Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Jun 1968

Vol. 65 No. 6

Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. O'Kennedy

When the House rose last evening, I was dealing with the standard which would be employed in determining the qualification for these new grants and I had discussed, though briefly, the means test. I should just like to say to the Minister before I move from that aspect of it that I think he should leave himself quite an amount of discretion to deal with what will be personal hardship cases because whenever one is endeavouring to work within fixed figures and strict tables, one cannot immediately, if one's hands are tied, take account of hardship such as illness which I referred to last evening. As the Minister has said, this is a Bill which allows him the facility to amend or extend it to deal with these matters as they arise, and I would suggest that where such cases do arise, he would, if these powers are not now available, seek such powers under this legislation.

When we come to the next test which will be applied, that of the standard, again it is hard to say anything original at this stage on this measure because it has been discussed both here and in the other House and has aroused quite a lot of public comment and public discussion. I should like to say that any standard which one fixes will be, to a certain extent, arbitrary and that, for instance, one will have suggestions of over-specialisation in a limited number of subjects and suggestions of unsuitability of a test in that honours are determined according to a fixed mark— 60 per cent — and there are many arguments which one could justly put up against a standard of two or three or four honours; but the one thing I think most of us will be concerned with all the way through is that this qualification should be of a pupil's general aptitude and ability.

It is not suggested for a moment that a pupil should have at that stage developed any particular specialised knowledge. Indeed, it is highly desirable that he should not have specialised up to this point but I think for that purpose that the wider the range of subjects over which one spreads this qualification the more desirable it is. I would be rather inclined to favour an entry standard which would be spread over five or six subjects. I appreciate immediately, of course, that you cannot thereby extend the qualification to five or six honours because you would be decreasing the number of students who could qualify, and in fact would be uplifting the entrance standard back to what were the old county council and national university scholarship standards. However, I do feel that if the Minister sees fit to insist on a minimum of possible honours in the leaving certificate, which, in other words, is three honours, with a further extension of at least 50 per cent — let it be in two or three other subjects—he will thereby ensure that this specialisation even at this level, because of course it is only one interpretation, a very general interpretation of specialisation, to say that four honours is specialisation, will not enter into the studies at too early a stage. I would like him to consider the possibility of extending the number of subjects to which it will be applied, reducing possibly the four honours qualification to three honours and then asking possibly for a further 50 per cent, if not honours, in two or three other subjects.

I believe that there has been a very definite change in secondary schools since this scheme was announced and I suppose this is almost inevitable. One thing I would like to deal with later, which people will be aware of, is the fact that certain schools have developed a very significant tradition in examination successes. I had the fortune to go to one such school myself and four honours in that school would not be regarded by any means as an impossible achievement, or five or six honours for that matter. The schools that provide a more generous or a broader approach to the curriculum could justly claim, on the other hand, that four honours is a pretty high standard. I feel that, in that we are being tied to the leaving certificate examination, those schools that have proved themselves to be particularly expert in the business of success in examinations, if not so proficient in the general business of education, the pupils from these schools will generally stand to benefit from this scheme. The schools that try to give their students a broader scope may not succeed in getting them to the four honours level. For that reason I would suggest to the Minister that he extend the number of subjects and bring down the honours qualification, possibly to three.

One interesting suggestion made by Senator Stanford was that he thought this system of entry was imperfect because it was only a single test which must be final. Senator Stanford suggested that this scheme might be amended with success and one such amendment which he suggests is that over and above those so qualified with the four honours the universities might be given some facility at some stage as the scheme is being worked out for screening pupils who have not reached the four honours, but who have the same or greater intellectual potential than those who did succeed in getting four honours. They could, by some kind of enlightened IQ test, or by some general discussion on leaving certificate subjects more in the nature of interview than examination, possibly select a limited number of other pupils who would also qualify and who might be equally entitled and useful as university students and graduates.

All of us will agree that these improvements are desirable but we must always be aware of the feasibility of introducing any such suggestions. When making these suggestions of further facilities we are often inclined to ignore the difficulties which the Minister and his Department would have in implementing them. However, I would ask the Minister to keep an open mind on that suggestion by Senator Stanford as it would give to our universities an opportunity of affording entrance to highly intellectual and qualified students who might be unable to secure entry through the present system of entrance examination.

I was glad to hear that negotiations are being conducted between the Minister and the universities with the object of providing more direct university scholarships. Under the scheme there will be many on the borderline who just exceed the means limit and who will be harshly hit. There must be many students who would have, this year or last year, qualified for the old university scholarships or county council scholarships who will be marginally ruled out because of the application of the means test. Somebody must be the unfortunate one but there are such students who can get up to an 80 or 85 per cent average in the examinations and if their parents' means happen to exceed marginally the limit imposed by the means test it would be most desirable that they should still be given the encouragement of a university education. Such encouragement could only be given by means of university scholarships and I would ask the Minister to continue and promote as urgently and efficiently as possible his negotiations with the universities towards providing their own private scholarships in cases of this nature.

What can we expect will be achieved in the long run by this new scheme? I am speaking of its general effect on the university student population and its general effect on the community at large. One of the things I think which should be achieved pretty quickly within the universities themselves is that those most lovable chronics all of us have either met or enjoyed in our time, those with no particular talents or ability, will no longer be suited to the university campuses, that they will have to go elsewhere to appraise the talents which they have. I have seen in my time many promising, and in fact enthusiastic students waiting for places in the university, one year and two years, while many of those chronics occupied the same seats, as I said on the debate on the last occasion, for three, four and five years.

This was in fact regarded for quite a long time as being an essential part of the undergraduate's life. One had to turn almost a blind eye to it. In fact, there are many people who are proud of the fact that they spent seven, eight or nine years in a university and they say to you: "I must say, they were the best days of my life, even if I got nothing out of it." This was wasted opportunity for those people, and particularly for the students who, instead of waiting for the securement of a place, turned their talents elsewhere. This new scheme, with the new influx of determined talent, will ensure that there will be a constant competition, a constant competitiveness which will maintain standards, if not at a reasonably high level, at least at a constant level. This will apply not alone to those who come in under the grants scheme but to those who come in in the ordinary way.

There is no easy solution to the problem of a wasted mind. It is very much a personal matter. It relates to environment, attitude and determination. While Senator Dooge dealt with this for some time and said it is one of the great problems of university life, I feel that one of the few ways one can guard against this is to raise the standards in the university, particularly the continuing examination standards, to such a reasonably high level that people of this inclination will learn at an early stage that they have the clear choice either to use the talents they have or else not to waste their time and other people's time as well.

Senator Stanford also pointed to what is in fact a very real problem, that is, the problem which will arise, if not this coming year, at least the following year, of accommodation. I would strongly support him in his suggestion to the Minister that there should be some pro rata basis worked out for increased accommodation and facilities in accordance with an increased number of students. Mind you, I said "pro rata"; I did not say "pro qua rata". I understand the Minister is aware of this. It is such an obvious problem that he and his Department must consider it. As university numbers increase they must also have a clear definite policy, not a willy-nilly one as problems arise, of expansion in university accommodation and facilities; otherwise, the problems Senator Stanford referred to not only can but will arise, and, as I feel, must arise here.

I do not wish to develop that particular theme at this stage but just to follow the line of my notes here. One of the great advantages of this new scheme is that the discrimination which so many speakers referred to in regard to university scholarships will be ended. It depended very much, first of all, on the year in which you happened to submit yourself for a university scholarship and, secondly, the county in which you happened to submit yourself for such a scholarship. I have seen in my own experience very significant discrepancies. I remember in my own leaving certificate year, or one or two years before, that a bare honours in the leaving certificate in North Tipperary would qualify a student for a university scholarship because it so happened that in that particular year the standard was not particularly high.

The following year the situation had changed completely and one had to have an average of 85 per cent in five subjects to qualify for the same facility as was granted the previous year to a person with only three honours. This kind of imbalance is certainly one of the main problems there were in university education. I have seen some of the great waste of talents under what I might call this unfair competition. I have seen those people being discouraged. Many of them have taken up minor clerical posts in provincial towns. These were people of immense potential whose talents were lost to the country to a large extent, as many of them emigrated.

This new general levelling to four honours throughout the country will abolish that and will abolish the feeling of prejudice and jealousy which many unfortunate students harbour for a long number of years. It will also ensure that the same facilities will be available to each person, irrespective of the county or area he happens to live in. Again, it is widely known that some counties are better equipped with good secondary schools than others, and some people often adopted the very simple ruse of going to a county with a good secondary school in order to qualify for a university scholarship in a county which had not such a secondary school. Again, I have seen in some colleges throughout the country certain people who obtained 75 per cent, 80 per cent or 85 per cent in some subjects not qualifying in their county, while pupils in the same school, sharing the same benches, qualified with possibly 60 per cent to 70 per cent. This imbalance should have been rectified and it is now being rectified. I am glad to see it will not be a feature of the future.

I understand from general discussions with secondary school teachers, and those engaged at that level, that there has been, even in this year, a significant development within the leaving certificate classes and that, for instance, pupils of the very highest intelligence who would normally be driving themselves for particularly high marks under the old scholarship system are now more or less dropping this intensive study and are reading more widely and developing their talents in a more realistic way. Those pupils, happily for them, will not find too much difficulty in reaching the four honours standard. I am very happy to say that, in the realisation of this, they are reading more widely and in fact educating themselves better.

I can remember, for instance, as many Members may recall, the Shakespearean plays we were asked to study for the leaving certificate: in my time they were Macbeth, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet. I remember during two years I studied every line and verse in Macbeth, as if it were the only Shakespearean play. I did that for the simple reason that this was the only sure way of answering the type of questions which were set for the examination, such as, if I may say so, the inane, stupid question: “Who said what, to whom and for what reason?”, and this kind of thing——

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford):“Is this a dagger that I see before me?”

Mr. O'Kennedy

This kind of thing should be removed. It is a convenient test. You get five marks for who said it, another five if you know to whom he said it, and so forth. It is very convenient for marking examination papers. I have marked examination papers and I found it useful, but I think that poor old Shakespeare or Cicero might have reconsidered their efforts if they had known to what purpose our Department of Education was considering putting their works.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are trying to get away from that, despite opposition from certain university quarters.

Mr. O'Kennedy

This is a personal experience of mine.

Mr. B. Lenihan

And some people want to perpetuate it—in fantastic quarters.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I would support anything the Minister would do in abolishing this system.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We will abolish literature altogether.

Mr. B. Lenihan

This is the sort of literature they are talking about.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It used to be called literature in my time.

Mr. B. Lenihan

This is what they want to perpetuate in spite of my endeavours, believe it or not.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Not.

Mr. O'Kennedy

There seems to be a certain unanimity in the attitude as to what must be accomplished and how. We all gladly bid goodbye to the days of Cicero and the awful tortures on the writers and students——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

And on the examiners.

Mr. O'Kennedy

No. From my experience that was easy.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It was not stimulating.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I know Senator FitzGerald is on our side.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Not in abolishing literature, which has a different aim at the moment.

Mr. O'Kennedy

What has happened is that many of these pupils are reading more widely. The result is that practical study is being applied at a lower level. The only objection I have is that instead of the brilliant students doing intense studies, you have the good fellows being subjected to some type of grind to get four honours, and I would ask the Minister to keep in mind a widening of the number of subjects over which the test will be applied and also to keep in mind the fact that this type of convenient examination gimmick that was used will be abolished as soon as possible.

As Senator Brosnahan has said, the traditional standard of entrance to the training colleges in my time, and again recently, was five honours. Here you will have certain problems arising. Many of the pupils who would otherwise consider national teaching as a profession are now to a certain extent attracted away from teaching by the greater plums available from university study. It is for this reason that I would encourage the Minister to make available to the teacher training colleges as soon as possible the facility of university recognition, or, if not university recognition, a course of university study leading to a university degree. Otherwise, I feel there will be an extreme scarcity of national teachers.

I am glad to see that the House is unanimous in that teachers at any level need the same essential qualifications, the same dedication and, in fact, in many cases they need the same ability. The same problem may arise in the Civil Service and in the army and in regard to other examinations for professions which are affected immediately as a result of the leaving certificate. The Minister will have to bear these things in mind when determining whether or not they will maintain the standard at present suggested.

What the Bill hopes to do and what all of us would like to see accomplished is that this great exploitation of will and talent throughout the country will now reach its full fruition and that the children of farm labourers and the children of unskilled workers, if necessary, and the children of the people who are the very stuff of this nation will play their part in post-graduate life as they play their part in their ordinary domestic environment. These people have the right to determine the future of this country, not only the sons of business men and professional men. If our people are to benefit, they must come from every parish, however remote.

I should like to sound a note of warning to the Minister. I have seen, and not recently, a reluctance and inhibition on the part of those children's parents who would never have thought in terms of university education. They now realise that it is open to them and that they are faced with this great problem. At the same time, these people are not satisfied that this is the best thing for their children. They are not satisfied particularly because of the environment which they feel, rightly or wrongly, prevails in some small way in certain sections of our university life. They have read about it, about the type of development—which is hardly here at all but elsewhere—which is affecting the attitude of students. They may not be able to reason well as to the why or wherefore, but they are afraid to expose their children to these problems.

The people we want to get in may decline to accept the opportunity and this gets back to what we are concerned about in university life. Senator FitzGerald spoke at some length about the democratisation of universities.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is one thing on which I agree with him.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I, too, agree with him. Anybody must, but this is like saying that we all like everything good. What we ought to do about it is another thing. This is not a student revolt against university society. One cannot tie it down to a particular factor but one thing that would promote a revolt is the ineffectiveness of the staff, particularly the part-time people in the university. I hesitate to include Senator FitzGerald in this. I do not for a moment assume that Senator FitzGerald is that type. If he shows the same enthusiasm in the academic field as he does here, he cannot be included.

In so far as the Government now provide assistance and lay down standards of entrance for students, they should be allowed not to interfere with the autonomy of the university but request the university to ensure that their part-time lecturers do not appear to be recruited willy-nilly because they know somebody who is on the staff. They should ensure that these lecturers will spend their full time at the university, give full preparation to their lectures and full interest to their students as long as they are there or, otherwise, will not be allowed to continue. When I was a student of legal studies I was also doing part-time teaching and I can remember on countless occasions being told, a quarter of an hour after starting time, that the lecturer would not be available. Maybe we were more docile in those times.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

You could not get away with it now.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I should like to think it would not happen. I remember on numerous occasions feeling frustrated because the lecturer did probably what I could do better, he read from a small black notebook fixed notes which were applied year after year and students, at great inconvenience, had to attend these so-called lectures which were completely the opposite of the whole basic notion of education at the higher level, which must be that of discussion, dialogue, the development of students' minds and views, the exchange of views on sound principles, whether on economics or social history. I should like to see the universities — I do not suppose that fixed standards can be applied — ensuring that this kind of thing, even if it continues at the moment, will not continue any longer.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It happens from time to time.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I should hope the Minister would be entitled to inquire properly into representations from students. One sometimes thinks students are rebelling against society, against the establishment, whether it be the Church or the Government. I must say I rather enjoyed it. Students can always tackle the strongest establishment and that is a great challenge. They are entitled to make their just complaints about the ineffectiveness or the inadequacy of the level of tuition they are getting and I think the universities should keep constant reports, to be made available to the Minister, not necessarily end-of-term reports from each staff member.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Our higher education authority will look after that.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It is very dangerous to bring in the Government.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am not suggesting that the Government should be brought in but I should like the Government to set up a machine, in co-operation with the universities, to effect this very necessary thing. I would be the last to suggest that we should interfere with the autonomy of the universities.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We can leave it to the students at this stage.

Mr. B. Lenihan

You cannot go too far—a little whip but not too much.

Mr. O'Kennedy

You will have democratisation, representation by the students, but the students themselves generally do not pretend to know exactly why it is that certain subjects are being laid down. A student of engineering cannot know why he is being asked to study specified texts. He cannot know that these texts are valuable for his studies. If he did he would not have any need to study at all because he would have qualified already in these subjects. Though students may have every reason to discuss their views, and should be given every facility to have representation on university bodies at some level, I cannot see how students can determine what curriculum will train them to be people whom they have no experience of being.

Let them make a contribution, but the greatest satisfaction a student will have will be achieved under the enlightened guidance of university lecturers and professors, studying under them, developing his thoughts and attitudes from the authorities that have been laid before him. Then he may be in a position to make a really positive contribution, but to suggest beforehand that he can assist the staff in telling him the kind of books he would like to study——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

That was not the suggestion.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is not quite that absolute but not far from it. It is rather a naïve idea of what students' role might be.

