour, that sub-committee hammered out a very good scheme. They submitted it to the committee. One of the suggestions was that one of the teachers should be set specially apart to do organisation work on behalf of the language throughout the county. The idea was that the boys and girls in the different centres should be got to attend continuation classes in Irish in the hope that something of the spirit that prevailed 25 or 30 years ago for the spread of the language would be aroused. The committee was prepared to contribute its quota from public funds for the carrying out of that work. The scheme, which had been carefully thought out by Canon Wall and the other members of the sub-committee, was submitted to the Department of Education and was turned down by it. I believe the information we got was that we were a little bit premature. That sub-committee was of opinion that a scheme such as theirs was necessary if the language was to be saved. Nobody can deny that interest in the language revival is on the wane. There is condemnation for it on practically every lip. That particular scheme was submitted not once or twice but I think three times to the Minister.

The members of the committee were very much disturbed because it was turned down, especially in view of the praise bestowed by the Department on the general work done by the committee throughout the county. The committee has done magnificent work for vocational education in the County Limerick. It is prepared to build not six schools but 26 schools so that we would have an educated and enlightened democracy able to stand up against the materialism and the Communism that is everywhere spreading throughout the world to-day. I stand behind all the magnificent work that is being done by that committee. As I have said, the one thing that is a drag and a failure so far as the work of the committee is concerned is the Irish language which is in rapid decay. That is the position in our county despite the fact that the members of the committee are prepared to discharge their duties and that they recognise that education is necessary for the peace, prosperity and success of the whole nation.

Mr. Derrig

I think that many points that have been raised by Senators could be more appropriately related to the Second Reading of the Bill. In my opening statement I tried to give a brief history of the development of vocational education since the Principal Act was passed in 1930. I made a comparison with the position before that and referred to the recommendations, and some of the observations, of the Commission on Vocational Education. I referred to the work that is being done in the schools under different headings. In the case of continuation education, I pointed out that the Department had issued memorandum V.40 in 1942 to the committees, outlining the aims of continuation education and explaining the methods which should be adopted to further it. I referred to rural education and the work in the rural schools and I pointed out that a memorandum had also been circulated in 1944, dealing with the teaching of rural science. I also referred to the work in the rural centres and the night classes and I mentioned that at the present time the great difficulty was to find accommodation.

Apparently, the citizens of Dublin and Cork are not of the same opinion as some of the speakers in this debate who, I believe, are in a small minority, but whose opinions, since they are expressed here and are destined to find publicity in the Press, may give the impression that vocational education in this country is not succeeding as much as it ought to. It is quite true that some of the points that Senator Baxter mentioned, such as the fact that the attendance is not compulsory and that parents apparently have not sufficient regard to the advantages of having pupils attending complete courses for periods of two or three years, operate against the success of the scheme in particular areas. It is also a fact that what can be done is limited because, if we are to have permanent centres in school buildings, these are expensive and will be far more costly to erect in the future. By the time they are equipped suitably for practical work— woodwork, metal work, domestic economy, rural science—and staffed with competent teachers who have to be paid good salaries, the costs will be high in proportion to the number of students who can be dealt with, since there is a limit to the number of pupils that a teacher can handle for practical work.

I think sufficient has been said to show that there is another side to the picture. But when I hear the veracity —because it seems to me that is really what is in question—of Senator Ó Buachalla questioned; when I hear it alleged that the Senator is obsessed with some particular fads or fancies; when people question an experienced educationist like himself, who has the advantage not alone of holding a university post, but who has gone right through the mill in the vocational education organisation, where he was teaching for a long number of years and gained a knowledge that few in this country can have; when I hear his bona fides questioned, I really do not know whether we are not absolutely wasting our time continuing a discussion of this kind.

If we are to discuss vocational education let us at least try to learn something about it. Those who say they are members of committees have the advantage that they can visit the schools. They have some acquaintance with administration. They attend the meetings, even if they do not visit the schools, and perhaps they have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. Sometimes one wonders whether they visit the schools and see the work carried on there and appreciate the difficulties. Everyone knows that in order to secure educational results, certain difficulties have to be surmounted. That is true of vocational education as well as of other types of education.

