In Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Wednesday, 25 Mar 1936

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Eamonn O Ciosáin

Seadh, a Chinn Chomhairle, do bhíos ag eisteacht leis an ndíospóireacht a bhí ar siubhal annso indé ar chúrsaí oideachais agus buaileadh isteach im' aigne go labharfainn ar feadh tamall bhig go mór mhór ó thaobh na Gaedhilge.

Ba dhóigh le duine ar an gcainnt a dhein cuid des na Teachtaí a labhair ná fuil sa Ghaoluinn ach adhbhar scoile. Is ait liom é sin. Go deimhin tá níos mó innte ná adhbhar scoile mar is ar aithbheochaint na Gaedhilge atá seasamh oideachais na tire seo ar fad. Má bhíonn sé de dhíchéille againn é chur ar bhun eile ní bheidh ach oideachas bréige mí-nádúrtha againn. Is baoghalach go bhfuil daoine sa Dáil ná tuigeann é sin fós, daoine dá mbeadh a dtoil féin aca, a dhéanfadh mar atá á dhéanamh ag Rialtas na Sé gCondae, an Ghaoluinn a chur ar an gClár mar theangain iasachta. Is maith nach é sin an léargus atá ag an Aire ná ag Roinn an Oideachais, go bhfuil ceist na Gaedhilge á brostú agus á cur chun cinn ins na scoileanna acu.

Dhein an Teachta O Diolúin cur síos ar an ndíobháil atá á dhéanamh do sna naoidheanáin sa Ghalltacht nuair a cuirtear ortha brainnse scoile d'fhoghluim sa Gaoluinn. Admhuighim go dtagann sé cruaidh ortha ar dtúis ach cad é an tam is fearr chun an tslat a lúbadh ach nuair a bhíonn sí óg. Muna dtosnuightear ar na rudaí sin a mhúineadh dóibh as Gaoluinn agus iad óg cathoin is féidir é dhéanamh? Ní mór a dheimhniú, ámh, gur múinteoirí acmhuinneacha go bhfuil an Ghaoluinn i gceart acu féin a dhéanfaidh an teagasc san. Mar má múintear droch-fhoghair agus drochghramadach dóibh i dtosach beidh sé deacair ortha scaramhaint leo ar ball.

Bhíos ag éisteacht leis an dTeachta céadna a fághail lochta ar an scéim atá á cur ar bun ag an Roinn chun stair áitiúil agus seanchas a bhailiú agus a chur ar fághail do sna scoileanna. Nílim ar aon aigne leis, mar ní dóigh liom go bhféadfaí rud ní ba shuimeamhla a mhúineadh do leanbhaí ná tuaithe ná an stair atá ag baint le na gconndaethe agus le na mbailte féin. Músclóchaidh sé suim ins na háiteanna a rugadh agus a tógadh iad agus de bharr san beidh níos mó éilimh ar an ndúthaigh ag baile acu ná mar bhí go dtí so. Is cuimhin liom gur dheineas tagairt don rud so tá trí bliadhna anois ann agus gur mholas don Roinn a leithéid de scéim a chur ar bun. Níl aon chathú orm mar gheall air sin mar táim láidir go ndéanfaidh sé a lán tairbhe agus gur fiú go mór an méid dá chostas é. Maidir le stair na linne seo, do mholas cúpla bliadhain ó shoin leis go múinfí níos mó dhe in sna bun scoileanna ach do thuigeas an deacracht a bheadh ann ag iarraidh téacs-leabhair d'fhághail. Do chuala mar gheall ar téacs-leabhar le Máire Ní hAodháin, M.A., agus Seóirse O Múnáin. Dligheadóir, a tairgeadh do Roinn an Oideachais. Sé an ainm atá air ná "A Short History of the Irish People" agus tá sé annso im' láimh agam. Do moladh do sna scoileanna é agus tá súil agam na glacfaidh an Roinn leis mar théacs-leabhar, nó má glacann go ndéanfar é do dheisiú agus do cheartú mar tá a fhios ag an saoghal ná tugtar cothrom na féinne do sna saighdiúirí a bhí ag troid ar thaobh na Poblachta i mbliadhain 1922-23. B'fhéidir go neósadh an tAire dhúinn rud éigin 'na thaobh.