Professor Dooge

It is valuable to consult students after a course on the suitability of textbooks but this has not been done.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I go all the way with that suggestion. At that stage students can appreciate the value they have got from the course.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

And what is wrong with it?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Most enlightened lecturers — and again I am not referring to any Member of the House — are well aware of this and do use this opportunity because students who have completed a course can then offer a very objective and fair view, being removed from the sanction of further examination in that subject. The great advantage we have here generally in our universities, as Senator FitzGerald pointed out, is that though they have this great availability in university education in England, apparently the lower income groups there are not availing of it at all in the way they might be. Here, however, we are living in a smaller society which is entwined at every level, which is interchanging all the time, despite the efforts of certain people, who will, I feel sure, be frustrated, to label society according to levels and to establishment or non-establishment. We are all members of an integrated society. As I have said, there is interchange.

It is for that reason that our object should be to create a real awareness at every level of the community of the benefits of education, to show a real readiness at Government and every other level involved in this new project to develop and exploit to the full the opportunities which are being given and particularly to ensure that our students will avail themselves of these opportunities. The Minister has said, and it is obvious, that the continuance of a student under this grant scheme will depend on his maintaining satisfactory academic standards and presumably this is done simply by continuing to pass the examinations. As well, I suggest that the universities should, as I understand they do in England, give a general report on students' work and on students' conduct.

There is no doubt that there are very few people who will, of course, qualify, who will be good students in so far as passing examinations is concerned but who, by virtue of their underhand activities — there are very few such students fortunately — are not desirable members of a university community or any community. The best thing that can be said for them is that, perhaps, they sincerely believe in their views but that the whole community should suffer because of those people is another matter which we shall have to face now if we are ever to face it.

Universities should also, if necessary in consultation with the students — so that nobody can say it is done arbitrarily — send a progress report to the local authorities in connection with all students who are benefiting under this scheme so that when there happen to be, in exceptional cases, students devoting more time to subversive activities than to their studies and who are generally a bad influence on the university community, the local authorities and the Minister, on such advice, could withdraw the facilities these people are enjoying. This is something we must face because the university is not responsible to the individual but to the community as a whole. If this whole scheme is approached on this basis it must be a success because there is still so much work to be done.

Mr. Brosnahan

A Chathaoirleach, cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo as ucht go gcuirfidh sé scoláireachtaí ar fáil do dhaoine nach mbeadh seans acu roimhe seo a leithéid a fháil. Raghaidh an Bille chun tairbhe agus leasa na tíre.

On behalf of teachers generally I welcome this Bill or any such measure which will help persons along the educational road so that they can fulfil themselves completely in accordance with their abilities. In the society in which we live at the moment post-primary and higher education can no longer be described as luxuries or as matters of privilege, as they have been in the past. My own personal philosophy in the matter has often been stated in this House and I would like to read one sentence from a contribution I have submitted on behalf of the Irish National Teachers Organisation to the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession Assembly theme, "Education as a Human Right", for the forthcoming meeting in Dublin in July.

Between individuals there is and always will be a marked inequality of powers and talents, yet there is an innate equality in the dignity of all human persons regardless of nationality, race, religion, colour or other accidental circumstance. Because of this inherent equality in the dignity of persons each has an inalienable right to an education corresponding to his complete fulfilment and destiny.

In the measure which is before the House today we are moving a step further in giving equality of opportunity through education to our own people. I remember on the 8th and 9th February, 1967 supporting the late Donogh O'Malley when he spoke here very strongly in favour of making post-primary education available to more people. On that occasion I think the then Minister for Education had very few supporters and I will always consider it a great honour that our organisation came out publicly the very first day he announced the scheme and supported it to the hilt regardless of who disliked what we had to say about it. We support this measure here today. We have certain criticisms of it but in general principle we think that it is a very forward-looking, constructive piece of legislation. It is a beginning. This piece of legislation can be developed and extended to provide for more students.

The idea that university education should be made available to people regardless of privilege or circumstance has often been considered a socialist one but we find the same idea held at the highest Church levels. During the reign of the late Pope John a letter was written by Cardinal Chicognani to the Pax Romana Conference held at Monte Video and it read as follows:

Who cannot but feel the imperative need for the university to open its doors to all who seek knowledge rather than reserve its instruction for those persons privileged by birth and good fortune?

Therefore the principle of giving university education to more people has been advocated for quite a while and is acceptable at the highest ecclesiastical levels.

It is only right if we are to look forward to the development of our nation that ability should be tapped at all levels and lack of means should not prevent persons from availing themselves of university education. The fact that university education is available to talent at all levels will ensure that we are not drawing from the top layer of the nation, we are going down deep in the community seeking the best people who not alone will better themselves individually but will improve the prosperity of the nation in the competitive years which lie ahead. It is not really on the top layer or the élite that we as a nation will be judged but on the norms and standards of the broad mass of the people. When people visit a country they do not seek out the élite to find out what are the standards, the norms, the ideas which are abroad in the nation. They move amongst the people. Therefore, it is important for persons who feel that they want to fulfil themselves by a higher level of education that there is no restriction, that they are not circumscribed, that they are not the victims of circumstances over which they have no control.

I would like to point out that the grants offered under the provisions of this Bill are for higher education. In the debate so far, a lot of emphasis has been placed on the question of university facilities. I think that under the title of the Bill grants could be made available to institutions of Higher Education other than universities.

As national teachers we regret that teacher training colleges have been excluded from the scope of this legislation. We feel that if candidates for teacher-training are excluded it will lead to a dilution of standards. We know that surveys have already been made in certain secondary schools, and these indicate that people who normally would opt to go into the teacher training colleges are now looking towards the university because there is a better opportunity of financial gain by entering professions other than teaching. As people know from the recent report on teacher's salaries the levels of remuneration are low compared with the levels available in other professions. Human nature being what it is, students will opt for other professions now that grants leading to a university education are available to them. Teachers are genuinely perturbed at the exclusion of teacher training colleges from the scope of this legislation. We welcome this piece of legislation inasmuch as it gives a better chance for university education to more students. Teachers, however, are concerned that students of high calibre who have entered teacher training colleges with an average of 5.3 honours will now be diverted away from teaching and seek their fortune in the universities.

It is regrettable that the legislation does not provide grants for candidates for teacher-training. This discrimination against candidates for the teaching profession will divert people of high calibre from teaching. It should be a first charge on the resources of the Department of Education to ensure that top priority is given to the recruitment of first rate teaching personnel. The teacher plays a key role in the whole educational process and no system of education can rise above the levels of those who serve it. The denial of grants to teacher trainees must inevitably lead to a dilution of standards and create difficulties in recruitment, particularly for the men's training colleges.

People of the highest calibre are required for the teaching service. It is not sufficient that teacher trainees should be trained in the mechanics of imparting knowledge; they should be persons of culture and academic standing. Such people are required in the teaching of very young children whose attitudes to future learning are moulded by those charged with their formation.

The teaching service is a key service. It is a basic service and if there are faults in that basic service there are bound to be weaknesses in all other services. All stages of education are important, and those in charge of very young children bear the greatest responsibility for their future development.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision to exclude training colleges from the legislation. Any nation with due regard for its culture and civilisation will recruit nothing but the best to serve in its schools and the State should give top priority to the recruitment of teachers. It is not good enough to say that people of a mediocre intelligence can teach. Such people can teach by rule of thumb methods, but more is required. Daily the teacher is engaged in forming a child's character and personality and if he is not doing this he is not fulfilling his true function as an educator. An educator must be a person who will leave a lasting imprint upon the minds of the children he teaches. He must be a person who will train the children in proper attitudes towards life and towards learning for the future.

We have a long and proud tradition in this country of high standards in the recruitment of teachers. Teachers were recruited through a highly competitive examination called the King's Scholarship Examination. After the Treaty this became known as the Easter Scholarship Examination and this was no less competitive. Now there is open competition through the leaving certificate examination and as I have already stated the average number of honours for persons called to training works out at 5.3. I maintain that this tradition should not be broken even for one year since it might be impossible to reestablish it.

The Minister has promised that he will establish a teacher training college-university link next October 12 months. I welcome this and promise that the Irish National Teachers Organisation will be available for discussions on the plans at any time. I would like to point out that in certain respects the standards in training colleges are superior to those in universities particularly with regard to entrance requirements.

The status of the teacher should be high since the role of the teacher is becoming more and more important in the complex world of today, and in the future. Family discipline is breaking down in many areas and old and moral standards are being attacked. Children will have to rely more upon the standards of their teachers since children are now exposed to so many influences inimical to their orderly upbringing. Unless a teacher is in a position to influence the children under his care then their future in many cases is in jeopardy. The whole raison d'être of the school is changing. It is no longer a place for rote learning but a place where children develop attitudes and standards, it is a place of education rather than instruction. It is important, therefore, that persons of the highest calibre and intelligence should be recruited to man the schools of the future.

I would like to refer to the question of cramming for scholarships. We have had some experience in cramming for scholarships when the county council scholarships from primary to post-primary schools were available. In many cases children were pressurised beyond their capacity. This practice could again be repeated and the Minister and his Department should keep a close eye on the situation whereby children were being used in order to gain prestige for cram schools. The Minister should also consider the setting up of a committee to go into the whole question of examination structures. Questions should be so devised that parrot-like learning will be discouraged and that intelligent rather than the crammed student will obtain the scholarships.

Reference has been made to the standard of lecturing in some universities. Many graduates feel that in some instances the standard of lecturing was not adequate. I heard a university professor state on one occasion that university education was the transfer of a set of notes from one copybook to another without any intellectual process being involved. The Minister should ensure that money spent in grants to students should be put to the best advantage by ensuring that the levels of lecturing in the universities which they attend are at least adequate.

In conclusion I would like an assurance from the Minister that the question of the exclusion of teacher training colleges from the scope of this Bill will be re-examined and that candidates will not be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the candidates for universities.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I do not propose to delay the House very long because having listened to the prolonged speeches — I think Senator Dooge spoke for two hours——

Professor Dooge

Not this time.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

We had subsequent speakers going right up to the hour. I guarantee I will not be more than ten minutes. I rise to speak simply to offer myself to any Minister for Education who is legislating like this and having to listen to all the appeals and all the guarantees which any Minister for Education is now asked for. We are discussing two items on today's order paper. The first is the legislation proposed by the Government and the other is the motion proposed by some Members of the House. I should like to refer to the fact that if paragraph 2 of the motion proposed by Senators Quigley, Dooge and FitzGerald were adopted everything would be solved very well and we would have no problem with regard to how many honours were received in the matriculation.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Of course.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

This paragraph says that university education should be free to all citizens who qualify for university entrance. We would have no problems with regard to whether people were suitable for this or not. It would be open to everybody who had an average education.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Above it.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I am speaking about the amount of time spent in discussing here two honours, three honours or four honours. I entered this House on the nomination of the veterinary profession as a member of the Cultural and Educational Panel. I hope to continue for some little time longer to act on their behalf. One of the biggest boasts of my life is that I never attended a secondary school, that I passed with honours in middle grade as it was then. I know we got honours in Irish, English, French and mathematics from our national school and subsequent to that we did Latin for the matriculation. We did it for University College. That was 57 or 58 years ago but people now talk about going back to times which are out of date. Who is doing that? I notice that the representative of the Irish National Teachers Organisation has left the House but recently a man was criticised——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

He is behind you.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Some teacher in Donegal was doing something similar to the devoted men who taught me in school and the devoted parents who kept me there but the Irish National Teachers Organisation objected to his doing it. I would place university education as the fourth in any order of priorities. I would put primary education first and vocational education second. Then there is secondary education and higher education which is generally interpreted as university education.

I am confused—and I think many of the other speakers were also confused—particularly in regard to what they said in regard to the dividing lines in higher education. There is technology. Vocational teachers in Dublin qualify lawyers and other professional people. If a man, as has been pointed out here, gets a degree in law in University College he has to get another outside degree. At any rate, there seem to be lines of demarcation between the grades of higher education. This would be my appeal to the Minister for Education, another bogey which he would need to overcome.

My preference priority would be a good primary education for the people of the country. The abolition of the one-teacher school did not apply in the city because it was overcrowding we had here but the one-teacher school in the country was a hopeless institution as one teacher was expected to teach right through all the grades up to the time the child left the primary school. We have made progress in that regard and the more money I see spent in making further progress the better I will like it.

The next priority is vocational education. My reason is that farmers' sons who leave the national school should be able to equip themselves to go back to the land and get a veterinary degree or a degree in agriculture. I would suggest that in the local technical school all those farmers' sons should receive training in the use of farm machinery so that they would be equipped to live on the land and be proud to do so. I sometimes think of my own family and the fact that one of us remained on the land. A sister got married and the other two had to leave. That would be the way in most other areas in the country. One member of the family remains on the land but the others have to leave because they cannot get a living there. We should try to provide for them within the country. After primary education, my second preference is, as I say, for vocational education for every young person, boy and girl. The facilities are there and they should be used.

My third preference would be for what is now called secondary education. In that connection I would say that every teacher should have a university degree.

I listened to the debate practically all the time and to the many matters still of a confused nature which the unfortunate Minister is asked to solve in the near future. I repeat that we should not concentrate on outrageous expenditure on university status for so many students at a risk to the health of the country either intellectually or economically. I do not wish to discuss the practical details as to how many teachers or how many students should be served by lecturers. Figures have been quoted and if anything comparable could be adopted for the primary schools we would have a lovely primary system of education. I have seen a good deal of overcrowding in the city with the teacher trying to cater for not ten or twelve students but 30 or 40.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair regrets intervening. This Bill has to do with higher education.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I will not continue to refer to other than higher education.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

There are 300 and 400 in classes of higher education.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I do not know what the Senator said. I spoke from experience of higher education and I cannot deal with anything other than the priorities to which I have already referred. I think we should not devote the taxpayers' money to higher education in universities no matter what their number, while there is a greater demand for efficient service in the lower grades of education. I shall leave it at that.

I did take note of the two faculties of veterinary science established in Trinity College, Dublin, and in the National University of Ireland. The Government and the people did not lean over backwards to facilitate Trinity College in that regard. Two of the representatives of Trinity College are here and they will be conversant with the sequence of events that occurred in those years. Personally, I thought it a waste of money and I am satisfied in connection with the amalgamation or co-ordination of servicing between Trinity College and the National University that one faculty of veterinary science is quite sufficient for this country. It is a pity that money was wasted in establishing two faculties.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

When I discussed this, the argument was used that if Trinity did not get a faculty of veterinary science, Queen's University, Belfast would get it. My reply was: "Certainly, why not." Queen's University is in a part of Ireland and there are many students in the Six Counties who could benefit and it would be better to have a veterinary science faculty in Queen's than two different veterinary faculties in Dublin. However, please God, that will be rectified in this co-ordination and amalgamation scheme if we succeed in bringing it to fruition.

I am afraid I shall have to refer to remarks Senator Stanford passed in relation to the student teacher relationship. If I am out of order I will cease immediately. I must say that in student teacher relationship a very bad example was given by Senator Stanford. Guests of the nation, two visitors, were insulted in the precincts of Trinity College and a representative of this House, with those of the college, interfered with the garda to prevent a disturbance in Trinity College.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

To restore peace.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

He interfered with the gardaí in the course of their duties and I wonder now where is this famous script or placard or whatever scroll these students had. I was upset to see in the paper that Senator Stanford interfered with the gardaí. This is bad student teacher relationship and a consequence of that was an endeavour to try to induce other students to march through the streets of Dublin protesting against police brutality. I hate the word "police". I am entitled to speak about this here as I think it was a bad example for students and teachers.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is now going into the domain of the Minister for Justice.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Student teacher relationship has been spoken of and all I will say is that a very bad teacher relationship was shown on this occasion when, as guests of the nation, foreign royalty were insulted in this manner. Subsequently, luckily because of the commonsense of the Dublin students, nothing further developed.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I cannot see how this is an example of bad student teacher relationship. Senator Stanford restored peace.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

He interfered with the gardaí.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Even if it were true, there is nothing bad in it from the point of view of student teacher relationship.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

He had no right to interfere with the gardaí.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Is it not a bad example to the students when a professor interferes with the gardaí in stopping a riot of blackguards?

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Ó Donnabháin on the Bill.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I am a member on the Cultural and Educational Panel and I rank university education as fourth in my order of priorities. I should like to see an amalgamation in regard to primary, vocational and secondary teachers so that they would be interchangeable without difficulty in relation to salaries. If there were such an agreement, with the collaboration of their respective organisations, they would serve most of the population. I emphasise vocational education. Then there is secondary education. We should not spend all our money on university education. The more we have of it the better but the people should not be asked to contribute until our other three services are working magnificently together.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Senator wants all other teachers to have university degrees. Where will they get them?