Since Senator Ó Buachalla went on the staff of the University and became a prominent member of the Galway Vocational Education Committee, his colleagues in the Irish Technical Education Association, which represents committees throughout the country, thought sufficiently highly of him to make him president of that organisation. I know he was not merely president in name; I know he took an active part in dealing with such matters as how much more could be done for agricultural education through the medium of the vocational schools; I know he was interested in all these things. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the work he has done for the Irish language. Leaving that aside, on the economic side, on the side of training for business and industry, there, again, he had a special qualification. During the time he was on the council of that association, he has been in frequent contact with the officers of my Department and with myself regarding the policy generally in vocational education —the different branches of the work, the qualifications of teachers and, in particular, the practical training for industry and agriculture.

I should like to acknowledge the valuable advice and assistance I received from him and from his colleagues. If his opinion, or the opinions of others—or perhaps my own opinion, if I had the temerity to repeat what I said in my opening statement—would be questioned, as most likely it would be, as that of a person who closes his eyes to the facts and, when he visits schools, or interviews representatives of vocational education, executive officers or teachers, he is so much occupied with one particular side of the matter that he cannot have regard to any other aspect, it might be no harm to quote the opinion of an outsider about our schools. When I am asked by Senator Hayes to give, in addition to what I said in opening the Second Reading debate about the development of vocational education, the justification for and an account of the purpose of vocational education, I think it might be sufficient for the time being if I read this letter:—

"15 Alleyn Park,

West Dulwich,

London, S.E. 21.

Mí na Nollag, 1945.

J. Dulanty, Esq.,

High Commissioner for Ireland,

33 Regent Street, S.W. 1.

Dear Mr. Dulanty,

Over 30 years ago, I was an inspector of technical and secondary schools in Ireland (Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction) at a time when, apart from the County Boroughs of Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Limerick, technical education was just beginning in the urban areas and only known in the rural areas by the device of itinerant courses.

I have lately returned from a sojourn in Éire where I was able to visit the technical schools in Dublin, eight urban centres and five rural centres, in Counties Dublin, Louth, Kildare, Wicklow, Carlow, Leix, Kilkenny and Wexford.

Most of the ground which I covered was very familiar to me because I was in charge of the North Leinster district for some years between 1906-1913. It may, therefore, be of interest to you, and (may I suggest it?) to Mr. de Valera, if I were to draw briefly a comparison between what was in operation in technical instruction in those days and the truly astonishing progress which is being made at the present time. (I may lay some claim to be in a position to do this because, until I retired from the service of the L.C.C., I occupied the position of senior inspector of technology in London).

The outstanding differences between the provision for "further education" in Éire in those days and now are first and foremost the vocational centres which have been built ad hoc all over Ireland (Éire). There are 150 of them at the present time; and, I understand, another 100 to be built; so that eventually the whole countryside will be so equipped that no student will have to travel more than five miles in order to avail himself or herself of this form of essential education.

When this has been accomplished, I doubt whether you will have any superior in Europe in this respect, and I am sure that you will have few equals. These centres are well designed for their purpose, admirably lighted both naturally and artificially, well heated; efficiently equipped and under the control of well qualified teachers. The centres, too, have large plots attached in which instruction in vegetable growing, flower shrubs, trees and fruit growing is being followed, and there is room also for experimental plots for testing seeds, grasses, etc. The instruction in the centres is well devised to meet all the needs of those who live and work in the country districts and cannot fail, when it is put into practice in the home, farm and field, to raise the standards of comfort and production everywhere; indeed, I noted a marked difference in the appearance of the countryside since I worked in Ireland—though I must add that I saw the beginnings of this during other visits which I have paid since I left your country.

In the urban areas—large and small (e.g., Drogheda, Dundalk, Kilkenny, Enniscorthy, New Ross, Naas and Newbridge), the most significant change was the replacement of adapted buildings in which we worked in my time, by ad hoc schools, built to meet specifically the occupations in which the inhabitants are engaged.

Here again the schools are well lighted and heated, well equipped and under effective control. I got the impression also that these places had become (or were in the process of becoming) the centres of civic, commercial and industrial activities and that they exhibited a progressive attitude towards possible expansions of their resources. Clearly there is some wise and far-seeing leadership directing all their efforts.