Do dhein teachta ar an dtaobh so tagairt do chaighdeán an Bhéarla maidir leis an scrúdú i gcóir na gColáistí Ullmhúcháin. Táim-se leo nuair a deir siad go bhfuil sé ró-árd. Ní ceart go mbeadh coinne againn le haon Bhéarla mór ó lucht na Gaedhealtachta, cuir i gcás, mar isiad is mó atá i gceist. Do casadh le déanaighe orm ógánach breagh cliste sa Ghaeltacht go raibh an Ghaoluinn ar a thoil aige agus dubhairt sé liom go raibh sé istigh ar an scrúdú so agus gur chaill sé an lá mar gheall ar an mBéarla, go raibh na hadhbhair eile ar feabhas aige. B'fhéidir go ndéarfaí go bhfuil an chaoi chéadna ag na daltaí go léir ar Bhéarla d'fhoghluim, ach ní ceart go gcuirfí ortha dul ag lorg an Bhéarla an iomarca. Tá sé sin bun os cionn le n-ár soiscéal ar fad. Táimíd ag iarraidh gan an Béarla a leigint isteach sa Ghaeltacht chucha agus táimíd 'á dtiomáint chun an Béarla d'fhoghluim san am chéadna. Sin puinnte go mba cheart machtnamh a dhéanamh air, ar eagla go gcuirfeadh sé an tairbhe atá á dhéanamh ag scéim an dá phúnt ar ceal agus is mór an tairbhe atá á dhéanamh ag an scéim sin. Tá sé molta go hárd ag Teachta eile agus ní gadh dhomhsa a thuille a rádh mar gheall air.

Anois focal i dtaobh stáid na Gaedhilge ins na Gairm-scoileanna. Is maith liom a chloisint go bhfuil feabhas ag teacht air, cé go bhfuil sé mall. Ní dóigh liom gur maith an rud a deineadh nuair a cuireadh na seana-mhúinteoirí taistil ag obair go hiomlán fé'n Scéim sin. Do tugadh cúrsa do sna múinteoirí sin agus b'éigean dóibh Béarla a ghlacadh mar adhbhar múinte. Tá rud éigin bun os cionn leis sin—daoine a chuaidh amach an chéad lá fé ghairbh-shíon is fé chruadhtan chun Gaoluinn agus cultúr na nGaedheal a scaipeadh i measc na ndaoine agus gur chaitheadar Béarla a thógaint mar adhbhar múinte sa deire. Do mhol an Teachta Donnchadh O Brian seana-scéim na múinteoirí taistil a chur ar bun athuair agus aitheantas na Roinne bheith acu. Daoine go mbeadh an teanga ar fheabhas acu, seana-cheol agus amhránuíocht acu agus mar sin de, cúrsa maith a thabhairt dóibh sar a raghaidís amach in aonchor. Caithfimíd rud éigin mar sin a dhéanamh mar is baoghalach go bhfuil ceol agus amhránuíocht ar sean ag dul i laige. Is féidir gan amhras an teanga a mhúineadh go maith in sna scoileanna gairm-oidis, ach ní fheadar cad mar gheall ar an gcultúr a ghabhann léi. Ceist ana-mhór iseadh é sin go léir.

Níl aon amhras ná go bhfuil labhairt na Gaedhilge ag dul i bhfeabhas agus ag leathnú go maith de bharr na deagh-oibre atá á dhéanamh in sna scoileanna. Do cloisfí á labhairt anois í ar na sráideanna, in sna síopaí, ar an dtraen agus ar an mbus. Caithfimíd coimeád chuige mar sin agus mholfainn don Aire gan maolú ar an bhfuadar atá fé in sna scoileanna agus gan áird a thabhairt ar na daoine atá á lochtú mar gheall air. Tá a ndícheall á dhéanamh ag na múinteoirí, in sna bun-scoileanna go mór-mhór, ar son na Gaedhilge agus is maith liom gur deineadh an clár d'éadtromú dhóibh. Bhí san tuillte acu agus níos mó mar bhí cúram ró-mhór go léir ortha.