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I did not say university degrees should be abolished. I am anxious that universities should be satisfactorily staffed. I have listened during the past two days of this debate to complaints and suggestions for an increase in university facilities which it would take millions of pounds to provide. We can do it gradually as we grade up our educational ladder. We have had discussions on higher education—whatever interpretation one can put on that term—and on whether outside authorities should be amalgamated on the qualification of what is higher education. I have been speaking about three grades and let our fourth be the highest step, co-operatively or otherwise, but let us not be wasting money there until we have the other services properly provided.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We shall be charitable enough to accept that the Senator's views do not reflect the true views of his Party.

Professor Jessop

I should like to join with the many other Senators who have welcomed this Bill. It is another stage in our effort to enable young people to realise their capabilities to the fullest extent in their later life. We have been told, and it is quite true, that this country is not very rich in material resources, but we are rich indeed in the number and quality of our young people and we therefore have a duty to do our best for them, and in so doing we will thereby benefit ourselves. Since our resources are limited, we have to do what we think best to see they are distributed fairly and on that account, I suppose, there must be a means test. I am quite certain the Minister does not like the means test any more than the rest of us, but he is not independent of the Minister for Finance. Because of that we must accept a means test at any rate for some time.

In this connection, there is justification for calling this award a grant rather than a scholarship, though I tend, with Senator Dooge, to regret the choice of this word. This is an award which is earned as a result of a certain level of intellectual achievement. It might be better called a scholarship. The word "grant" emphasises that it is needed financially by the student. From that point of view, I agree with the previous speaker who pointed out that the universities should be encouraged to continue to award scholarships in the broader sense, that is to say, scholarships as awards which are not tied to any means test. There are brilliant students who do not happen to be in need of grants from the means point of view and the honour and distinction of being given scholarships is something they should be allowed to have, if they are good enough to earn them.

The other factor in deciding who is to get one of these awards is the method of selection. There have been criticisms here of the various methods of selection. We have been told of the dangers of cramming and are aware of these. We know of the dangers of neglecting late developers and of neglecting those who are bright but who had the misfortune to go to inefficient schools. There is no easy solution to this difficulty. We have examination results to go by; we have headmasters' reports to go by. We can have interviews and we can have IQ tests. All these have been used by various institutions and all have been found fallible when judged by the standard of the student's subsequent performance.

It has been suggested that a university might be given a special grant to do research on this question, to evolve if possible a procedure that would enable the best student to be picked out for these awards, and the difficulties inherent in examinations and the dangers of cramming and of inefficient schooling to be got over. I do not agree we should embark on this procedure. Such investigations have been done by many other institutions in many countries, including Britain and America. The literature on education, both general and medical education, is full of experiments like this but they have all led to inconclusive results. There is no single test which is fully reliable as a means of getting over all the difficulties. We can perhaps conclude that having only one single test is a great disadvantage and is more likely to lead to error than using a battery of tests. If one had sufficient resources and could take the standards of education in the various schools into account with the headmasters' reports, the examination results and the results of the interviews, we might be a bit more reliable in our selection. Even then mistakes may be made, as has been the experience of places where such procedures have been used over quite a long period.

I think a better approach to this question would be a closer liaison between the university and the actual schools which send students to them preferably in co-operation with the Department of Education. The difficulty lies in the way in which the schools prepare the students for the tests on which these awards are made, and for the further career for which the student is preparing, whether in university or not. In this regard I know that the Department has various joint committees in which university representatives sit with members of the Department. From what I hear of their discussions, I am not persuaded that the opinions of university representatives are always given the weight they deserve.

We have in Trinity College over some years now gained a great deal of insight and benefit in these matters by inviting headmasters of schools, once each year, to come to Trinity and have discussions with different members of the staff from the various faculties and departments so that they can get some indication of the type of preparation we feel a student should have for his further education in the College, and we can get some indication of the difficulties they experience in preparing students. If that could be encouraged in the broader sense and if there could be some more direct communication between the Department and the universities in this regard, I think the general standard of training in the schools would then probably be more directly related to the subsequent requirements of the students, whether they be for university training or for some other walk of life.

In this regard I again add my voice to the voices of those who have supported the idea that primary teachers should have an opportunity of university training. I have said this before in this House and I do not accept the view expressed on that occasion, and which was referred to by Senator Brosnahan, that because primary teachers are concerned only with the younger age groups, where a great content of knowledge is not required, a university training is superfluous. I am quite satisfied there is a very large area of educational principle, psychology, and sociology, as well as techniques of teaching, that can very properly be made the basis of a course of training at university level for the teachers who are to look after the primary schools. We often refer to the very considerable benefits to be gained in the university by students of different faculties mixing with each other. This is one of the principal benefits a university confers on its students. It is better therefore for students to go to a university than to a school which has only one special purpose. To deny university education to a section of our teachers who are expected to give the greatest possible breadth to their teaching is a mistake.

The question of how we are to check on the continuing record of these scholars and grant-holders in the university to make sure that, having got their grant, they are proving themselves worthy of it over a period of, perhaps, two, three or four years, is also difficult and will become more difficult in future. It has been in the past relatively easy to get examination results and anybody can see which student has got honours or which student has passed and which has failed. More and more, universities are tending to place less emphasis on examinations and more emphasis on what we call a process of continuous assessment. We have in the Medical School in Trinity College gone almost entirely over to this process during the past couple of years and we find the change very rewarding indeed. This, of course, places a much greater responsibility on individual teachers to keep closer in touch with the students and make quite certain that they are aware of which students need more attention and which should be encouraged to remove themselves from the School. But, if you have a scholarship student in this class and you are asked by some outside body what is your recommendation about the continuation of his scholarship, then, of course, it is much less easy; your records must be much more completely and accurately kept than if you were just depending on the results of examination.

That leads me to Senator Stanford's point that the whole basis, the whole purpose, of this award of funds to students to enable them to take part in university education will be frustrated if we have not staff enough in the universities, enough equipment and enough accommodation to provide for these students. So that, at the same time as the university grant system is put into operation and awards are made to students, similar provision should be made for the accommodation of these students in the university at a proper level.

I must also agree with those, and agree very strongly, who have pleaded with the Minister to take note of the students who are already in universities and who have four honours and who, because they are there already, cannot benefit from these grants. I see the difficulty of broaching the principle of retrospective application but in this case it is the lesser of two evils. The greater will be that we will have in the university a large body of people with a grievance, a fair and understandable grievance, and this will give rise to trouble. It is a characteristic of university students that they tend to sympathise with each other, particularly with the student who has a grievance and I believe that the trouble will come, not just from the students who are denied this grant, this scholarship, whose parents have to continue to find money to pay their fees, but also from other students even including those who have already got these awards. This is going to make life difficult for those of us who teach and help to administer affairs in the university but it is not only from that point of view that I speak. I speak with a sense of feeling for the students who are in this position and I think all of us would ask the Minister, if at all possible, to try to make some concessions towards students in this regard.

Now I should like to refer to something which I do not think has been mentioned, and certainly has not been stressed enough, in this debate, that is, the view held by some people—I think, people who should know better—that because so many of our university graduates emigrate, it is therefore somehow wrong for us to take money out of the taxpayer's pocket to subsidise their university education. This view was expressed in two articles in one of our daily papers recently. I have referred to the wealth of young people that we have in this country. We have one of the largest family sizes in Europe and if we go on producing these young people in such numbers, we surely have a duty to educate them. If having educated them, we cannot give them posts here, it is not their fault; they would have to emigrate anyway. They will bring us infinitely more credit if they can contribute effectively to the society they choose to live in and eventually they may return to give us the benefit of their higher level of expertise. I think it would be wrong morally and in every other way to deny these young people the benefit of university education just because we cannot find them jobs when they have qualified in the universities.

The question of specialisation has been mentioned and the dangers we are running into by requiring this high level of qualification for these awards. I do not agree that anybody who gets four honours can be said on that account to be super-specialised. I would be much more afraid of the person who got two honours. In any case, we have the tremendously fine groundwork of the intermediate courses where pupils are encouraged to take a very wide spread of subjects, either at pass or honours level. We are in a very much better position here than in Great Britain where specialisation starts, not at 15 or 16 when they have taken the intermediate, but at 11, 12 or 13, when the student has to decide whether he is going into the science stream, the classical stream or the literature stream.

We have been requiring in Trinity College two honours as entrance qualification for many years now and I do not see any sign of danger from super-specialisation. We are going to require three honours next year. I think it is also part of the business of the university to try to encourage a broad outlook. Up till last year, we required medical students to have a certain exposure to arts subjects and they could not get a medical degree unless they had acquitted themselves with credit in these arts subjects. We had to discontinue this last year because the staff of the Arts School became so overburdened with their own teaching that they had not time to devote to our medical students. I was very sorry about this—we all regretted it—but I think our arts colleagues deserved the sympathy they got and we discontinued this practice. But the university itself has got a duty to try to counterbalance the effects of super-specification and to see that the worst dangers of it are avoided.

Senator O'Kennedy referred to the "chronic". I thought that was an extinct animal as far as the university is concerned. I remember a long time ago, surely in the early Thirties, when Trinity College passed a regulation that students would be excluded after a certain number of years, if they did not get on with their studies. There was a cartoon in Dublin Opinion of a group of hoary old creatures, some with long beards down to their knees, others obviously creaking at the joints, emerging from the front gate and one saying to the other that he could not remember that building opposite (the Bank of Ireland) and these statutes (Goldsmith and Burke) being there when he entered the college. These were the more spectacular types of chronics. We have since put the screws on very much harder and there are now regulations which would make it quite impossible for any student to stay on to the extent Senator O'Kennedy referred to.

I should like to conclude by saying a word in support of the students. Reference has been made to the students from time to time in this debate and sometimes, I think, with less understanding than I had thought they deserved. We are all surprised, and some of us bewildered, at the accounts we hear of what we call student unrest in various universities. It is pretty well universal. We do not know what it is all about. We do not understand why students cannot stick to their work as we did when we were in college——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Hear, hear.

Professor Jessop

——and why they do not do what they presumably went to university to do. We think they are being used by some outside body with some sinister motive and that if we do not take stern measures about them, we are condoning, perhaps, something which is very dangerous. But I am firmly of the opinion that the great majority of our students—I would say 95 per cent of them—are of excellent quality as young people and that they have a well-developed sense of responsibility. There probably is a small minority—small in this town, at any rate—which will be of somewhat different mould. But I think it would be much better if we tried to understand the minds of the students, even the minds of those who appear to be vicious, than just to launch out on a series of repressive measures in the expectation that somehow this will bring the thing to an end.

As I said earlier, students are very sympathetic towards one another. Even when a student is in the wrong, they want to make quite certain he has had a fair hearing, that he is not going to be sent down or fined or punished just because he is a student, unless his case has been carefully examined. We have to remember when thinking about this that one of the advantages the university has to offer is the encouragement to students for taking part in the larger life of it, for seeing how things are done, for getting more experience of administration. Previously this was supposed to happen through running college societies and so on, but I do not think we can blame the students if they have a certain curiosity about how the whole machine is working.

Many of these students, even those who come to college with scholarships, find after a while that they do not want to pursue their subjects in any great depth. They are much more fascinated by administration. I say to those students when they talk about this with me: "Well, if you take too much interest in this, you are not going to get as good a degree as you would otherwise get, but if you want to learn about administration, and you realise this is the penalty you are going to pay, then provision should be made and could be made for you to have this experience." If they were approached in that sort of way a great many of them would appreciate the choice they have to make. But just to say that they should not get a choice because they are students, because they cannot possibly appreciate the issues that are supposed to be involved, is shortsighted and will eventually lead to far more trouble.

I happen to have a daughter an undergraduate in the college at the moment. She is now approaching the end of her studies. One day last term when these student discussions were going on I drove her into the college and we talked for some time on the way down about the various things that were happening. As she got out of the car to go away I said to her "I have to attend a meeting this morning to discuss this. What do you think we should do?" She said two words "Join them". We went into that meeting and this is more or less what we decided eventually to do. We decided that properly elected representatives of students should be given seats on faculty committees and on various bodies in the college from which they have been excluded before. Machinery was worked out to make this possible. It is going into operation at this moment and will be fully in operation next term. I think there will be considerable benefit both to the students and to the staff from having taken this step.

I mentioned a little while ago that we had introduced a system of continuous assessment into the methods of assessing progress in the medical school. We are all a little bit intrigued by this new departure. It is probably one of the first large-scale efforts in this regard in Dublin. In order to check on how it is working we have meetings from time to time with the staffs of the four departments concerned and representatives of the students. I have here a document which is the minutes of the meeting held last Saturday morning on this very question. The conclusions reached at that meeting will be most helpful to my colleagues and to me, as Dean of the school, when we are looking over the courses which have been given and the way in which the students' progress has been assessed in the past year. It is a very difficult thing to assess students in this way. We want help and co-operation in this. I think this is really the way to go about getting it.

In conclusion, I should like to finish as I started, by commending the Minister for the introduction of this measure and hoping at the same time that when he sends us these extra students, which we are delighted to have, he will give us the means of training them properly.

Mr. Flanagan

I have no intention of entering into the marathon. I will confine myself to a few points of heresy and to asking some questions on matters I should like to have cleared up. We have had a very exhaustive debate. Of all the speakers who have contributed up to the present—having heard Senator O'Kennedy say that at one time he was a lecturer in the university—only one I know of, Senator O'Donovan, has been outside the professional educators. I am on the outside, but I can claim some right to intervene, being a graduate, my four children being also graduates of the National University. I was probably the only person outside the establishment who was ever elected on the governing body of a constituent college by vote of the graduates. I served on the governing body of one of the colleges for three years. It was very enlightening, and probably if I colour some of my remarks by the experience I gained in that capacity, my remarks will not be quite in line with what has been said in the past two days.

I agree with most of what has been said on the Bill. I know that it is along the right lines up to a point. It is desirable. I am very glad to see provision being made for higher education but I do not agree that the measure is an entirely perfect measure. No Bill ever introduced here or elsewhere could be described as perfect. The standard set for entrance to the university, four honours in the leaving certificate, is not a high standard. Certainly it is not too high. This is one of the points I want to make : it is a very poor test of the material we are passing on to the university for qualification as professional people.

I presume that university education should be aimed at producing graduates who will be eminently suitable for the professions to which they aspire and that its products will reflect credit on the university, that it should be an advantage to the graduates and bring a fully gratifying result to the efforts made by the State to advance higher education. Therefore, I have a certain leaning towards the suggestion made by Senator Quinlan that there should be a preliminary screening, if at all possible, of applicants for university education. I have acted on appointments boards and had a number of graduates coming before me and other members of the board. Generally, before a board starts to investigate and to place in order the qualifications of the candidates before them, they decide on a certain allocation of marks. The first allocation goes for university training and educational qualifications, approximately one-quarter of the marks. That allocation will vary for pass, second-class honours, first-class honours and other qualifications, apart from the basic minimum. Secondly, you allocate marks for experience; thirdly, you allocate marks for the benefits gained by experience; and finally for the suitability of the candidate for the post.

If a candidate has all the qualifications he can achieve, if he has experience over years and has gained quite a lot of knowledge by his experience and if you deem him to be essentially unsuitable for the particular post, he is ruled out.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Other things being equal.

Mr. Flanagan

Anything being equal. If he proves unsuitable for the post, he is not acceptable and is turned down. I mention that because it bears out the necessity for channelling university applicants into suitable professions or, if they are not suitable for professions, into other avenues of education which would give them lucrative employment and an adequate living in this country.

It would have been much better if candidates were sent on or rejected at the very beginning rather than allowing them into universities and finding after a year or two that they are completely unsuitable. Either they find that themselves or the professors so decide after consultation with headmasters and parents. One or two years of their lives have been wasted and a considerable amount of money also. In addition, they may have acquired in that period habits which would destroy their future. Preliminary screening, if it could be done to that extent, would be suitable and desirable and I agree entirely with Senator Quinlan's view.

Senator Stanford and others mentioned the next point we should think about, the capacity of the university to receive large numbers of entries. When I was on the governing body of Galway University, the constituent college which I served, students were sitting on the steps, in the passages and outside the doors, trying to attend lectures in certain faculties. We had up to 120 trying to fit into the corridors and passages around a classroom that was originally designed for 40 students. Unless adequate provision is made at the beginning, you are liable to do much damage because those coming into the university as students will be frustrated and you will be destroying their interest and in many ways there is risk of destroying their whole future.