Dublin I knew well at one time from an educational angle, both the borough and the county; the School of Domestic Science and the Rathmines School of Commerce are both in the forefront of progressive technical education, and the improvement made at Bolton Street (an institute of which I was not proud in my own time) filled me with admiration. The building of junior day schools (e.g., Cabra and Marino) appeals to me especially; they will relieve the congestion in the senior institutes and so enable these to meet the expansion in technological education which is becoming more and more insistent in every progressive country in the world.

I am resisting the temptation of writing at greater length on the advances you have made in Éire, but I think that this must be of interest to you, coming as it does from an Englishman who can never be sufficiently grateful for the courtesy, kindness and consideration (and for the friendships he made) which he received while working amongst your countrymen.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) BERESFORD INGRAM."

As regards the question of courses for Irish teachers, the position, as those familiar with the vocational education schemes will know, is that a very large number of part-time teachers of Irish have been employed by vocational education committees. The position during the old days was that these teachers were men who had been working in the Gaelic League as teachers or organisers. They were native speakers and enthusiastic organisers and they came in under the vocational education scheme. Some of them were better equipped educationally than others; but there could be no doubt about their knowledge of the Irish language, their experience of the work, and their enthusiasm.

With the development of Irish in the schools and the fact that the pupils now coming into the vocational schools have, of course, a knowledge of Irish, both spoken and written, that was not possible under the old régime, it is quite clear that these pupils must be dealt with in a different way from that which was common formerly. The position then was that the Gaelic League classes, or classes like them, could cater very well for students who had little or no knowledge of Irish themselves. We are now in the position that students coming into the vocational schools are equipped from the primary and, in some cases, from the secondary schools, so that a higher standard is necessary and better qualifications from the teachers who are to deal with them. It would have been unfair not to give these teachers, although they were only part-time, an opportunity of dealing with the new situation. There was also the fact that the finances of our committees were limited.

The object of this particular section is to enable the committees to raise sufficient finances to cover immediate developments. Some of the committees, as I have explained, were not able to carry on. A number of them had reached their maximum rating, but, nevertheless, they were unable to meet their obligations to our satisfaction.

In order to utilise the teaching staff to the best advantage, the chief executive officer and the committee naturally have to try to find teachers who are capable of dealing with more than one subject. It would have been an economy certainly and a concentration of teaching power if the Irish teachers were able to deal with some other subject as well as Irish. That was not always the case.

Thirdly, the matter of making Irish as far as possible the spoken language in the schools and of encouraging it as a medium of intercourse and as the language of the pupils and staff meant that we should give as much attention as we possibly could to giving these part-time teachers necessary opportunities and facilities, if possible, of meeting that situation. Therefore, there were quite clearly a number of cogent reasons why we had to endeavour to provide facilities for these teachers, and it was with a view to enabling them to equip themselves better and to deal more satisfactorily with these issues that we organised these summer courses. For those who were already teaching we had annual courses and, if we found, after these courses and after prolonged trial, that the teachers were still unable to satisfy the requirements of the inspectors, we had reluctantly to inform the committee that that was the case. Where we felt that the teachers could adapt themselves to the new situation and could improve their qualifications and their methods, we tried to do everything possible to assist them.

Finally, we reached the position that we decided to have a special course for Irish teachers to replace the older ones who were going out. We advertised in the Press and invited university graduates in particular to apply, and we determined to appoint about 20 new teachers each year. These teachers were not alone to teach Irish but to do as much as possible to help Irish within the school in intercourse with the pupils and to try to do the kind of work that the University College here in Dublin, for example, had in mind when it appointed a special officer to try to encourage the use of Irish amongst the students. As Senator Ó Buachalla has stated, allowance is made and there is no question of putting an extra burden on the teacher. University graduates were free to attend that long course, and I think we had a number of them. Later on, the university authorities intimated that in order to secure the certificate in Irish which is necessary for vocational teachers, they would be glad if their graduates were permitted to attend these summer courses and we allowed them to do so, although the response was not very great. The subjects taught are Irish, the grammar and idiom, the sounds and structure of the language, and some knowledge of how to deal with drama, claisceadal, Irish music and Irish dancing. In the longer courses, when we have to train teachers from the beginning and are not dealing with those already in the service, there is a more extended syllabus in Irish, in the branches I have mentioned, as well as more specialised instruction in dealing with Irish classes, Irish music, organising debates or lectures in Irish, and social functions. I feel strongly that, particularly in the rural vocational schools, it is necessary to have a social atmosphere, to make it the centre of rural life, if possible. People complain that there is not sufficient social amenities in the country. The rural school should provide, not only the ordinary continuation education and agricultural instruction as far as possible, for adolescents and adults, through rural science classes or discussion groups, but it should pay special attention to the cultural side.