Cúis áthais dom a chlos ón Aire go bhfuil £200,000 á chur i dtaisce aige sa mheastachán so le haghaidh scoileanna nuadha a thógaint agus seanascoileanna do dheisiú. Tá san ag teastáil go géar ina lán áiteanna mar sé an chaoi a bhfuil cuid de sna scoileanna fén dtuaith gur baoghal do shláinte múinteoirí agus leanbhaí ionta. Tá cuid mhaith déanta ag an Aire cheana maidir leis na scoileanna agus ní cheart dó staonadh go dtí go mbeidh gach aon fhothrach scoile acu ar lár agus scoil nua tógtha na hionad. Chuige sin teastóchaidh a lán cabhrach agus comh-oibrighthe ó sna bainisteóirí.

Dhein an tAire rud maith nuair a chuir sé an Coimisiún ar bun le béal-oideas a bhailiú agus a chur in eagar. Tá daoine maithe éolgaiseacha ar an gCoimisiún san gan amhras agus daoine go bhfuil a saoghal caithte acu ag gabháil don obair sin. Bhí cruinniú ag cuid acu le déanaighe, ámh, nuair a pléidheadh scéal an bhéal-óideasa agus cad é mar iongnadh orainn nuair a fuaireamar amach gur Béarla ar fad a bhí ar siubhal acu. Do chuir ball de choiste Chonnradh na Gaedhilge leitir go dtí na páipéirí á gcáineadh mar gheall ar an bhfaillighe seo agus bhí an ceart aige, is dóigh liom, ach b'é donas an scéil ar fad gur as Béarla a scríobh sé féin an leitir ghearáin. Sin é donas an donais. Tá súil agam go mbeifear níos cúramuighe feasta mar gheall air seo agus gurb í an Ghaoluinn a bheid in úsáid ar ócáideacha den tsórt san feasta. Tá Gaoluinn ag furmhór muinntir na hIolscoile anois agus ní gádh Béarla d'úsáid maidir leo agus dar ndóigh adhbhar oireamhnach iseadh Béal-Oideas le plé as Gaoluinn.

Níl a thuille le rádh agam, a Chinn Comhairle, ach go bhfuil moladh mór tuillte ag an Aire agus ag Roinn an Oideachais as ucht a bhfuil á dhéanamh ar son na Gaedhilge acu.

Mr. Norton

The Minister yesterday evening reviewed, at considerable length, the activities of his Department in a variety of directions, but the speech, apart from its length, was remarkable not so much for what it contained but for what was omitted from it. In this respect I desire to refer to that portion of the speech of the Minister dealing with replacement of defective school buildings. In a speech running into 54 typewritten pages, the Minister could find only one page in which to deal with that pressing problem, which goes to the root of the whole educational system in this country. We are told by the Minister that in rural areas the replacement of defective buildings is proceeding as rapidly as circumstances permitted. But the Minister did not take the House into his confidence and tell them for what reason it was not possible to proceed with the replacement of defective schools more rapidly at the present time than he is doing. The Minister seems to be satisfied with the making of annual allocations from the Estimates for the purpose of replacement of defective schools. He is satisfied, apparently, to believe that the policy, if continued for a long period of years, will ultimately make an impression upon the problem of repairing defective schools.