We had an example of this undue haste in connection with the admission of students to vocational schools. Quite a number of pre-fab vocational schools were set up. Next we saw advertisements in all the papers for teachers who were not available. The students were admitted and temporary unqualified teachers who were entirely unsuitable, who were retired and over age, were taken into the vocational schools. I suggest to the Minister that the effect on students confronted with unsuitable, unqualified and untrained teachers may be a lasting one and disappoint them in what they hoped for from vocational education. If the Minister investigates this he will find that what I am saying is absolutely true, and if he comes to my own county, I shall prove it up to the hilt. We know that many of the teachers now operating in vocational schools had no training whatever. The whole standard is low and tends to give pupils a very poor and false idea of vocational training.

In connection with the staffing of universities, it has been mentioned here today that many of the part-time teachers are not able to devote sufficient attention to their training. I would ask the Minister very seriously to consider the whole question of the appointment of professors to the universities. My experience has been that the present method of appointment leads to patronage in its basest form at the highest level. Applicants for a professorship in the universities are asked to prepare some 60 copies of a booklet setting out their qualifications from their earliest days. These are distributed amongst members of the governing body and members of the Senate. It will be found that an applicant who has been teaching with success in a particular college and who is approved by an overwhelming majority by his faculty and approved by an overwhelming majority by his governing body, will be turned down by the Senate.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Sometimes for good reason.

Mr. Flanagan

Sometimes for good reason and sometimes for good bargaining.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Not at the level of the Senate and its distinguished chancellorship.

Mr. Flanagan

I would wish that the Senator were absolutely correct, but that is not my experience or my belief; I may be wrong. I say it would be much better for the Minister to look into this question now. Appointments to the universities should be carried out at the very highest level and in the most impartial manner by some system such as that employed by the Appointments Commissioners. There will be a tremendous amount of money involved in this. The lives of the most important of our people will be involved in it, and there is no use taking steps now because it has been the tradition or the custom in the past when we can see that it is not the ideal or the best system.

In relation to the existing county council schemes, the Minister has frozen, so to speak, the amount of money provided in the year ended 31st March, 1968, as the amount which each county must contribute, and certain other sums will be added from the Central Fund. The Minister has taken over the county council schemes almost in their entirety but has omitted one very important regulation. These schemes—I am speaking about my own county council, but I think this is more or less general—were very carefully prepared by dedicated people who had the interest of the youth of their counties at heart. They prepared the schemes and allowed threequarters of the available scholarships to go to competition with a means test, and a quarter of the scholarships were available for students of a very high standard of intelligence, as they would have to display in a competitive examination, without a means test, on the basis of a very strict examination. The Minister has made hard and fast rules in connection with the amount of salary a person can draw and at the same time, qualify for a scholarship or part of a scholarship. Looking over the list, I see that a person earning between £2,000 and £2,100, which is not a very high salary at the present time, would have to have five children before the fifth child could qualify even for a part scholarship.

Mr. B. Lenihan

There is a misapprehension about that. In that case the scholarship will apply to all five children.

Mr. Flanagan

The £50?

Mr. B. Lenihan

£50 for each of the five. Once the person qualifies as in the case the Senator has just mentioned— five children and the figure of £2,000 to £2,100—that £50 applies not only to the fifth child but to the fourth, the third, the second and the first.

Mr. Flanagan

That is not as it appears in this Schedule.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is not something that can be put down, but that is the situation.

Mr. Flanagan

I am very glad to hear that correction, but I am still not quite satisfied. There is the difficulty of drawing a line and saying: "Up to this point you will qualify for some part of the scholarship and above that you will not qualify for any." The Minister has suggested in his opening speech that he sees some danger in this matter. He said: "The scheme will, of course, do away with the non-means test scholarships which were a feature of former schemes"—I do not like the "of course"—"It would not be practical to introduce non-means test arrangements into the proposed legislation as all elements of competition as between candidate and candidate have been done away with. However, I have had discussions with the university authorities with a view to increasing substantially the number of entrance scholarships on a means test basis."

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is right.

Mr. Flanagan

Will the scholarships which are to be allocated by the universities be entirely confined to students who are the sons and daughters of people who are above the means test level, or can a person getting a county council scholarship get a university scholarship?

Mr. B. Lenihan

First of all, there are no more county council scholarships. The student grants will be at a higher level in most cases than the university scholarships but not necessarily so. However, the university scholarships will apply to everyone, irrespective of means, as the 25 per cent in the existing county council scholarship scheme can apply. We propose to double the number of such scholarships. It is 40 at the moment, and we hope to raise it to 80 between the different universities.

Mr. Flanagan

These will be available to children of people who would otherwise be debarred by the means test?

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is the whole purpose.

Mr. Flanagan

The next question I want to ask the Minister, through the Chair, is whether these scholarships are available for one year or three.

Mr. B. Lenihan

For the full course.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

They are not. University entrance scholarships are for one year only.

Mr. Flanagan

That is what I thought.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Provided there is a certain standard.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

No. You may get a further one at a later examination, but they are not renewable.

Mr. B. Lenihan

On achieving a certain standard.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

No.

Mr. B. Lenihan

At the option of the university authorities.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

No. In each successive year there is a scholarship which can be competed for.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are seeking to make them tenable for the full course.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We would have to double their numbers and change their character.

Mr. Flanagan

I was very anxious to bring up that point. Drawing a line at a particular level might create a grave injustice. If these scholarships were available for a three-or four-year term——

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is the purpose of the negotiations.

Mr. Flanagan

That is the intention? Very good. I am glad to hear they are not prizes only, although I did hear earlier in the discussion that prizes will be available as an incentive to study for grants on a competitive basis as a result of each year's examinations.

In his introductory speech the Minister said:

The standard of attainment for grant purposes in the new scheme has been set at four honours in matriculation subjects at the leaving certificate examination. While some may hold that this standard is too high, I might remind Senators that it was reached by over 1,900 candidates at last year's leaving certificate examination. There is no reason that I can see why we should not put a premium on attainment, particularly where entrance to higher education is involved.

I think that is contradictory to the whole principle in the Bill. The Minister said:

There is no reason that I can see why we should not put a premium on attainment, particularly where entrance to higher education is involved.

Dealing with the means test he said:

I make no apology, therefore, in insisting that the money available be spent on those who will benefit most from it.

I fully agree that that is most desirable in connection with this whole scheme and, for that reason, I stress the desirability of screening at the early stages so that we will channel the right type of student towards the various professions, and otherwise cut them off as early as possible and not let them pursue courses they are not suited for.

There is another point I should like the Minister to clear up for me. Section 5 provides:

A corporation of a county borough or council of a county shall prepare and submit to the Minister annually before such date as may from time to time be prescribed by the Minister a scheme for carrying the provisions of this Act into effect in the functional area of the corporation or council.

The section goes on to provide that when a scheme is submitted the Minister may approve or modify it. What is that scheme? How can a county council prepare a scheme in a matter that is taken entirely out of their hands? The whole scheme is now a scheme prepared by the Minister and subject to his approval. The function of the county council really is to provide as much money annually in the future as they provided in the year ended 31st March, 1968.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I have a specimen here. This is implementing the provisions of the Bill which will be an Act very shortly, I hope.

Mr. Flanagan

The scheme is the Minister's scheme and not the county councils?

Mr. B. Lenihan

The county councils are agents, as it were, for me.

Mr. Flanagan

It is the Minister's scheme?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes, it is.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): They are the servicing agents.

Mr. O'Quigley

He is hiding behind the county councils.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill. I should like to start by saying something about the qualification of four honours which is demanded by the scheme before candidates for the university can benefit from it. It has been said already that the leaving certificate is not a very good test, but we have to recognise that the Minister is right there, and that although it may have defects, it is the best all round test we have at present.

We must recognise, too, that the Department of Education for some time past have been making marked efforts to improve the quality of the leaving certificate examination. I have had the privilege of serving on one minor sub-committee connected with that. I have been a little uneasy because I felt that there was perhaps a subconscious desire on the part of the Department of Education, while improving the quality of the examination, to make it easier, so that practically no one will fail. There is a kind of contradictory subconscious desire, as it were, "to bring exclusivity within the reach of the million. I do not believe you can both improve the quality of the examination and ensure that everyone will pass it, or pass it with honours. Senator Brosnahan has already made the point that our aspiring national teachers—they are required to have three honours—very often have four or five or even up to eight or nine honours in the leaving certificate, whereas in future four honours will be enough to get them at any rate within the limit of this university education grant.

I should like to ask the Minister, also, whether he is satisfied that a person getting four or more honours in the leaving certificate but not qualifying in Irish should be disqualified from getting a grant. I feel this is not equitable. I feel that the GCE method whereby credit is given for what the student has, and if he gets three or four A levels, he is given certificates for each, is a better one.

It is true that in recent years the Department of Education have been prepared to grant that Irish is a living language. Senators who have been here for some time will recall that on one occassion when I suggested that there might be an oral examination in Irish and other languages in the leaving and intermediate certificates, the then Minister for Education told me that this might be "the last straw" which would cause our entire educational system to break down. He did not actually refer to it as a camel but that seemed to be the implication.

We have now moved forward, and after some 40 or 50 years of managing our own affairs, Irish is being officially treated as if it might possibly be a living language. Nevertheless I feel that the use of it as an instrument of selection, shall we say, or even of discrimination, is unfortunate, and damaging to the language itself, and to the love of the language which is a natural thing in many people who are good at languages.

I would also draw attention to the fact that we are admitting in future to the university people who have four honours in the leaving certificate, or else who have two honours plus money. This financial bar still obtains. The Minister, with his scheme, is greatly improving things but we have to note with regret, I think, that our universities will, to a great extent, still remain class restricted. Our university intake has been middle-class dominated ever since the setting-up of our own State here and long before that. A good deal of the student resentment today springs from the realisation that they are a privileged class and that many people with similar or even better qualifications are kept out of the universities by the money bar.

Let us publicly admit that, even with this scheme, four honours are equal to two honours plus money. You can get yourself in on two honours if you have the money to pay. Moreover, the Minister's explanatory memorandum uses the phrase "full financial assistance will be given under this scheme". I do not think this is so. I think the grants are insufficient. I do not believe sufficient attention is paid to the need for maintenance of the students as well as for payment for books, digs, clothing, and so on, and also for some compensation at least to the family—particularly the less well-off family—for the loss of the potential earnings of the student who, instead of going into commerce or industry, goes for three or four years into the university.

I would draw the attention of the Minister to a booklet which he says he has not read. For his benefit, I should like to quote extracts from the booklet called "Fine Gael Policy for a Just Society—Free Education".

Mr. B. Lenihan

I have read it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It is obtainable at the price of 1/-.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Which edition is it?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Minister might even get a free copy if he is prepared to read it. I do not accept all of what is here.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Neither do I.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

However, I draw the attention of the Minister and of the Seanad to paragraph 154 on page 47 in which the following comes under the heading of "Local Maintenance Grants":

In many cases, the loss of a contribution to the household expenses from the potential earnings of their children may be a serious problem in some cases preventing brilliant children from going to a university.

I know enough about the Minister to know that he would consider that a valid point. He might be prepared to deny that it is exclusively a Fine Gael point but I believe——

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is a social fact.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Yes, it is a social fact. There are families which require a contribution to the household expenses from the potential earnings of these people who go into the university. This, I feel, is not sufficiently recognised in the sum of money made available to them under this grant scheme. In other words, the £300, which is the maximum, is not enough. It will not cover fees, books, digs, clothing plus potential earnings. Some people may think: "Well, you cannot really cover that". Nevertheless if you do not, you will prevent some good people and some brilliant people from going to the university because they will feel in duty bound to take a job at £5, £6 or £10 a week in order to contribute to the family. There may be illness, or younger children to be educated, helped and clothed. It may well be that, not only from the point of view of intellect but from the point of view of character, we may be losing in the universities some of the very best material by faling to recognise the necessity for compensation for potential earnings lost.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We shall have to get round to that some time.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Yes, And this year would be a good time— before the end of 1968, I would suggest. I notice that, living adjacent to a university town, the parent will get, in a certain category, a maximum of £175, but, if he lives far from a university centre, the grant will be £300. The difference between these two is supposed, presumably, to represent the living costs to the student—£125. I do not know how long a student is expected to live on £125.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

A short life and a merry one.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It may well be that the university terms, plus the period he has to work in the library outside of term, would amount to 40 or more weeks. Can we ask him or her to live on this £125? I stress the fact that the sum involved does not seem to me to be at all adequate.

Mr. O'Kennedy

There is vacation work.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

There is vacation work but, in that connection, I would bring two points to the attention of the Seanad. The first is that vacation work is very valuable in that it brings the student into the real world, and shows him something of the processes of manufacture, commerce, and so on. The second point is, however, that, if vacation work is engaged in too much, the student loses much of the benefit of the university education because he or she has not the leisure to do the thinking and reading which really should be done in the time that is called vacation. Therefore, while vacation work is valuable, it should certainly not be a long obligation on the student. I think Senator O'Kennedy would be the first to agree with me on that point. Vacation work is valuable but it should not be a long-term——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Particularly when they have an autumn examination to face.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Yes. I think this is obvious. While the student can earn a bit, it is not really fair to expect him or her to spend the whole of the vacation earning money.

It is proposed, furthermore, that we apply a means test to parents of prospective university students before we decide to give them a grant. I notice that parents with one child and over £1,700 a year will get nothing under this grants scheme. The conclusion I derive from that is that £1,800 a year is regarded as a pretty good living salary, and one which will enable the parents to put their children successively through the university. It is regarded as quite a good living. I propose to return to this sum, and the implication of this view, when I rise to consider proposed increases in salaries of Oireachtas Members. It might well be, I think, that a means test along these lines would be accepted in the not dissimilar circumstances there. I reserve going into that in detail for a later occasion. I just note that we hereby approve of this Bill's saying that £1,800 a year is plenty for anybody even if he has ten children.

There is another point on which the Minister might be prepared to give some explanation. It concerns these tables which he has set out very fully, giving the varying amounts that would be given at various income levels and with various numbers of dependent children from one to ten. Ten children is the maximum number of children that the Department of Education are prepared to contemplate in any Irish family.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It follows——

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I would ask the Minister to tell us the implications of this. Is he subtly engaging in propaganda for family planning, or does he propose to pay pro rata for families of 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 children?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Pro rata. I would not consider myself competent in the other field.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Good. The Minister commits himself to payment pro rata for more than ten children. This will be a relief, I think, to some of the families in the State and also a relief, I think, to some of our theological experts.

Another point has been made— perhaps. ad nauseam—that the Minister, while he might like to help present students who qualified with four honours in the leaving certificate in the past, or perhaps with more than four honours, cannot afford to do so I should like to add my voice to the voices of those who appealed to him to reconsider this. This situation is really very hard luck. Students who did as well as this or better, more brilliantly perhaps, who have been one year in the university or two or three, get nothing, by reason of the fact that this has been introduced too late for them. I cannot believe that the number so involved in the universities at present would be very great, particularly as this means test is applied. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision not to apply these grants to students at present in the university. We do not ask that he pay the grants retrospectively but simply that he recognise the qualifications retrospectively, so that for the coming years those still in the university would qualify equally on this past record.

Mr. B. Lenihan

As a good socialist Senator, what about the person who, due to economic circumstances, could not even start in the university?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Even if he is no longer prepared to enter, he still should have the right to do so. A person who did not go into the university but had the four honours and is now working in business or in industry, if he were now to say: "I qualified in the past," I think the Minister would be right to consider his case. It should be considered.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Where then do you end in the Bill?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I do not think that the numbers would be enormous. People who now are in jobs and earning salaries would be hesitant to drop their jobs and go in. First year and second year students are now sitting for the leaving certificate examination——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Hundreds of them.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

——for the purpose of qualifying.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

140 of them in one examination were missing from the hall.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This is an astonishing fact. It is rather hard on those who did not think of this idea, and it puts the onus on the Minister to reconsider the question of students at present in the universities who already have the necessary qualifications.

I agree with those Senators who feel that there should be some obligation on the person who obtains such a grant to show that he or she has maintained the standards. We have a system in Trinity College which is quite good. It applies to the holders of entrance scholarships and matriculation awards. They sit for an examination in the middle of their second year and if they do very well, they get a new type of scholarship which is even more valuable but if they fail to get that but nevertheless get more than 50 per cent in this competitive examination, they are allowed to continue to draw their initial grant. Something of that kind might be considered in relation to the present scheme. In other words, it is reasonable to demand of these people who derive benefit from the grants that their high performance shall be continued and maintained at a reasonable level.