Folklore is dealt with in these extended courses and Irish history, and the teaching of Irish songs, Irish music, Irish dancing, Irish history is not divorced from the background of understanding and appreciating what way our people live and the way they lived in the past, and to all that that connotes. But to deal with some of these matters requires a good deal of attention and advice from museum or folklore authorities and that advice is got when these courses are being given and specialists are brought in to deal with these special subjects. When the teacher goes out to teach, if he wishes to give special attention to folklore or to archælogy, I am sure the Department of Education and the directors of our national institutions in Dublin will be prepared to co-operate with them in getting together libraries of books and specimens and, if necessary, show cases for the purpose. I do not know whether I heard Senator Baxter aright or not when he seemed to suggest that there was some difficulty in getting domestic science teachers who are properly qualified.

Mr. Baxter

I think it is hard enough to get them.

Mr. Derrig

As I understand, he was inclined to blame the chief inspector of vocational education for this. It may be of interest to Senator Baxter to know that practically all the girls who attend the courses for domestic economy instructresses get honours in Irish in the leaving certificate before they enter these courses and before they are awarded places in the college they have to satisfy us on that point, and they also have to show that they have oral Irish of a very high standard. There is not the slightest difficulty, from their point of view, in following instruction in Irish should such instruction be made available but in any case when the course is finished, practically every single one of these girls acquires the Ceard Teastas and has not the slightest difficulty in getting it. It may be that they may not be quite as fluent in Irish at the end as they were coming in to the college direct from the secondary schools. If they were native Irish speakers or practically native Irish speakers or had attended schools where they did all the work through Irish, they would naturally have been highly qualified but at any rate there is nothing whatever in the Senator's point, and no foundation for it.

The Department is quite prepared to co-operate with committees like the Limerick or Galway committee that have schemes which they feel will foster and extend the use of Irish in their areas. The scheme put up from County Limerick showed that the committee were taking an earnest interest in this matter. We did not entirely agree with them but that does not mean that we do not realise that, with such splendid Gaels as An Canonach de Bhall responsible for the scheme, it had possibilities. I hope the points of difference between us may be got over and that the scheme will ultimately be put into operation, or a scheme like it.

County Galway has submitted a proposal that old Irish speakers, seanachaidhthe, could be brought more in touch with vocational schools and, of course, where there are centres in Gaeltacht areas or areas adjacent and where old Irish storytellers are available, who are native speakers and who have a certain reputation in this respect, we will be very glad if it is possible to work out a scheme by which we need not wait to hear them on gramophone records, which would be a very good thing if it could be done but which is not very easy to accomplish. There are various difficulties in the way. Wherever there is a vocational school in a position to have a seanchaidhe come in, who has a fund of Irish folklore and stories, we will be quite prepared to try to bring the scheme into operation.

As they say in Irish, is it not a strange thing that it is only in 1947 we thought of that? Is it not an extraordinary thing that there are such difficulties about making gramophone records? I think a scheme for making gramophone records was put up 12 years ago—before the war—and I do not know what the difficulty at present can be. If you have not money to do it, of course that is a great difficulty but I feel that certain of these people who deal in sound producing would do it and do it at a reasonable price. I am perfectly certain that such a scheme would pay greater dividends than a great number of other schemes employed in connection with the language. The same remarks apply to the difference between the teaching of Irish and the teaching of French. Anybody who wishes pupils to acquire a competent knowledge of French must teach them something more than the irregular verbs. He must first interest his pupils by telling them something about the French people and the French outlook. I recommended to the Minister as an instance of what might be done, a particular type of French book, which describes village life and country life in France, going the whole round of the year, with illustrations. Would it not be possible to use the same type of book in connection with the teaching of Irish?

