I agree with the Minister that this Bill represents a step forward. It makes provision for money for the first time from central funds for the educational ladder in regard to scholarships. The Minister hopes—I think he is probably right— that this scheme will increase the amount of money given by local bodies. Since the scheme provides more money, it cannot be opposed and it should be welcomed but, in my view, it has two defects. As compared with other countries, we make a very small provision for what the Minister called, and what was called in the old Sinn Féin days, the educational ladder.
There are two reasons for providing scholarships for talented children. One is that it does justice to them and the other—and a very important one—is that it adds to the national resources, adds to our general position in the world, adds to our productivity and improves our situation generally. Up to the present, we have taken very poor steps in comparison with other people in that direction. That is one of my objections. The Minister's answer to that, I presume, will be that this is a beginning.
My other objection is that I do not agree that the Minister who had three choices before him adopted the right course by endeavouring to adapt and improve the present machinery. On the Minister's own showing, that machinery would require a great deal of improvement. First of all, there are many differences in the county council schemes. In the beginning, when the county councils and borough councils were given power to give scholarships to the universities under the 1908 University Act, I take it that the British Government were trying to associate the only Irish institutions which then existed with university education. As this Bill itself indicates, the situation is different now.
There is an Irish State and an Irish Government. I must say that it seems to me at any rate that in the matter of scholarships to the universities there should be combined with the present local schemes a State scheme which would have no means test, where scholarships would be given on merit alone. Such a scheme would be very fruitful both from the point of view of giving students of merit an opportunity of going forward to higher education and from the point of view of providing the country with better educated people generally.
The local schemes vary. First and foremost, they tend to be inadequate. Some counties have a rate as low as one penny; one has a rate of over 5d. Some counties—I speak of university scholarships because I have some experience of them—go to something as low as £95 and £95 is a wholly inadequate sum. Each local body differs in the amount granted, differs in the conditions under which scholarships may be won, differs in the means test. A means test is a difficult thing to work. Speaking entirely for myself —and I am sure some of my rural rate-paying colleagues would not agree with me—it should be abolished altogether, but we cannot do that under this particular Bill. The means test works unfairly. I have never closely investigated the cases, but over and over again it has been pointed out that young Murphy fails to get a scholarship because everybody knows what Murphy's father has per year. He is a county surveyor or in some kind of post like that, or the father and mother are both teachers. Their income is ascertainable, whereas young Kelly is given a scholarship, although his father is better off than Murphy. His work is of a different kind and his income is not so ascertainable, so provable. It is constantly said—I think with some force—that the means test works inequitably. The level of the means test is too low when you consider the present value of money. There is a great case for uniformity.
The amount of money necessary for either a post-primary scholarship or for a university scholarship should of course be very substantially raised. I should like to make the point through you, Sir, to the House and to the Minister that we have not by any means kept pace with the position in 1908, to go back as far as that. The entrance scholarship to the old Jesuit college, University College, Dublin, was £30. It has now for University College, Dublin, been raised to £250 and there is an opinion that even that is not an adequate sum and that it should be £300. A great many people would agree that an adequate university scholarship would be £300. Under the private bishop's scholarship scheme a £50 scholarship was given as far back as 1905 or 1904. The amount of a scholarship now would have to be very substantial to measure up to £50 given in 1904, and I can testify that before the 1914 war and even before the University Act of 1908 it was possible for a university student to make in prizes over £100 which was more than any skilled craftsman in Dublin could earn at that time. It would not be possible now for a similarly circumstanced boy to make anything to approach what his father would earn as a wage. So scholarships should be much higher if they are to keep pace with the fall in the value of money and the general increase in the cost of living.
There is, from my point of view, one grain of light in the Bill which is that the Minister by virtue of the grants he proposes to make to local bodies will have certain powers to create uniformity. But I doubt if he has the power to compel them to increase the rate. I do not think he has. All he can says is: "If you give more money for scholarships the State will give more as well" and there are places where, I feel, he will find that that argument will not cut a very great deal of ice.