Reference was made to students' grievances, and Senator Flanagan referred to overcrowding in UCG. All universities are suffering from overcrowding and in the corridors of many universities, there are students working all the time. I have seen this with my own eyes in certains corridors, where you have tables all along the corridors and students having to put up with what are really very unsatisfactory working conditions, putting up with them without undue grumbling. When students do grumble and make their grievances known, we should recognise that very often this comes after long years of such overcrowding. Consequently, I agree with those Senators, and with the Minister who has expressed himself in the same vein, who welcome the notion of a degree of student participation and student consultation at the university level. I believe the opportunity for discussion with students in committee would encourage not only the spread of knowledge of student problems but also spread a knowledge of the problems of responsibility and self-discipline. The exercise of power is one of the best ways for training students and others for responsible behaviour and self-discipline based upon an understanding of what the real problems are.

Senator Ó Donnabháin referred to Senator Stanford's intervention during the visit to Trinity College of the King and Queen of the Belgians. Unfortunately I was not in the college that morning, but when I heard about Senator Stanford's intervention between the police and the students, I thought he acted splendidly. I thought he acted very well indeed. He showed great courage in stepping in to the fray and asking to see what was on the banner that had been grabbed from the students by the police.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Say "the Guards".

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am using the word the Senator himself used and now he asks me not to use it. I know that Senator Ó Donnabháin is extremely sensitive to interruptions himself and I feel that he might allow me to use the word he used.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I used the word "Garda".

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Senator referred to "police brutality". I am using the word "police" now, without his permission if need be. Senator Stanford intervened between the police and the students and succeeded in maintaining order and peace, which was a very good thing to do. The question of what Senator Ó Donnabháin has called "an insult" was contained apparently in the poster which said that Lumumba had been killed by Belgian imperialism. I do not know by whom Seantor Ó Donnabháin thinks Lumumba was killed, or whether he is interested in the activities of Irish soldiers in Katanga, or whether he thinks that Roger Casement's account of how the Belgians established their power in the Congo is of total unconcern to the Irish people, but I cannot help feeling that peaceful protest demonstrations such as occur sometimes in New York by Irish republicans against Irish politicians, are legitimate.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Can the Senator prove that the Belgians killed Lumumba?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I can quote To Katanga and Back by Conor Cruise O'Brien who was a little more closely in touch with the Congo, and who put it on record and actually names a person who was a protégé of the Union Miniére.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair thinks that African studies should only come into this debate as an examination subject.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am sure that the Chair will allow me to answer the question——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

A disorderly question is not necessarily entitled to a disorderly answer.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like in that case to hear the Chair's rebuke to the disorderly Leader of the House.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator referred to a poster exhibited by communists which said that the Belgians killed Lumumba and I have asked the Senator does he justify its exhibition and the intervention of Senator Stanford when he cannot prove that the Belgians killed Lumumba?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This debate is not the occasion for his doing so.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Roger Casement is dead and gone, but his memory and what he stood for and the tyranny he exposed are not gone.

Mr. Yeats

That was quite a long time before Lumumba.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am afraid that the royal person in question, a nice young man, personally, referred to his grandfather King Leopold, who was the person involved at the time of Casement, and referred to him with honour in this city. The picture of the Irish as entirely dumb and docile when it comes to international politics is, I believe, a false picture, and I do not think we should pretend to be more supine than we are.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I would not accuse Senator Ó Maoláin of being dumb or docile, but supine certainly; in so far as his figure allows him to be supine.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Yeats

It was childish playacting.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Childish play-acting I leave to the competence of Senator Yeats.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to say that, arising out of the student demonstration, one of the things that followed in Trinity College was a succession of open-air meetings by students in the front square. These sometimes went on for longer even than the Seanad goes on, and they gave rise, to my certain knowledge, to some speeches even longer than the speeches which sometimes occur in the Seanad, and all were punctuated by at least as many interruptions as occur in the Seanad. That being so, one of the things that struck me, and about which I feel a certain pride, was that these meetings went on in a totally nonviolent way, with no disorder and not a single pane of glass being broken. I think that is impressive. I think it is something worth nothing and something worth mentioning, when there is all this talk about student demonstrations and student irresponsibility. Some people, like Senator Ó Maoláin, are terrified of what they call extremism. Senator Ó Maoláin, of course, has a memory of the days when he was branded as an "irregular" and an extremist, and against law and order in this country.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I read in the account of the Dáil the other day that one member of the Government, of the same Party as the Senator, referred to the opposite side of the House as a "murder gang".

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What happened Enoch Powell?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I wonder is Enoch Powell relevant here? I clearly made known my attitude on the right of Enoch Powell to be heard here, and in Trinity College, and I fail to see the relevancy of the Senator's interruptions.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senators who feel Senator Sheehy Skeffington is being somewhat irrelevant should refrain from pushing him towards further irrelevancy by asking him questions.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I quite understand that what I say gets under the skin, however thick——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It does not.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

——and naturally provokes some reaction. I find this flattering. What I was going to say was that people who are afraid of the extreme, and who want all students to be docile, fail to recognise with William Blake that you cannot really know what the middle of the road is until you have been on both sides. Some people think of themselves as walking in the middle of the road when, in point of fact, they have been walking in the gutters all their lives, and on one side of the road only, and very often on the right instead of on the left.

Open discussion between students is part of the function of a university. We have been told here that students should be allowed and should be encouraged to think for themselves. I am all for this. I recognise that open and free discussion of an orderly, self-disciplined kind is an integral part of any university worthy of the name. I should like to make the point also that residence at university is a useful part of that. It is something that is being developed. I would make the point also that we find in Trinity College that the fact of dining in Hall, on Commons, as we call it, is very useful.

Students who live in must dine there every evening. They find themselves assembled in a more or less different order every evening. That means that every student on successive evenings is thrown in with a number of other students whom he may not know, who are doing different subjects, speak with different accents, have different views on politics and religion. There is what can be described as a "churning up" of minds and ideas over that meal, evening after evening, and that constitutes a highly valuable and very necessary part of any university education. I welcome, therefore, the view of universities today, here and elsewhere, that the residential part of a university is a very necessary part of it. I express one regret in relation to my own college and that is that, so far, women students are excluded from this evening meal, but my hope is that we will have the sense soon to alter that and follow the more liberal traditions of the National University of Ireland in that respect.

I support the appeal voiced by many Senators asking the Minister to help us to make provision for the newcomers who may arrive in the university as a result of these increased grants. I remember speaking to a former student, who was a lecturer in French at the University of Southampton, which used to be part of the University of London, but is now an independent university; he told me the staff/student ratio was one to eight in the French department is Southampton. A staff/student ratio of one to 12 is considered quite good. In many subjects in Trinity College there is a ratio of one to 19, or so. In the French department, I know to my cost that the ratio is one to 40. In those circumstances, tutorial teaching, because of the time demand it makes, is extremely difficult to spread equitably. I think, however, that the Minister is fully aware of the fact that provision must be made not only for the candidates to university entrance but also for the universities themselves, so that, when they get into the university, they will not meet the kind of conditions condemned by many Senators who spoke earlier.

I conclude by saying, not grudgingly, but, I think, truthfully, that this measure represents half a loaf. It is very far from being fully satisfactory from the point of view of the necessity to break down the class structure of our university entry and, in particular, by its failure to recognise the necessity to make up for the loss to the family of potential earnings by university candidates, but I should like to say that I am very strongly of the opinion that half a loaf is markedly better than no bread, and that consequently the Minister and his Department are moving in the right direction with this Bill.

Mr. Nash

I was rather mystified originally by the title of this Bill— Local Authorities (Higher Education) Grants Bill. When I read the Bill I found that local authorities had really very little at all to do with it, except that they were bound each year to prepare a scheme and to submit this scheme for approval. I found further that, in the preparation of the scheme, they were allowed very little authority and very little discretion because the Department decided the institutions that would benefit, the standards accepted, the means test, the age limit and such other requirements as the Department would think fit. I conclude from this, therefore, that the real purpose of bringing the local authorities into the Bill at all is pragmatic. It is probably felt that it would be unfair to the Exchequer, perhaps unreasonable, to put the entire cost on it and that the contributions which were made heretofore by local authorities should continue to be made, and the only effective way of collecting them is to bring the local authorities in as agents for the Central Government.

There is, however, something local authorities could add to the effective operation of this Bill. They can put the stress or the accent on the type of finished product which is most required and best suited to their particular needs. In one area it may be technology; in another area it may be social science: in another area it may be agriculture. I feel it could be an advantage if they were left a certain amount of leeway in the preparation of the various schemes. Whether that will be possible I do not know.

I join with those who welcome the core and fundamental principle of the Bill, which is that no boy or no girl who is suitable university material shall be excluded from the possibility of higher education in a university or any other institution of higher education such as schools of technology merely because his or her parents have no means, merely because they belong to a certain stratum of society where the funds are not available for education of this nature. I do feel, however, that if the Bill is to be of maximum advantage, the application of it is going to be of the greatest importance. The Bill itself is an enabling statute. It gives the Minister and his successors from time to time the opportunity of altering principles, altering standards, as time and circumstances may require.

I have heard in the course of this debate various further demands on the Minister—that he should give grants to students already in the universities, that he should give grants to students who did the leaving certificate some years ago and went to no university. It has not been suggested to him, but possibly it could with equal logic that he should give grants to students who are finishing their degrees this year and whose parents have possibly incurred liabilities to keep them in the university.

The demand for higher education in this country is one of various priorities and we must keep our priorities in proper perspective. There is nothing free, whether it be the half loaf of which Senator Sheehy Skeffington spoke or the entire loaf. Ultimately it must be paid for by the community and the persons in the community who pay for it are very frequently not these whose children will benefit by it. The old age pensioner who buys an ounce of tobacco, the father of a labouring family who has his couple of pints on Saturday night, the labourer in the factory who has his PAYE stopped—these among others will contribute to this scheme. It will not necessarily be paid for by the surtax payments. It will not necessarily or completely be paid for by the wealthy in this country. It will be paid for by one and all of the community. It is therefore most important that the community get the maximum value for the money.

If we look at higher education from the point of view of cold economics, undoubtedly there are returns to the community at large, but those returns do not necessarily compare favourably with the returns which the community gets from investment in other matters, whether it be in primary education, secondary education, industry, agriculture or otherwise. The United States of America is probably the country where one has most university graduates per 1,000 of the population. I feel I can say without fear of contradiction that if one were to select the 40 best universities in the world and not excluding the Soviet Union, one would probably find among them at least 25 in the United States. Yet Gary Becker in his book entitled Human Capital has calculated that the return to the community on its investment in higher education in the United States is from 8 to 12 per cent, a figure which does not compare particularly favourably with the return on the community's investment in industry and in other matters. I referred to the September, 1965, publication of The Manchester School. In Britain higher education is relatively more expensive than in America and in an article in that issue by Mark Blaugh and Henderson-Stewart I find that their calculation of the return for investment in higher education in England by the community is six per cent to eight per cent.

Therefore, when a community considers what it should do with its surplus capital and what sacrifices its people should be called upon to make, it might be well to remember these facts. They are the cold data of economics. To me, as a university graduate, they are not very palatable but I must accept them. Fortunately, however, education in the life of a community means something more than hard economics; it means an opportunity to enrich the entire life of the society. For that reason, and particularly for that reason, it is important that society should make sacrifices within reasonable limits to improve its standards of higher education, and above all, to ensure that those who will benefit by its higher education are those who are the best university material, irrespective of their social background, irrespective of their financial circumstances.

If this scheme is to be a success, therefore, the first and most important prospect of its being a success is that those who will enter our universities in the future should be the best university material. The standard set at the moment is four honours is our leaving certificate examination. The standard of pass in our leaving certificate examination is such that one would either have to be suffering from pathological laziness or arrested mental development to fail. Four honours, therefore, is not a particularly high standard if the number of places in our universities is limited. Our universities should be such that students do not have to sit in the corridors, that they should have adequate accommodation for lectures and study and if space be limited, it should be made available on priority to those who are best suited, irrespective of their financial circumstances.

I agree that examinations are not perhaps the only test there should be for the selection of university material. I say, however, that they are probably the only practical test which the Minister can take but I feel that unless the standard of our leaving certificate is improved, unless it betokens, as it does not, that a certain level of education, has been reached, then four honours in our leaving certificate examination, while they might be adequate to entering a school of technology, would not be adequate to produce the type of student who should be the real university student, the student who is imbued with a love of study, the student who has an enthusiasm in the search for truth, the student who has the capacity to appreciate, listen to and tolerate arguments, which are totally divorced from his views, who has the humility to realise when he gets his primary degree, that now he has merely reached the standard when he can study on his own. There are, unfortunately, due to economic circumstances, far too few of those.

Most parents who make a sacrifice to send their child to university do so in the fond hope that once the child gets a primary degree it is a hallmark that guarantees him a living for the rest of his days. In my view students of that nature are not proper material for a university. They are proper and suitable material for schools or institutions of higher education in technology or in other subjects. I feel, having regard to all the circumstances, having regard to all the difficulties which the students of Ireland have to tolerate in our universities, that they are really most credit-worthy. That perhaps is due to the fact that they understand and appreciate the sacrifices being made for them by their parents or perhaps by older brothers or sisters who are earning. I feel, though, that if everything is made too easy you will have a continuous drop in our general standard of higher education. Nobody appreciates anything he gets too soft. I was rather surprised when in answer to a question I heard the Minister for Education say that a student who, irrespective of means, will get an entrance scholarship to a university will continue to hold it for the rest of his university career. That implies——

Mr. B. Lenihan

Provided he gets his examination.

Mr. Nash

It implies that the student is well above average, that he has worked hard, that he has applied himself, that he has disciplined himself before he entered the University. After that he can rest on his oars. The university student if he passes his examination should be a person of average intelligence who does an average and normal amount of work or a person above average intelligence who does less than an average amount of work or a person below average intelligence who does more than an average amount of work. Professional examinations and university examinations are not set for geniuses. They are set for ordinary people from ordinary backgrounds with ordinary intelligence.

I feel it would be far more encouraging to students if on the result of each year's examination, and irrespective of financial circumstances scholarship and study are rewarded. A university student could feel that because he was in a weak secondary school he did not get a chance coming up to University but now he is 12 months there he can go into competition with others who have had the same training. I feel such a student at the end of his first year, his second year or his third year should for his next ensuing year be entitled to something for a high standard of scholarship. He may possibly not need the money but he should be entitled to it as evidence of his ability or as a reward to him for his efforts.

I feel that a further thing which will be necessary, if this scheme is to be a success, is not only that the portals of our universities should be thrown open to one and all but that there should be room, capacity and proper space in our universities to receive those students. The whole effort, without that, will be wasted. If our universities be too small for that purpose I might suggest that the general standard of entrance examinations be raised, not only the standard for those whose parents who could not really afford to pay but who made sacrifices for them, but also the standard of those who are to be assisted. I feel if that be done it would be much, much better to have a certain even though more limited number of graduates than to have a surplus of whom perhaps 50 per cent will emigrate, and disappointed undergraduates of whom a large percentage will drop out in the course of their studies and many of whom will feel frustrated and disappointed because there is no room in their own country for them. I welcome the measure and I hope it will be the success which we all wish it. I congratulate the Minister for introducing it.

Mr. O'Quigley

This is a rather unusual debate we are having here and it has perhaps carried on for a good deal longer than had been anticipated. It is significant I think in relation to debates dealing with education, whether it is corporal punishment, "Investment in Education" or the Report of the Commission on Higher Education, that the Seanad spreads itself, so to speak, on the subject and displays a very considerable interest in it. It is a very good thing that we should spend so much time on this and that we will spend more time next week, please God. I do not want to dishearten the Minister. We will conclude no doubt this evening, sometime early.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It depends on you.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is significant, I think, and I would hope that the critics of politicians will bear this in mind, that in relation to this particular Bill there is virtual unanimity on all sides of the House. We are not giving something to ourselves in this Bill. We are providing grants for the poorer sections of the community and we are unanimous about it. It is interesting on this occassion that the criticism of the Bill and the welcome for the Bill are shared almost equally by both sides of the House. It is new and refreshing to find members of the Government Party making their contribution to a Bill of this kind. I think it will fortify the Minister in approaching the Government on future occasions to have such a wide spread of opinion not only from where he always gets that valued and informed opinion, this side of the House, but from his own side as well.

Having said that, I must digress to make good an omission by Senator Garret FitzGerald last night. I ought to assure the House that I do not intend to dwell on this subject longer than is necessary. We have been talking about the pursuit of truth. I want to pursue a lie and trap it. I want to pursue a lie that has been spread abroad by Fianna Fáil that in their policy for a just society in the 1965 general election, the Fine Gael Party had nothing to say about education. That is an absolute Fianna Fáil lie. I have here a document. I want to read it, and if necessary, to lay it before the House for all to inspect and for future generations to read. This is a policy document headed "Fine Gael Policy 1965"— `‘Towards a Just Society'. On pages 22 and 23 we deal with the subject of education.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Only two pages?