Mr. Derrig

We have that kind of book. We have a rural reader in the senior classes in the primary schools which is published by Gills. If we want to go further we have the excellent pamphlet issued by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Hayes

I think I have seen the reader mentioned by the Minister but I do not think that reader approaches the book that I have in mind which is used in connection with the teaching of French. What is really worse than any omissions of the Minister is the extraordinary attitude of mind of the Minister in which he persists in attributing to anybody, who does not praise or agree with him, a lack of bona fides. One would imagine that I was particularly interested in persecuting the Minister. I am not interested in any such thing. I am interested in this matter as a person who knows this subject, who has taught in every variety of school the Irish language and a Continental language, who has seen children growing up in his own house and in his friends' houses, and who is able to assess in 1947 what is the progress we have made.

It is because I think we have not made sufficient progress that I want the Minister to take thought and see whether he could not get a better system or what seems to me to be a better system. I have been challenged with showing the white flag, but who could show more of the white flag than the Minister by his attitude? Senator Ó Siochfhradha said that if we could get new methods we ought to use them, but the Minister's attitude is that nobody can tell him anything about a new method, about the making of gramophone records or anything else. There could not be a more defeatist attitude than that, that we cannot get a better method——

Mr. Derrig

There is no method that cannot be adopted if we are satisfied of the efficacy of that method.

Mr. Hayes

Why does the Minister persist in treating me as an enemy? I do not know. I am not an enemy of the Minister. I am one of those people who have advocated all the time that the Department of Education should be regarded as something outside Party politics, but the Minister constantly adopts the attitude he has adopted to-day. When a certain number of national teachers put up a certain report to him he pretended first that it was not there and then he told us in this House that the people who framed it were either incompetent or unenthusiastic. If the national teachers are either incompetent or unenthusiastic, then again we are defeated. It seems to me that the attitude of the Minister is an extraordinarily wrong-headed one. He takes the attitude that nobody can advise him and that he will not take advice from anybody here. That is certainly a defeatist attitude. He says that the methods that were outlined before he was responsible for them are correct. Remember he was not responsible for the Principal Act and, by implication, he has praised friends of mine who were responsible for the Principal Act. I should like to see that Act worked to the best advantage. Senator Madden praised the Act and I am prepared to praise it, but with certain methods employed in the working of schemes under that Act I cannot agree. While I cannot put myself on the same pedestal as Senator Ó Buachalla in this matter, I do meet teachers and inspectors and I do meet parents and the product of schools all over the place.

I am able to talk to them and I am able to understand them and I certainly disagree with the Minister that all is for the best. Apparently the Minister's attitude is that we cannot do anything about it. If he is right, then the fight is lost. Most emphatically, the fight is not won. I do not object to any adjective the Minister may use in reference to me but I do tell him that he will have to take more thought and he will have to use other methods before he attains the success which he and I desire to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

In the exercise of his powers under Section 37 of the Principal Act and Section 3 of the Amending Act of 1944, the Minister shall not require a committee to make provision for instruction in any particular subject or subjects until such committee has been given an opportunity of considering the reasons which in the opinion of the Minister make the provision of the subject or subjects appear to be desirable and necessary.

This amendment was suggested by Section 3 of the 1944 Act which reads as follows:—

"The powers of the Minister under Section 37 (which relates to deficiency in supply of continuation education or technical education) of the Principal Act shall include and be deemed always to have included the power to require a vocational education committee to make such particular provision as is mentioned in the said section for the supply of continuation education or technical education in any subjects which he may think fit to specify and require, and such requisition shall be deemed to have been made under and in accordance with the said section."

Without reading Section 37 of the Act of 1944, it may serve if I say that it simply gives a general power to provide for continuation or technical education. No objection was taken, and no objection is likely to be taken, to that general power given to the Minister, but this section, which gets away from the general and down to particular subjects, formed the subject of a debate at a meeting of the Standing Council of the Irish Technical Education Association at the time the Bill was passing through. The following resolution was then unanimously adopted, on the proposition of Very Rev. Canon Feeley, seconded by Very Rev. Canon MacBranain: "That the Minister be asked to give an assurance that, before an Order is made requiring a committee to make provision for instruction in any specified subject or subjects, the Minister will consult with the committee concerned." That is a body representative of all shades of opinion and that resolution was unanimously adopted on the motion of two prominent members of the council.

A feature of the whole system of vocational education which has always been admired is that local initiative is invited and that the co-operation of local bodies with the Department of Education is always assumed to be necessary for its complete success. This section provides that the Minister may himself, without any consultation, require a committee to provide for particular subjects. That is a thing to which exception can reasonably be taken and it seems to be out of harmony with the spirit which is presumed to prevail in connection with the administration of the system. For those reasons, which I think are sufficient, I ask the Minister to accept the proposals in the amendment which I have read.