The whole machinery is creaking none too satisfactorily and it would be much better if we could have a scheme of State Scholarships. Apart from the differences in schemes this is a rather delicate subject to approach and argue on, but it is much easier to get scholarships in certain counties than in others. I had something to do, as a member of a scholarship board for a number of years, with looking at scholarship marks. There are places where there are five scholarships and the sixth candidate who gets 70 per cent. does not get a scholarship. In other places, no candidate has more than 60 per cent. and the fourth or fifth candidate may get a little less than 50 per cent. and have to be raised for the purpose of qualifying them for scholarships. Your chance of getting a scholarship therefore depends to some extent on where you live. That, I think, is not what the Minister wants or what anyone wants. It is more difficult to get scholarships in certain places than in others.
I know that it would be argued that it would not be fair to have a complete State scheme whereby certain areas might never come into the picture at all perhaps—but surely the Minister could devote some part of the money he proposes to put to this particular use now to giving scholarships on, say, the Leaving Certificate examination, given on the performance of the student in that examination irrespective of his place of residence and irrespective of his means. I think that would be a very great advantage. In the old Intermediate Board days, there were exhibitions in the senior grade and I think the last one was £40. It would have to be very much greater now, but that was a great help to a person going into a university those days.
It might be necessary to make certain changes in the Leaving Certificate examination, but that is a thing that could be seen to. I think it would be desirable that scholarships to the universities should be given on the Leaving Certificates examination or on a special examination if you like conducted by the Department or conducted as arranged. It would be a significant improvement because good candidates would get into the universities with adequate scholarships on merit without any regard to location, the residence of their parents, or their parents' means. I think that would be a highly desirable thing. I do not think that the Minister could do it under this scheme but if it is contemplated that more money should be spent on scholarships, scholarships to universities in particular, it should be considered.
There are certain anomalies which you cannot get over. In the case of scholarships, as everybody knows, boys are better off than girls for the reason that the Christian Brothers provide education for nothing or at a very low rate for boys while very little of these facilities are available for girls and I do think the Minister will have his work cut out for him when he starts to deal with local bodies on scholarships. I do not envy him the task he will have and it would be better if the extra money were devoted to seeing where we could get the best talent available.
Section 1 prescribes that one-fourth of the money is to be given on merit alone. I do not know how that is to be worked. Where there are five scholarships, which is the common figure, how many scholarships will you give on merit alone and how will you decide? That will be difficult, but it is an improvement. I am not quite clear as to how the Minister arrives at the conclusion that he should give twice as much money for scholarships from primary to post-primary institutions than he gives from secondary schools to universities. The cost of maintenance either in Dublin, Cork or Galway, for a full academic year, with the necessary money for taking part in college activities, involves a very substantial sum.
There have been regulations, for example, to the effect that county council scholars must take Honour courses. In fact that is not always feasible and it does not work. It is possible for a man or woman to get a scholarship and to find after the first year in the university that he or she cannot be advised to take Honour courses. It is certainly very unfair to put a professor or a couple of professors, discussing this matter from the point of the student, in the position that if they advise him not to do Honours he loses the scholarship. That is a regulation that is not desirable.
There will be £300,000 allocated to these schemes and of that, £100,000 will be devoted to university scholarships. If £50,000, or £25,000 were given in exhibitions on the Leaving Certificate, tenable in a university college, you would get a fair number of scholarships worth £300, which, I think, would be very desirable. I agree with the aims of the Minister and of the Bill; I merely differ with regard to how these aims can be achieved. I appeal to the Minister to find a scheme which will allow a student of merit, irrespective of residence or means, to get to the university.
We all agree that economic circumstances should not be a bar to the person who deserves a better education, either secondary, vocational or university. It would not be extremely costly because it is not true, although it is sometimes said in enthusiastic speeches, that there is an enormous fund of genius and talent awaiting development if the Government would give enough money for its development. That is not so, but it is the case that there are people who could benefit from more education and whose economic circumstances, the circumstances of their parents, prevent them from getting it. I am entirely in agreement with the Minister in endeavouring to get an improvement in that regard. While this Bill goes a certain distance, and will have the effect of evening out the inadequacies and differences in local schemes, there is another scheme which would have a better result without spending any more money. In the meantime I agree with the Second Reading.