Mr. O'Quigley

This is a summary intended for the electorate.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

At the time of the 1965 general election, that could not be got.

Mr. O'Quigley

There are none so blind as those who will not see. During that time you said there was nothing said about education.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

A stencilled copy only was available.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not want to argue the point with Senator Ó Maoláin. I should like to say that all that is contained in this Bill and all about this primary education last September was published not only in our policy in 1965 but also in our policy in 1961.

I want to read out what we have to say about university education. We said:

Fine Gael will introduce a system to enable every child capable of benefiting from further education to proceed from the National School right through to the University, irrespective of the financial circumstances of the child's parents. Scholarships will be specially provided for proficiency in Irish as part of the programme of inducement to revive Irish.

That should effectively dispose of the chat Senator McGlinchey was getting on with.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It says "right through to the University". It does not say "through the University".

Mr. O'Quigley

There is no doubt that is what is meant.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We are asked to interpret that.

Mr. Yeats

There is nothing there except the expression of a vague hope.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Has Senator Garret FitzGerald agreed with the expression regarding Irish? That is not what he said last night.

Mr. O'Quigley

It was indeed. That still remains our policy. It was the same thing in our policy document for the election in 1961 — exactly the same effect. Let there be no doubt about it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is a brief statement one way or the other.

Mr. O'Quigley

You will not find any reference in any policy document of Fianna Fáil for 1961 or 1965.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You will find it in 1926.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not want to delay the House too long on this policy of Fianna Fáil.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You will find it away back in 1926 when the Party was founded

Mr. O'Quigley

You have forgotten a lot of things since 1926.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Quigley, on the Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

I want to say on this document, after Deputy Lindsay's exhortations on television to the Minister to equip himself with a copy of this document, that it is the product of months of discussion and research, and was not a document trumped up for the Waterford by-election of 1966. If you want to say that it was trumped up in three weeks, I am prepared to accept the compliment of saying that we are absolutely brilliant in being able to prepare a document like that in three weeks in the kind of stuff we produce.

Mr. B. Lenihan

You produce stuff all right: it is no trouble to you.

Mr. O'Quigley

We will do the same thing in relation to schemes for production——

Mr. B. Lenihan

What about doing something about it?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Do not go back to that again.

Mr. O'Quigley

——and in relation to the Industrial Grants Act 1956, and so on. Before the Chair calls me to order, I must return to the Bill. This Bill has received, and will receive, the support of all of those in the House. Senator Sheehy Skeffington described it as half a loaf. I would prefer to describe it as a halfbaked small loaf——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It will only be a bun before you are finished.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is a Fine Gael idea, like many of the ideas that Fianna Fáil have taken over from us. It is being treated as a stepchild which by no means has matured in the Fianna Fáil room. The delivery was haphazard and the child was injured somewhat in the delivery. I want to indicate in what respect I think the scheme is defective. Mind you, I do not think for a moment that the poor in this country can afford to pay for university education and I regret that the Minister, instead of tearing down the old structure and building a completely new scheme, has built this kind of two-storey house on to a broken down cottage because that is what this scheme represents. Instead of having a brand new scheme coming from what should be the age of ideals and progress, we have a rickety scheme devised mainly for the purpose of saving money of the order of £260,000 per annum.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We have something for our boys and girls this year.

Mr. O'Quigley

The scheme we have been operating for university scholarships up to now was, first of all, an inadequate scheme to prevent people like me in my time from availing of scholarships. I at one time had three university scholarships and had to throw them away because I could not afford to go to a university, and my surviving parent could not afford to send me. When we are talking about a family of ten, that has a very real ring for me as one of such a family. I could not go to the university and pursue the course of my choice. I got a job in the Civil Service. I am not moaning, but I am saying I do not consider this type of scheme of scholarships for university students or for the poor to enable them to go to the university was, up to now, any credit to us and we should have scrapped it when we were introducing this Bill.

That scheme, mind you, that has operated in this State since 1922 is the scheme that was provided by the British Government in 1908 in the Irish University Act and it has remained substantially the same since 1908, with the exception of Acts in 1941 and 1961. When it comes to this type of scheme, in modern times we are not able to get away from the 1908 Act. This Bill turns up like the bad shilling it then was and subsection (1) of section 2 of the Bill adds little to the 1908 scheme.

This is the rickety scheme produced by the British imperialists in 1908. It was merely permissive, to enable the local authority, which was the only form of self-government we had in this country in those days, to provide out of the pennies of the poor a few pounds in the way of university scholarships. That was recommended again in the 1940s and in 1961 to produce the scheme we have had up to the present time. I want to say straight away that I object, and will continue to object, to the present system of rating whereby a widow, or an old age pensioner living in a house of reteable valuation of £3 or £4, continues to have to pay money through rates for the provision of university scholarships. That is what we are doing. The same applies to health services — the same people, so poor that they are not able to afford to pay rates as a system of taxation, have to pay. Rates as a system of taxation ought to be got rid of.

It does not console me to say that a widow, a blind person, an old age pensioner or the father of a family of seven, eight, nine or ten, living in a small house or a big house, has to pay out a proportion of his rates to contribute to university scholarships for the better-off sections of the community because when it comes to the crunch, it is not the old age pensioner's child, or the widow's child, or the child of a working-class father who has seven, eight or nine children, who will be availing of these university scholarships but the better off children of the middle classes. Therefore I object vigorously to freezing the rate at its present level, making people who cannot afford it pay rates to contribute to university scholarships. Because that is a most unavoidable form of taxation, there is no countering it. We ought to scrap that system of rates and opportunity should have been taken in this Bill to lift that burden from the poorer sections of the community.

The Minister said of this scheme, which is an interim effort, that a great deal of effort had been put into the educational sphere in recent years. Of course there has been because there never was a field of State activity in this country where more needed to be done and in which there was more neglect than in the field of education. Therefore, it is not right to say, and it is an extravagance of language to describe the Bill as providing equal opportunities for those who come within its scope. It certainly does not provide equal opportunities for all.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I said in the Dáil that it was a first step. I did not make any other pretensions about it.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am glad the Minister is frank. It is very well in line with his character so to admit. When we hear Deputy Dolan, we are led to think we have a Bill which is the be-all and end-all, the last word in administrative effort. It is not, and the sooner it is realised the better. Having said that and having had the frank admission from the Minister that new endeavours will be directed to providing equal opportunities for the very poorest in our community, I will not repeat what has been said about the families who cannot afford to allow their children to go to universities. I endorse all that and I hope the Minister, during the length of time he will be in charge of the Department, which in the natural course of political life will not be very much longer, will be able to produce legislation which will bring real equality of opportunity to the poorer sections of the community.

The Bill has been criticised, I think, rightly, on the grounds of the standard which will be imposed. I do not know how the standard of four honours subjects in the leaving certificate was arrived at. Of course it is a particular standard and it cuts out a whole lot of people. Obviously it is aimed to limit the university intake from the increasing number of students in secondary schools in the years to come. Of course there must be some limit imposed and I can well see the Minister for Education deciding that, the university authorities deciding on it, and I can see the Minister consulting with the different teaching bodies and arriving at a standard, but I think — the Minister can correct me if I am wrong — that there has been no real and effective consultation with either the university authorities or the teaching bodies on the fixing of the standard entitling children to get grants to the universities. I imagine the four subjects were thought up in the Department because I cannot see any university authority studying the matter——

Mr. B. Lenihan

Trinity College will have three honours subjects for fee-paying students next year.

Mr. O'Quigley

I will come to that in a minute. What kills me about a Bill of this kind is that the standard is to be decided by the Minister for Education, with the consent of the Minister for Finance. What does the Minister for Finance know about standards of education, as Minister for Finance?

Mr. B. Lenihan

He has to provide the money as we increase the intake.

Mr. O'Quigley

This is it.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is it. There is nothing unique about it.

Mr. O'Quigley

Is there any reason why the Minister for Education, being entirely responsible and knowing that the Government cannot provide limitless amounts of money, cannot fix the standard? This is the usual thing we find. It is the kind of control which during the years the Department of Finance have exercised over the Department of Education and it is one of the reasons for the bad relations between the Department of Education and the teaching staffs.

Mr. B. Lenihan

They have nearly trebled the amount of money to us in the past few years. There are excellent relations with them now.

Mr. O'Quigley

That may be so, but the amount of money that has been trebled and the increases have all come about because of the increase in teachers' remuneration. The Department of Finance, as I say, has no competence whatever in this field.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It has an obvious interest.

Mr. O'Quigley

It has, of course, an obvious interest and I regard the Minister for Education as a person who at any time will present his Estimate at the appropriate time to the Department of Finance, knowing very well that there are limits to which the Minister for Finance can go in providing money, but he is the person who will decide and who ought to decide, not in consultation with the Minister for Finance, but in consultation with the university authorities and with the secondary and vocational schools and their representatives.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The effect of relaxing the standard is to increase the bill and that brings the Minister for Finance into it. It is like one and one are two.

Mr. O'Quigley

I know that. I am not at all satisfied that the standard of four honours is, in fact, a proper instrument by which to determine what pupils will get into a university. It is a very ready measure to take but we all know that the attainment of honours in four subjects in the leaving certificate or in the intermediate certificate is achieved in a great many cases and in far too many cases by the mere process of memorisation and cramming. Anybody who refuses to face that fact is just ignoring the facts of education in this country at the present time. One comes across students who can learn history, geography and enough English and, perhaps, enough Irish and any other subject they like to take and just through sheer memory can get honours in the leaving certificate and everybody says: "Is it not wonderful? They got honours in the leaving certificate". To say that such students are in any way educated or that the attainment of these honours is any test of their suitability for exposure to university education is quite absurd.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are getting away from a lot of that.

Mr. O'Quigley

I hope that the Minister, in consultation with the university authorities and with the secondary and vocational schools, will get down as a matter of urgency to determine the best means of deciding who is suitable, and who is not, for university education and I think that will have to be coupled with some form of guidance in vocations.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are doing that, too, starting this summer.

Mr. O'Quigley

This is the system. I think it is right that we should call a halt at a very early stage to the idea and notion that a mere four honours in the leaving certificate will be sufficient and that that is the Open Sesame to university education.

I see from what the Minister says that these grants will be available, not only in universities, but also in other approved institutions of higher education. I recently attended in Trinity College an exhibition of paintings by a young lad who went to the College of Art here. I take it that that would be one of the institutions of higher learning. I am quite satisfied that the lad did not pass the leaving certificate in the national school. At the same time, he has got scholarships which brought him to Spain and he has come back with an exhibition and is able to hold an exhibition which, according to some of the reviews, is a most satisfying exhibition. Unfortunately it is over. That boy would not have passed, I am sure, the intermediate certificate in any circumstances because he was not that way built. I said in the debate we had on the Report of the Commission on Higher Education that there are a variety of children who for one reason or another will not do well in examinations but who may have a bent for a particular specialisation. A child who is good at mathematics may never be good at English. Some people will never pass Irish. It is quite wrong to say that they should be stultified and that the nation should be denied the talents which, through a proper system of selection, would find an outlet in the university and ultimately would be of benefit to the State. The artist I have referred to, if subjected to the test of four honours, would never have been mapped and would never have got into the National College of Art but for those who sponsored him and who recognised his talent and had the wisdom to give him his head. Eventually, he got a travelling scholarship which took him abroad.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It happens occasionally.

Mr. O'Quigley

Not infrequently.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Even to Winston Churchill.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister may be dealing with that and I hope the non-means test scholarship which, of course, will be available, I take it, for all income levels, is a way of dealing with that. I hope that the number of these scholarships will be fairly generous. It is not a great problem. The numbers will not always be very great. At the same time, it is desirable that there should be that kind of outlet for this kind of people.

Again, when we are dealing with standards, I am not satisfied, having regard to the present physical condition of universities, that it is right and proper that people who simply have money should be taking up places or limiting the accommodation available for those who can profit by university education. I think, again, that is a question of the imposition of standards at the entry stage and later on. There are some people who just go to various institutes of higher learning and take up certain professions and go to the university merely for the sake of being qualified and being known as Dr. So-and-So rather than spend their time in industry. In modern times, having regard to the pressure on accommodation in universities, we cannot afford to allow people to indulge themselves in that way. Consequently, unless these people reach a high standard of qualification and show a high standard of suitability for university education, this kind of waste should not be permitted.

The success of this kind of scheme will, of course, depend not entirely upon the provision of money but on what is done inside the universities when the students get there. At the present time, of course, it is quite a revelation to see the crowded conditions in University College, Dublin whenever one goes there, but there are some things which the Minister should request the university authorities to attend to. I understand that there is tremendous pressure on accommodation in the libraries. That in turn arises from the absence of suitable textbooks and it in turn arises in many cases from the high cost of suitable textbooks.

One hears complaints from students that they cannot get textbooks, that they cannot get into the library and then we have the ludicrous situation, as if everything in the garden were rosy and there were lots of accommodation, that the university libraries close down for Saturday afternoons and for various hours during the daytime and, I understand, for some months during the summer, and a facility that should be available to those doing post-graduate courses and autumn examinations is denied them, simply because the university authorities will not employ enough people to do whatever is necessary in the line of superintendence, and so on, during these periods. That is something the university authorities should deal with and deal with quickly.

I want to reiterate what Senator FitzGerald said last night. It is going to be a great mistake, and the Minister will never break away from the policy I am sure he does not like any more than the former Minister for Education liked — this policy of requiring people to pass in Irish in order to get the leaving certificate. There is an opportunity in this Bill the Minister should grasp with both hands and get rid of this irritant which is doing no good whatever to the Irish language.

Mr. B. Lenihan

If a person gets four honours in four different subjects and cannot get a pass in Irish, then surely it is a poor day?

Mr. O'Quigley

That may be so. A lot of the people get the pass because they know they have to get it in order to get the leaving certificate. But all the time you are breeding in them and bottling up within them resentment and dislike of the Irish language.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Nonsense.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is not nonsense. I know it myself. I know the resentment I felt when I was in secondary school——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The number who fail to get it because of that is extremely small.

Mr. O'Quigley

As I said on the debate we had on our motion to set up a commission of inquiry into the Irish language, I objected to and resented with all my feeling——

Mr. B. Lenihan

The failure rate is slightly over one per cent.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am talking about the resentment that develops because of compulsion. This is what the Fianna Fáil Party will not face up to. I objected to and I resented having to do history through the medium of Irish——

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is a separate matter.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am talking about what I was compelled to do. I am relating my experience as a person who had great facility for the Irish language, who at one time got second place in Ireland for Irish composition in the leaving certificate.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Then surely history through Irish would have been easy for you?

Mr. O'Quigley

I have not been allowed to finish. I resented having to do European history through the medium of Irish when I was presented with a book in English and told: "You do your history through the medium of Irish whether you like it or not". The same thing applied to geography and Latin.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is. I am talking about the resentment built up simply because people, even though they are able to do Irish — I got high honours in it and was always in the 80s or 90s — are compelled to do something in relation to the Irish language. When I was at school I objected to Irish because I was compelled to do something I did not like to do, even though I passed and got honours. The same thing is happening, but you cannot see it. Of course, only a small percentage fail in Irish in the leaving certificate. But there are others who do it and hate the sight and sound of it.

An Cathaoirleach

Will the Senator now get back to the matter of the Bill?

Mr. O'Quigley

Consequently, it is a great mistake that an opportunity has been lost in this Bill of dropping Irish as a compulsory subject for the purpose of considering the standards the Minister is entitled under the Bill to impose.

Mr. B. Lenihan

All I am seeking to do is to put down the requirement of four honours, outside Irish altogether, for entry to higher education. The question of the leaving certificate is a separate matter altogether. It has been there for a number of years and Irish is an essential subject in it. It is not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

Of course, it is relevant to the Bill. They must pass the leaving certificate and that involves passing Irish. You can stick to your guns. As the then Taoiseach said in 1961: "We shall not lower our sights". If you are not lowering your sights, you are lowering good-will in this country for the language, and what annoys me is that you cannot see it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Six by-elections out of seven does not justify what you are saying.

Mr. O'Quigley

Senator Ó Maoláin is delightful company.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am in excellent humour after your lecture.

Mr. O'Quigley

I want to join with those who regret that this Bill will not apply in a way whereby those qualified as national teachers will be enabled to go to a university. I have always felt that the national teachers were regarded as the poor relations in the teaching service. If you take a period over 50 years back, the odd thing about it is there has always been a higher degree, per 1,000 or per 100 teachers, of professional qualifications amongst the national teachers than there was amongst the secondary teachers and vocational teachers. That probably is still so to-day. The vast majority of them were trained. There were people teaching mathematics in secondary schools who had done theology or perhaps studied philosophy when they were doing their BA before they were ordained as priests. Some of them were teaching subjects they knew nothing about beyond what any lay person knew. They were regarded as qualified teachers. In many cases in order to get higher grants, they got the higher diploma in education but they never had the expertise the national teachers had.