They will not interfere with the final power of the Minister. The amendment simply asks that the body concerned be supplied with the reasons for requiring that provision be made for a subject. It would follow that, if that body should take exception to a particular subject being specified, they would submit their own reasons to the Minister for urging that the subject was not necessary for local purposes. If the function of the local body is to have effect at all, the chief executive officer and the members of the committee should be in a position to state whether particular subjects are necessary or not in the interests of the locality.

I am merely asking that some organised procedure be adopted so that, before action is taken under this section of the 1944 Act, the body concerned, which will have to bear the responsibility, financial and otherwise, of the carrying out of the Minister's Order, may be consulted and given an opportunity to state their objections, if any. We might consider the case of a subject such as French being specified and the local body being of opinion that it was not necessary. I do not say that that is likely to happen; I am taking it as an extreme case. In my own recollection, there was a case where inspectors, without consulting even the chief executive officer, directed that certain subjects be included in the time-table for certain schools. I do not want to particularise or localise but I ask the House to believe that that happened not once but on several occasions. There is a theory that the inspector works in co-operative spirit with the local authority. We find, generally, that the inspector has the final say in the long run and that, if you do not carry out his views, it subsequently leads to little difficulties and, perhaps, creates friction. In order to avoid those things, the lover of peace will adopt the suggestions made, even though convinced that they are not desirable and may even be objectionable. This is merely a tactical sort of approach to the subject and one calculated to secure the goodwill of the local body concerned.

Mr. Derrig

I do not see the necessity for this amendment. Under the Principal Act, the Minister has power, where he considers that a vocational education committee is not making adequate and suitable provision for the supply of technical education in its area, to require it to make provision for the supply of such education as he may think fit, having regard to the resources of the committee. The case, therefore, which Senator O'Reilly makes against this provision can be made against the provision in the original Act. The annual scheme drawn up by the chief executive officer, in consultation with his committee, is, generally, the subject of consultation with the inspector. If any difficulty arises—I am not aware that any difficulties have arisen but Senator O'Reilly says difficulties have arisen— surely the proper course is to appeal to the Minister. I assume that the Minister will not take action to compel a committee to provide either additional courses of instruction in particular subjects unless he has good reason. He has regard to the resources of the committee and the work they are doing and he would not attempt to impose his will upon them without going into the matter very carefully with them in advance. If the association felt that there was a point for consideration in the matter, I do not recollect that they brought it to my notice. I do not think that it is necessary to repeal the provision of the Act in this regard. It would be as logical to repeal the provision of the previous Act.

It may be asked: Why is this power necessary? It may happen that a particular subject, regarded as of educational importance, is not sufficiently provided for. In that case, I think we ought to have power to ask the committee to examine the question and see whether they could not make provision for it. I, certainly, would not compel the committee to take action unless I felt that there were very good reasons for doing so.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is no question of the repeal of any section. It is simply a question of an addition. There is a suggestion that something should be put into the Bill exactly similar to what the Minister has stated would normally be done.

Mr. Derrig

The Senator may take it that I would not take action—and I do not think any other Minister would— without giving a committee an opportunity of considering the reasons, but I do not think it necessary to put that in the Bill.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I want to be quite certain that I understand the Minister's reply. The Minister first objected that this amendment had the audacity to suggest altering the Principal Act. Of course, it does. It suggests altering it, as I understand from the mover, because there have been certain defects which time has shown. I understand from Senator O'Reilly that a body which is extremely representative passed a resolution in the form, or substantially in the form, of this amendment and I am willing to assume that a body of that nature would not have passed it unless it had been shown by the working of the Act that there had been occasions when subjects had been imposed upon a local committee without due consultation with them, of which they disapproved.

The Minister says that the problem is considered, as I understand, by him and his chief inspector and that, with the aid of their knowledge and a little extraneous inspiration from other sources, they come to a conclusion. I understood the Minister to say, and I am sure it is so, that, in matters where they are not sure, they take some trouble to communicate their views to the local committee. But such a resolution as has been referred to would not have been passed unless there was a feeling that the local committees were not sufficiently consulted.

If there is one thing of which I am perfectly certain it is that, in any form of education, and more especially vocational education, unless you consult the wishes, the needs and possibly even the unreasonable prejudices of the locality with which you are dealing, you will not get the best result out of the tools you are employing. If the attitude is taken up, which one finds unfortunately so prevalent that everything must be decided by the Minister and his Civil Service, without going, and going humbly, to the people in the locality who know the needs, I think we are heading for a wrong system of education. It is the people in the neighbourhood who know where the shoe pinches. They may not know how to make the shoe right, but at least they should be consulted as to where the shoe pinches and what they want to be done in order to make the shoe easier.

While I had an absolutely open mind when this amendment was being moved, I must confess that the reply of the Minister on this occasion, as indeed on others, made me feel he was not on very strong grounds, because he was taking the line that it should be decided by him and his inspectors, without adequate consideration of the individual needs of the individual locality and the individual committee.

Mr. Derrig

I think the Senator misconstrues what I said. I said that so far as I am concerned—and I am sure any other Minister would be in the same position—I would not consider for a moment compelling a committee to provide either for their continuation education generally or for instruction in a particular subject, without consulting in the matter and having regard to the reasons they would put up against the step. Surely the Senator heard me say that.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I did, but I want to get it clear because there was some feeling of grievance in the people who passed the resolution.

Mr. Derrig

I heard nothing about it until Senator O'Reilly spoke.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Neither did I, and I was anxious that there should be that type of co-operation which would remove the grievance.

Mr. Baxter

If the Minister has not any great objection, I do not see why he should not accept the amendment. In my 26 or 27 years' experience as a member of a committee, I have no recollection of any conflict between a local committee and the Department's inspectors. I must say that our experience has been that these consultations have taken place between the chief executive and the inspectors. The inspectors attend the meetings and assist the committee in coming to decisions if the committee have difficulties with regard to the scheme, and it is only right that I should say so.

On the other hand, I have no knowledge of this decision. I have been to some of these conferences, although I was not present at the meeting at which this resolution was passed, but apparently some county must have had a grievance. I do not know the nature of it but, on the other hand, I see no fault with the amendment, and while I presume that what is in the amendment would be stated by his representative at the meeting of a committee and at discussions with the committee and the executive officer on a particular scheme, I do not know that the Minister should have any very strong objection to embodying it in the Bill. I do not see that it would impose any hardship whatever because it is, in fact, what takes place to-day.

Liam Ó Buachalla

It occurs to me that it would be only fair to explain to the House that generally, when the body referred to passes resolutions, they are passed mainly with the view that, in due course, when representatives of the association meet representatives of the Department, the matter in question must formally come up for discussion. It would be unreasonable to say that the body in question had any fears that the Minister would attempt to impose his will on them. I think the idea behind the resolution was that it should be put down, dealt with and passed and automatically communicated then to the Department for discussion with the Department in order to get their views on it.

I do not think it would be reasonable to say that whenever that body passes a resolution it does so because it fears some tyranny of some kind or another, or feels that a particular item should be embodied in legislation. It is only fair that the House should understand that that is the basis on which many of these motions come to be dealt with and come to be passed.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

The heading to this document is: "A special meeting of the standing council was held at the Technical Schools, Parnell Square, on 1st January, 1944, to consider the Vocational Education (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1944." The results of this meeting were definitely transmitted to the Department and it was a different type of meeting from the usual one to which Senator Ó Buachalla has referred. At the annual congress each year, certain resolutions are adopted and arrangements are made some time after to discuss these with the Department concerned, but there could be no such discussion in this case because they were simply transmitted as the decisions of that body. I may say that, while I agree that in the normal course consultations of this kind are usual, there is always the possibility of an exception and certain very influential members of that body and of committees always felt that this arbitrary power—it has an ugly arbitrary appearance—should be modified in some way, even in the interest of the Department itself. I have been careful in drafting the amendment to ensure that the Minister's powers are not clipped, but to give an assurance to the bodies with whom he is working that no arbitrary action would be taken. Therefore, while ultimately it does not take away any power the Minister has at present, it would have the effect of reassuring many of these bodies. There are certain very eminent and responsible members of committees—I could mention some on my own committee—men who occupy very influential and responsible positions who feel very uneasy about the powers in this section, particularly when set out without any qualification or modification whatever.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 16th January.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 15 Jan 1947

Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee Stage.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jan 1947