Some people might say the national teachers have served the country well and there is no need for them to go to a university. I would not accept that. It is high time those in the national schools had the same distinction as teachers as the other teachers. I am delighted to see that at long last they are going to get the same basic salary as the other two branches of the teaching profession.

An Cathaoirleach

That matter does not arise in the Bill. The Senator ought to concentrate on the matter of the Bill. Teachers' salaries do not arise.

Mr. O'Quigley

I would make it relevant in this way. The fact that they are getting these salaries indicates their position in the teaching service. If that is their position in the teaching service, then equally with the secondary and vocational teachers, they should be trained or do part of their course in a university.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are starting that in September 12 months.

Mr. O'Quigley

I regret it is not happening even at this time.

The House in general would wish that the Minister would have second thoughts about the students who are attending university at present. I can see tremendous difficulties for the Minister in sorting out the problem. The Minister might well consider making some concession to the wounded feelings of those students who are attending university at present and who have got nothing. It is very hard luck on them while their parents are still struggling to keep them at university that they will get no help whatever. I suggest that, while the Minister would not give them the whole grant, he might consider paying the fees, or a proportion of the fees, of students who fall into the same meritorious category as those who will get grants under this Bill. If the Minister investigates that, he might find it would not run to anything like even £100,000 and would be some concession to the feeling of frustration, of being pipped on the post, of current students. If it were only £25 for each student, it would be worthwhile. If the Minister were to do that, he would reap benefits one hundredfold in other fields. That, of course, would not be one of the reasons why the Minister would be induced to do something like that. As a matter of justice, simply because people are on the wrong side of the line, they should get some recognition. In all these cases there must be a shading off. This is one of the cases where I think the Minister should exert himself in favour of these students.

The Bill, as the Minister has said and as everybody agrees, is a step forward. A great number of things require to be done and I hope the Minister will take the university authorities and the teaching profession more into his confidence and consult them more so as to devise a really worthwhile scheme that will command universal approval.

Mr. Cole

The Minister has shown great patience but he has heard a very interesting debate. There are only a few points I want to raise. The first is that section 3 of the Bill freezes the amounts contributed by local authorities at the amounts they have taken from the rates for scholarships as in the last financial year. I do not know what the total for the country would come to——

Mr. B. Lenihan

The contribution from local authorities is £280,000. The total cost is £470,000, £280,000 coming from the local authorities.

Mr. Cole

I suppose you must collect from the local authorities but I think the basis for those contributions is unfair because scholarships were given by local authorities with varying degrees of generosity throughout the country. Looking up some of them — these are secondary schools scholarships but the pattern of generosity is more or less the same — we find that they gave two secondary schools scholarships in Louth a few years ago and when the Report on Higher Education was made, County Louth gave 60 scholarships; Monaghan, 23; Tipperary South Riding, 76; Tipperary North Riding, 35. Those were secondary schools scholarships.

Mr. B. Lenihan

They are gone now.

Mr. Cole

But it is on that basis that the Minister is collecting money from the local authorities under this Bill. The same pattern applied to university scholarships. I have not got figures for them but it is interesting to note the Report on Higher Education, Table 148, page 743. I do not know whether there was any criterion or any system by which counties gave those scholarships. It is impossible to say because we find that in 1964, relating scholarships to the school population, Meath giving one scholarship to 199 pupils and the figure varied with every county until you find Clare and Kerry with 600 and 799 pupils per scholarship.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Poor counties. They could not afford it. We are removing this inequality and giving the same chance to each of them.

Mr. Cole

Leitrim had 200 pupils per scholarship.

Mr. B. Lenihan

A more progressive county.

Mr. Cole

Unfortunately, they are paying for it now under this Bill and until the Minister gets some other system, they will have to continue paying.

Mr. B. Lenihan

As the State grants increase over the years, that will be a diminishing figure. In three years time, the cost will possibly be £750,000, of which the local authorities' contribution will be still static at £280,000.

Mr. Cole

I think the Minister should find a more equitable basis for the contribution from local authorities. I shall leave it at that. It is rather inequitable because the poorer counties in most cases were probably more generous in scholarships than some of the richer counties.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Such counties will also benefit more. Practically every holding in County Leitrim, Donegal, Kerry and Clare will come under the valuation limits proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Cole

Yes, but they are paying more.

Mr. B. Lenihan

More people will be eligible in the valuation category.

Mr. Cole

They may not. The next point to which I shall refer is one the Minister mentioned last night, that these scholarships will be available at Queen's University.

Mr. B. Lenihan

And at Coleraine, and any other such institution.

Mr. Cole

Cavan and Longford were doing that already. The matter is not in any way confined in the Bill and I hope it is possible that scholarships may be given outside the country, if the Minister is satisfied that for some special reason a student should be sent abroad, possibly by a State body, or even by a business firm, to do some special training, with the help of this scheme. I am thinking perhaps of some specialised course in atomic energy——

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is why I have deliberately left the Bill open.

Mr. Cole

I hope that will be kept in mind. We have heard some people suggest there is specialisation in the form of the four honours idea as a qualification for a scholarship. At that level, when a pupil is leaving school, we find in some schools — I had the honour of being on the board of a school in Northern Ireland as a Governor and I found there, as we find in other schools — pupils being encouraged very early on to specialise. I wonder if it is a selfish idea on the part of the schools for the benefit of the name of the school as much as it is for the benefit of the pupil. This is something which I think could be very simply worked out between the Department and the university authorities. They could perhaps allow the four honours to stay but there might also be an average number of marks to be obtained over a great many subjects. If a pupil likes to take and the school is capable of teaching eight or ten subjects up to the standard for the leaving certificate examination, the pupil who does eight subjects and gets a reasonable mark or a pass in six or seven plus an honour in one or two subjects, could be a better educated pupil than the one who gets four honours in, say, English, Irish, history and something else. I would like to see pupils taking a few languages, Irish and another language, English, maybe Latin, and mathematics. If they succeed in getting good marks in those subjects, they are doing very well. I remember reading a definition of modern education — I do not know where but it appealed to me very much — that modern education was preparing students for work that we do not know even exists. I wonder if there is not a bit too much specialisation. This bears some relation to what Senator O'Kennedy was saying about the seeming reluctance of graduates to enter public life in this country. There is a certain amount of reluctance in this regard. Is it because these graduates have been more or less educated, or have educated themselves, for a special job and that that is their only aim in life? That seems to be happening more and more in all education. Therefore, I should like to see the scholarships given not only for four honours but also on the wider basis of qualification in a greater number of subjects.

The Minister should leave some loophole—there is not one in the Bill —for the pupil who has a severe illness before the examination. Perhaps it is his last chance of doing his final examination and he has an illness that day or weeks before. There is no outlet whereby the Minister could give him a re-examination or consult with his teachers or ask the university to consult with them. I came across a system which has been adopted in Northern Ireland in respect of entrance to secondary schools, and the idea might be of assistance here. If pupils, due to illness, do not pass the entrance examination the parents can pay for tuition for the first year and the pupils are allowed in. Apparently if such pupils can keep up with the other pupils who have passed the examination and there is a satisfactory report after the first year, they qualify for free secondary education in that school. Possibly here many of the pupils might not be able to pay even for one year at the university, but I do think there should be some loophole. Possibly the Minister would get a flood of applicants, but he should leave the door open for a re-examination or an interview with the university authorities.

There is also the case of the very nervous child. It must be remembered that some of these children come from very poor backgrounds, with little opportunity of studying, perhaps, and having it drilled into their heads by their parents and their teachers: "You are getting this chance to go to the university, and if you miss it it is your own fault." This could leave them in a very nervous state. There should be some way of dealing with that sort of pupil, a report from the school or an interview with the university authorities.

There has been a very full and interesting debate on this Bill. We have roamed over a wide territory, and it is probably one of the best debates I have heard in the House. I congratulate the Minister on taking this step. It will involve a great deal of work, but it is a step in the right direction. It will be a great advantage to those pupils who are able to avail of it. I did glance at the figures for candidates per place in each county, and there are nines and tens, elevens and twelves per scholarship. Therefore, the demand is there, and I think the Minister is doing a good job in this Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

Before Senator Mrs. Aherne speaks, I wonder could we get the agreement of the House that the Minister will come in after Senator Aherne.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Are there any other speakers?

An Cathaoirleach

I think it is only reasonable that the Minister should have some notice as to when he should come in.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

When Senator Aherne finishes, I think we might ask the Minister to conclude.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude after Senator Mrs. Aherne.

Cáit Ní Eachthéirn

Tá an Bille seo cíortha go maith ag na Seanadóirí go léir, agus níl fúm anois ach cúpla focal ginearálta a rá. Ar an gcéad dul síos, is main liom fáile a chur roimh an mBille agus an tAire a mholadh go hárd as ucht na deontas so do chur ar fáil chomh luath. Bhí súil againn go léir leis na deontais so i gcóir árdoideachais lá éigin ach ní fhéadfaimís bheith ag súil leo chomh luath is a tháinig siad. Tuigimid go léir go mbeadh an scéim iaroideachais anbhacach ar fad in éamais na ndeontas so.

Chím go bhfaigheann an Freasúra a lán lúb ar lár sa Bhille, ach pé Bille a chuirfí ós a gcóair gheobhfaidís locht air. Dá mbéidís macánta do chaithfeadh siad a admháil gur tosach íontach maith é so. Deireann an tAire féin nach bhfuil ann ach tosach agus go dtiocfaidh feabhas air bliain i ndiaidh bliana. Braitheann an feabhas seo go deimhin ar theacht isteach an Stáit agus muna bhfuil muintir na tíre seo ullamh breis oibre a dhéanamh is baolach nach mbeidh ar chumas an Rialtais an feabhas sin a chur ar na deontaisí.

As I said, I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing these grants for higher education so soon. Having done such a good job in giving us free post-primary education, we certainly did not expect that we would get grants for higher education so fast. We are all delighted that pupils entering the university now will get in on their ability rather than on the bank balance of their parents. The late Deputy Donogh O'Malley speaking here said that many people had gone through our universities and many people were in our universities today who should never have got as far as the door.

We are also glad that these grants will apply to students taking courses in other centres of higher education. I was delighted to hear the Minister say that what the INTO have been campaigning for, for many years, is just on our doorstep, that is, that national teachers will get university training and will have university status. The last time I spoke here I made the request that our schools of domestic training should come into the university category and that a faculty of home economics should be established as soon as possible, as it is in other countries. I gave the reasons then and I do not think there is any point in going into them again at this late hour of the night.

I hope that one result of this great upheaval and reformation in our educational system will be to give us better teachers. This is the basis on which all the professions will be built. I was speaking to a student during the week who was doing the leaving certificate examination. He said he quite understood that the standard should be raised and he then asked me a very pertinent question: "Could you tell me will the standard of teaching be improved?" Senator O'Kennedy and other Senators also stressed this point. As we all know, too much of our teaching has been routine. It has been note-giving, cramming and too much schooling rather than education we have got to date. I hope that in future those who are coming from our universities will have more of a commitment to the community and realise, as someone said, that it is the man in the street and the poorer sections of the community who to a great degree have made it possible for them to obtain these grants and get to the university.

I have a request to make of the Minister with regard to those who are now at the university and who have four honours or more. I would ask him to make loans available to these pupils because I know many of them and they come from the lower income group. They have been pipped from getting scholarships or grants. Something should be done to make their lot easier and the one way would be to have loans available to them. Another question I should like to ask the Minister is will a survey of employment opportunities in the different professions be made available so that when a student enters a certain faculty he will know if he is going into an overcrowded one even though that may be his choice of profession.

One point that no one remembered was that before national teachers enter the training colleges they have to give a stipulation or a guarantee that they will give five years service to the community. If they fail to do that I understand they have to give back the money expended on them. I should like to know if this will apply to every other profession as well as the teaching profession. I do not think any one profession should be singled out for this treatment.

We know there are children who got four honours and more who would make excellent university material but who come from homes where there is not a tradition of education and the parents are not prepared to allow the children to go to the university. Side by side with this upheaval we have had in the field of education we should have an adult education programme. Many schools are closing down. No parish in Ireland should be without a centre of adult education. The parents need to be educated as well as the children.

Na glúin a thiocfaidh nár ndiaidh beidh siad buíoch den Aire as ucht é seo a dhéanamh chomh luath agus a dhein mar nach raibh tuairim dá laghad ag éinne go dtiocfadh sé chomh luath sin.

Minister for Education (Mr. B. Lenihan)

This has been a very interesting and extensive debate. While the Bill is confined to student grants for higher education the debate, naturally enough, ranged over the whole field of education. That is understandable and consistent with my own thinking. I believe that the day of compartments in education is gone. It should be looked at in a total sense. Post-primary and higher education now form one unit in which the child is treated in a different way at different stages. What Senator Mrs. Aherne said in her contribution is very relevant in this context. I am very strongly of the opinion that we must gear our educational system in a greater degree towards the manpower requirements of the community, and the jobs available for our boys and girls.

We have had too much job dissatisfaction in Ireland in the past. Our educational system led somewhat to this and no attempt was made to treat the child intelligently as an individual, to guide him or her in the direction towards which his or her talents led, and towards where the appropriate jobs might be available. In that connection we are now preparing a comprehensive document on career guidance which I hope will be published inside the next 12 months, related to the overall manpower requirements and the jobs we project will be available. I should like to see that document in the hands of every Irish parent within the next 12 months.

The point raised by Senator Mrs. Aherne in relation to adult education is also of great importance. I propose shortly to bring together the various voluntary bodies associated with adult education to form an overall national organisation to co-ordinate the activities of those bodies with a view to providing a comprehensive and continuing system of adult education because it cannot be confined in compartments, or to a form of education which leads to one's occupation in life. But it should be a continuing process which will adapt people to the needs of the community and fit them to become good citizens. On the point made by Senator Mrs. Aherne in regard to home economics, at the moment we are engaged in preliminary discussions with the university authorities with a view to devising a syllabus on home economics which would be recognised by the university authorities. I shall have more to say about that.

As I stressed in the Dáil, this Bill is deliberately framed in a very flexible manner so as to enable myself or any succeeding Minister for Education by order under the Bill to adapt the standards, to adapt the means test criteria, to adapt the institutions to which children may be required to go for higher education to the changing needs of society. I regard the Bill as the very foundation of our future educational advances. Within its flexible framework any progressive step towards complete equality of opportunity in regard to education can be taken in the future. This is the first positive step. It is the first piece of basic legislation which will enable progress to be made in this direction. I regard it as a very fundamental Bill. In the future the Minister for Education can make further progress in adapting the whole question of grants for higher education for our students of the future.

This is why I reject the suggestion made by Senator Dooge in his initial remarks that this is a stopgap measure. It is not a stopgap measure: it is a fundamental measure. On that foundation, any progressive measure which are needed, depending on the resources of the community, can be taken to improve or adapt to the needs of the community at any particular time in the future. It is very important that we have a flexible Bill which will enable such changes to be made from time to time by the Minister for Education, in consultation, in some cases, with the Minister for Finance.

Senator Dooge, Senator FitzGerald, Senator O'Quigley and Senator Sheehy Skeffington referred to the limited social groups from whom university entrants are drawn at the moment and have heretofore been drawn. I agree. One of the fundamental reasons for the introduction of the Bill is to widen the classes of people who I feel are legitimately entitled, if they have the talents, to get higher education. Heretofore in Ireland the injustice has been that only a limited class could afford higher education. People outside that category could not get in. This Bill is a substantial advantage towards mitigating that evil. It does not go the whole way but, within the framework of this measure, the whole way can be travelled some time in the future.

When we consider a jump from 275 scholarship-holders last year to nearly 1,000 who, we hope, will participate under this Bill, when enacted, in the coming year, we must admit that it is a substantial jump in one period of 12 months—that is, within the resources of our community. It is a rate of improvement that can be accelerated in the future, depending on the resources of the community at a particular given time. However, a jump from 275 scholarships to nearly 1,000 in one year is certainly a substantial leap forward in this direction.

Apart from the resources of the community, one has to have regard to the actual physical resources of higher education. Coming to the point raised by several Senators, particularly by Senator FitzGerald who talked about the whole organisation of higher education and the rationalisation of higher education, this, of course, is a very important aspect. I shall be announcing, very shortly, proposals for the creation of a higher education authority here in Ireland which will supervise all aspects of higher education in this country.

The merger proposals between University College, Dublin, and Trinity College, Dublin, will form just one part of this overall approach. I would envisage University College, Cork, University College, Galway, and possibly a university in Limerick growing much bigger with a diffusion of our university population among these centres throughout the country. I should like to see that higher education authority having plenty of power to allocate funds, to decide on where faculties should be located, to ensure that there is a uniform system of salary and promotion and transfer in regard to our academics in all our university institutions. This is the sort of thinking that has gone into the preparation of these proposals which I shall be able to announce very shortly.

The merger of the two university colleges in Dublin is only one part of the overall comprehensive approach we shall adopt in regard to higher education. It should remove a lot of anomalies which have existed heretofore. If we have a comprehensive approach and planning in regard to our institutions of higher education— technological education as well as university education—I feel we can rationalise our resources, spend well where we should spend and have the same system of selection, appointment and promotion within the governing bodies of each technological and university college in the country.

A number of Senators raised the point about people who heretofore have got scholarships irrespective of means. As I said in answer to Professor Quinlan, who raised the matter first, we are at the moment negotiating with the university authorities with a view to doubling the number of entrance scholarships. In the coming year, we shall have twice the number of such scholarships and they will apply to full courses in our university colleges. This will meet the point made by Senators and Deputies as to local authority scholarships. These university scholarships will have no means test. We shall double the number of them. The authorities tell me that that figure of around 80 will be sufficient having regard to the number that will come within the student grants scheme.

Senator Stanford raised the question of overcrowding in our universities and the lowering of academic standards. Again—and this comes precisely back to the point I have just mentioned of having a single overall higher education authority—this was the main recommendation, which I am adopting, taken from the Report of the Commission on Higher Education. Many unkind things were said about the Commission on Higher Education: I now propose to say a few kind things about it. There were a lot of data and a lot of conclusions. However, I am accepting their recommendation for an overall higher education authority to rationalise the whole university structure. Senator Stanford was precisely on this point that, unless one has this control, there is a danger of overcrowding in one university and of under-utilisation of another. There is a danger, for instance, of the proposed Dublin university becoming too much overcrowded while the universities of Cork, Galway and the possible university at Limerick may not be utilised to the fullest extent. This goes some of the way to meet the point made by Senator Stanford.

Senator Stanford and Senator FitzGerald were both keen on the whole question of greater participation by students in university administration. We are doing something in this regard, I have already announced that I propose to write into the new Higher Education Bill—which will set up the new Higher Education Authority and which will be a fundamental Bill dealing with all aspects of higher education—that one member of the Students' Union in each college shall be a member of the governing body of the college. There will be student representation at least to the extent that they will be aware of what is going on and will be "in" on the making of decisions. I agree with the general principle— although it can be pushed too far— of giving students some participation in university administration. Obviously, it can be limited but at least there will be some participation so that they are "in" on decisions and thereby will have a greater understanding of the reasons behind the decisions and of the administration of the university as a whole. That is important. We want to channel student activity in Ireland into constructive paths. We have seen how student activity can have a destructive approach in other countries. We must maintain contact with and seek a degree of reasonable participation by students in university activity and university administration.

Senator O'Kennedy, Senator Jessop and other Senators spoke of teacher training colleges and of the necessity to have a university course for teachers. I am fully in agreement with this. It was one of the first things I stressed on coming into my new Department. I met representatives of the INTO and said this to them—and I am on record as saying it to them. We are at the moment engaged in the preparation of a suitable university course for our national teachers who heretofore were not excluded but who had to have a university course before qualifying. I should like to see a unified approach to all teacher training with various emphasis depending on whether the teacher was going for primary or post-primary or a specific university degree, in which there would be a high degree of professional training and at the same time giving an element of university training as well. I hope that between the teacher organisations, my Department and the universities we can evolve suitable courses which I would hope to see started in the academic year commencing in October 12 months. This to a large extent gets over the difficulty of the grant. When these grants will not apply to teacher training there is a hiatus of one year and in October I hope to see our teachers in combined teacher training and academic courses.

I have been under a certain amount of pressure to include the teacher training colleges for the coming year but I feel it could not be done for this reason. It is not a course of higher education in the sense of being equated to a university course. It is not the equivalent. The fact that they themselves are seeking a university course is an admission that the existing course is not one that can be regarded as a higher education course which is equivalent to a university course. If I accepted the two-year training course this year as a course of higher education I would be opening the flood-gates to all sorts of courses such as Professional diploma courses and so on which are not equivalent to university courses. In connection with the higher education courses I have mentioned we hope to have the teacher training colleges throughout the country linked in with the universities appropriate to them so that they will be integrated with the university system. We are working on this at present. As I say, this aspect will be incorporated in the proposals which will be announced shortly in regard to higher education.

Senator O'Quigley and Senator Brosnahan both made a point in regard to cramming in the type of syllabus we have had for examinations heretofore in our educational establishments. There is a lot in this. We have been engaged in the past year or two in a very comprehensive approach to the whole problem of syllabuses for various examinations. First of all, we have abolished the primary certificate in the national school. This was a big start and will enable a broadly based curriculum to be presented in the primary school. I want to emphasise that the larger the primary school unit the more courses will be available and the more broadly based will be the curriculum and the boy or girl will have a better chance to get a more comprehensive education. The new curriculum for the intermediate certificate is under way and the first examination will take place next year. Again, it is a very comprehensive broadly-based type of intermediate certificate which includes a number of subjects outside the usual routine subjects. The purpose of this degree of specialisation is that the pupils should enter into the leaving certificate in five different groups. We have courses starting in September 12 months. This will be specialised to some degree but not too specialised and on top of this there is also the advanced leaving certificate.

We are seeking, in this approach, to get away from the old cramming aspect and to have syllabuses and examination papers that will be more of a real test of a child's aptitude and intelligence. We want to get away from what was reterred to earlier on, the business of quoting slabs of poetry and literature and who said this to whom. That sort of English was not literature. We want people to know the language they are learning, to be able to do the elementary things, to be able to speak it properly and to write it properly and to be able to write things like letters for jobs. I have seen examples of this in examination papers I have read and in which boys and girls doing the leaving certificate were called upon to quote slabs from Shakespeare, but they could not write an essay with the proper punctuation and so on and with a proper co-ordination of thought.

This is the sort of thing on which we are engaged, criticism of which has come in from certain quarters, particularly university quarters in regard to English. It is most essential to put first things first and the most important thing in regard to a language is to learn to speak it properly and to be able to write it and to be able to communicate properly in the language. I feel that many more modern literary works could be included, some of the modern Irish writers and English and American writers whose work could be incorporated in the courses. Similarly in regard to the Irish language. There are plenty of up-to-date books and novels and short stories that should be incorporated in courses rather than the works of some of the traditional types of writer we have had in these courses year in and year out.

Senator FitzGerald and Senator O'Quigley made some remarks about the Irish language. Again, this is a problem that time and again has been pulled out of perspective. As far as this grant scheme is concerned the only requirement is four honours subjects in the leaving certificate. These can be any subjects and need not be Irish but the student must have obtained a leaving certificate for which he at least has to have a pass in Irish. In this day and age it is no drag on a student to be required to have a pass in Irish. The pass rate at the moment is very substantial. It is 98.5 per cent with only 1½ per cent failure. This does not represent any drag as far as a child is concerned. Certainly if a child were to get four honours outside that there should not be nay mental difficulty in securing a pass in Irish. I was surprised at the Senators raising this matter again because in this day and age in which we are all subjected to international communications, when we are flooded out with all sorts of ersatz literature from England and America, it is a good and constructive thing that we have the Irish language as a sign of our nationality, a language of which we can be proud. In fact, this is not just a narrow Irish concept because on the continent of Europe if you go to Barcelona you still find people speaking Catalan although Spanish is spoken all round them. In Bilbao you still have them speaking Basque while in Alsace they still speak the Alsatian language although German and French are spoken all round them and in Brittany they speak Breton although the French language is spoken all round them. There is no reason why we cannot have the Irish language here on the curriculm and why it should not be mandatory that pupils get a pass in Irish particularly now that, in the pass Irish paper, the emphasis will be, and rightly so, on the spoken language and not on the purely literary aspect of it.

It is time everybody in public life and members of all political Parties stopped making a political issue out of this. I was, indeed, surprised to hear both Senator FitzGerald and Senator O'Quigley raising this issue once more, because I thought the Irish people had dealt with them, once and for all, on that issue. They may not all be able to speak the language but they will deal with any Party that reneges on the language or, for that matter, reneges on any national issue. I hope the issue is buried now and that there will be an end of it. The revival of the language is a national aim and I was, therefore, surprised to hear two prominent Fine Gael Senators raise a matter on which there is fundamental agreement among all sections of our people.

Senator Cole and some other Senators raised the question of inequality in regard to the rate contribution by local authorities. I admit this is not the perfect way, but it was the quickest and most expeditious way. I was very anxious to get the scheme operating in the coming year. We have been waiting far too long for something of this kind and I was impatient to make sure we did not wait another 12 months. It was essential to devise a simple, flexible piece of legislation which would stand the test of time and yet remain sufficiently flexible to enable the Minister to make the necessary orders, adjust the different provisions from time to time, and achieve some fairly quick method of continuing some local contribution. In my view the anomalies in regard to different local authorities will disappear in the course of time. In the current year the figure stands at £275,000. It is written into the Bill that that figure will be frozen so, as the years go on, the contribution will become a diminishing percentage. In three or four years time the total bill under the scheme, assuming there is no change, will be in the region of £1,250,000 and the local authority contribution will be £275,000. In ten years time the bill will be £3 million and the local authority contribution will still stand at £275,000. When one looks at it in that way I think one must admit that particular counties are not being penalised to any degree, particularly when one remembers that, under our means category, it is precisely the poor counties which cannot bear too heavy a rate burden which will qualify to the greatest extent under the scheme. It is from these poor counties I would envisage the highest percentage of students coming. Heretofore these poor counties could not afford an increase in rates and local authorities were reluctant to raise the rates for the purpose of expanding scholarships. This will not be the situation in the future. We are getting rid of the county conception in regard to entrance. Entrance will be on a national basis. We have retained local authorities as our agents for one very practical reason; they are the only people with both the local knowledge and the staff know-how to ascertain the means of particular applicants for higher student grants. It is as practical as that. It is only through the offices of local authorities that this particular information can be got. The Department would not have that sort of local knowledge. Neither would it have the staff available.

Mr. Cole

On that point, would not a contribution of 3d or 5d on the valuation of the county not be fairer?

Mr. B. Lenihan

One would find oneself once more in the whole field of anomalies in the rating and valuation system. There are anomalies. I do not want to import these into the Bill and that is what would happen if I worked the scheme on a poundage basis. The only practicable way in which to get the Bill off the ground was to do what I have done. I am the first to acknowledge that it is not perfect, but it is the best way to do it as quickly as possible. This will be a diminishing burden as far as local authorities are concerned.

Senator Brosnahan suggested the setting up of a group to study the structure of examinations. I propose to establish an independent examination board, independent of the Department and the universities, to supervise the whole structure of our examinations in the future. I believe this should be done. It is a very practicable idea.

Senator FitzGerald raised the question of academic independence and autonomy. This is a very relative matter. In my view all forms of education and all branches of our educational system have a primary duty to the community. The community comes first. This is something that is being realised more and more. The whole purpose of our educational system is to serve the community and, while we have a degree of autonomy and academic independence in our colleges, we should, at the same time, have this overall higher education authority capable of rationalising the whole matter from the point of view of appointments, promotions, salaries, and so on, in relation to university administration. We must also have the proper allocation of funds so that there is no duplication. While respecting academic independence and the autonomy of universities, these must be recognised in the context of their primary purpose and the primary purpose of all education is to serve the community and to ensure that the community gets the best education possible.

Professor Jessop

Does the Minister envisage this commission as being autonomous?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes.

Professor Jessop

In other words, he recognises a group autonomy rather than an individual autonomy?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes, while preserving, of course, a high degree of autonomy for the individual institutions as well. Roughly, I envisage adopting the recommendations of the Commission on Higher Education.

Some points that were raised in the other House were also raised here. There was the question of recognising students who obtained four honours in previous years and who would come within the income limits. We must make a start somewhere. When one sets a dateline on progressive education those who miss out on that dateline are apt to complain. That is inevitable. If there were no Bill these people would say nothing at all but, because the Bill is there, those who will not benefit under its provisions start to complain. It is a question of where does one stop from the point of view of finance. If we were to deal with the students at present in university it would cost about £1,000,000. There is then the question of social justice with regard to those who never got anywhere near a university but who did get their four honours and who would qualify within the income category. Should they not be entitled to benefit? We are making a start now and we will have to look at the matter from that point of view and forget about the complaints. We have this flexible legislation upon which we can build in the future.

I am grateful for the constructive discussion we have had and I trust that future discussion on this matter will be equally constructive here and in the Dáil. There is a growing awareness on the part of the community of the importance of education. The main raw material we have in our small community is the brains of our people. There is no question about that. We have not got the big battalions and we have not got the finance or the industrial organisation. I am optimistic enough to think that we have a higher degree of intelligence and brains than most people provided our educational system is devised to harness those talents to the skills that will better equip our people to do their jobs well and help the nation to maximise these skills to the greater benefit of the country. It is in that direction that we can make the greatest progress. I think the community acknowledge the fact that this is an investment in which we must engage at the present time. The Government have shown their commitment in this direction. The bill for the coming year will be £54 million, almost three times what it was five years ago.

This is a complete commitment on the part of the Government to investment in education and to the furtherance of the fundamental social principle of equality of opportunity, and if we can provide a society here in the years ahead in which there is equality of opportunity to the fullest extent, a society in which everyone can live their lives to the fullest extent that their talents demand, the community as a whole will benefit from a situation where most of the people are in occupations that suit them, in occupations in which they can make the greatest contribution, and in making that greatest contribution, enrich and benefit the nation as well.

I feel that we will have many more constructive discussions on educational reform. We are only on the road. There are a number of other reforms in all branches of the educational system which we must implement before we have the system properly organised to achieve a situation where every boy and girl can be guided along the lines of direction to which their talents suit them.

We have set out this year on a crash course of training teachers in career guidance and we hope to have a number of those teachers in the major post-primary establishments in the coming academic year. This is only a start in that direction but we must look at it, examine and probe it to ensure that we devise a total approach to education in which we can guide our boys and girls along the lines they should go. I am certain that if we look at education as a totality, look at it in a comprehensive way, forget the compartments that existed in the past, recognise it as a community service, we can make progress and make sure that the commitment which has been made by the Government will result in the greatest benefit to the public as a whole and to everybody concerned in education.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Next stage?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Next Wednesday.

Professor Dooge

I think we would be somewhat handicapped in taking Committee Stage next week. We have a number of amendments which we wish to put down which are somewhat complicated and the record of this debate will not be available until Tuesday, and possibly Wednesday. If it were possible, we would prefer next Wednesday week.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That makes it a bit awkward.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Provided we get Report Stage pretty quickly.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Will we get the remaining Stages on Wednesday week also?

Professor Dooge

That will be determined by the manner in which Committee Stage goes. We will certainly do everything we can to facilitate the Minister but I think we could have a better discussion on Wednesday week which might be a help to the Minister in the future.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Very good.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Is there an understanding that we get the remaining Stages then on Wednesday week? The Bill is urgent from the point of view of the local authorities but there are other urgent matters also—in other words, a pile of matters cluttering up on us—so that if the Committee stage is deferred until Wednesday week and if we were sure that we could get remaining Stages that day——

Professor Dooge

Our reason for wanting to postpone the Bill is that the Committee Stage will be complicated and this would make me reluctant to give a guarantee that we would be able to give Report Stage immediately after Committee Stage on Wednesday week.

An Cathaoirleach

All the House can do at the present time is to make an arrangement for Committee Stage. When Committee Stage is completed, then a decision can be made about the remaining stages.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 3rd July, 1968.

An Cathaoirleach

May we dispose of the motion?

Professor Dooge

I formally move: That Seanad Éireann is of the opinion that:

1. With a view to increasing participation in university education by children of parents in the lower income groups, the State should provide maintenance grants for such pupils.

2. University education should be free to all Irish citizens who qualify for university entrance.

It seems from the tenor of the debate that the motion might well be agreed by the House: paragraph 1 is met in the Bill, and paragraph 2 seems to be the mind of most Members of the Seanad.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

We cannot accept paragraph 2.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We cannot accept that paragraph of course. The first paragraph is all right.

Professor Dooge

If the paragraph is not acceptable, the motion is withdrawn.

Motion by leave withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 26th June, 1968.