I said in the debate on the School Attendance Bill discussed here some time ago that, structurally, the national schools of this country were amongst the worst to be found on the whole continent of Europe. There were many of these schools, particularly in rural areas, that one could hardly believe would conform to any test which might be imposed as to what exactly constituted a proper school building. Many of these schools are situated in dreary swampy places. In other cases they are structurally defective. Many of them have not seen paint for decades, and the interior woodwork is often in a dilapidated condition. They suffer, in many cases, from want of proper ventilation and want of proper sanitation. Generally speaking, a large proportion of the schools in the rural areas, as I think the Minister acknowledged when introducing his Estimates in 1934, are in a very bad and insanitary condition, yet in face of that fact the only programme the Minister put before the House in the matter of repairing defective buildings is to make an annual allocation in the manner indicated in the Estimates. That is only dealing with the problem in a piecemeal manner, and we should have to go on for a very long time, proceeding in that manner, before we would be able to arrive at a decent solution of the problem of the defective schools, especially if it was to be approached in the half-hearted way envisaged by the Minister.

I think there is nothing more calculated to impede the work of the teacher in the school than to compel him or her to endeavour to impart education in a structurally defective building which is dreary and lonely and drab and uninviting, and in which the mind of the child cannot ever reach a high level. If we are to succeed in our desire to impart the maximum of education to children, and to impart that education under conditions which make it possible for the child to absorb the maximum amount of education which the teacher imparts, we should set about, in a speedy and in a vigorous manner, replacing the defective school buildings which exist in the country. We should proceed to erect new schools in their stead, to ensure their proper ventilation and lighting, so as to make them attractive to the children, and to make sure that the children shall have education imparted to them in circumstances much more calculated to enable them to retain that education than in the circumstances under which it is imparted to them to-day.

I think instead of making this annual allocation in the manner suggested by the Minister in the Estimate, the Government should take its courage in its hands and borrow a large capital sum for the purpose of speedily replacing the defective schools in the country. Let that capital loan, such as is necessary, be borrowed, be repaid by the allocation of a certain annual sum in the Estimates, and in that way we can be sure that a large capital sum is available for the purpose of the replacement of defective schools, and that that can be availed of with the minimum of delay. If the problem was tackled on these lines it would be very much more calculated to lead to the replacement of defective school buildings, at an early date, than dealing, in restricted small sums, with a problem which, if it is to be solved effectively, efficiently and expeditiously, can only be solved if we are prepared to make available the sums necessary to enable these defective buildings to be replaced by suitable buildings. If the Government are prepared to carry on a policy of making annual allocations, there is no reason why the capital value of those allocations could not be borrowed in one sum. With that money available the Government could then feel satisfied that the question of replacing defective school buildings could be tackled expeditiously. I am afraid the present policy of making annual allocations is one which stereotypes the amount of replacement, and stereotypes it at a rate which is inadequate having regard to the huge problem of replacement which at present confronts us.

In another portion of his speech the Minister made a brief reference to that all-important question of raising the school leaving age. In this very lengthy speech no more than a few lines could be devoted to giving the House the views of the Minister and his Department on this all-important problem. The Minister approaches the matter by saying that "the inter-departmental committee engaged upon a study of the problem of the raising of the school-leaving age presented a unanimous report. As a summary of this report has already appeared in the Press, I shall not trouble you with the details here." It is some time ago since the Minister told the House that he would have a copy of this report circulated to Deputies for their information. This report in particular is one which might usefully have been placed before now in the hands of Deputies, so that we might have some effective examination of the problem as envisaged by the inter-departmental committee which considered it. Instead, the Minister merely tells us that "the inter-departmental committee was engaged in a study of the problem; it presented a unanimous report, and if you want to find out anything about the report then you do not come to the Department of Education, but look at the public Press, and you will find a summary of it there. If you do that, then there is no need for me to trouble you in this speech with any details of the scheme dealt with by the committee."

I think the worst report that has ever been presented by any departmental committee was presented by the inter - departmental committee which dealt with this problem. Apart from the committee who, of course, are standing for their own views, and apart from the Minister who appointed them, and apart from rather hysterical leading articles in the Irish Press, which had not very much logic or justification, the Minister has not been able to get any single independent authority interested in the question of education or interested in the question of the future welfare of the children of this State to support the view-point which is contained in the recommendation of this committee. Even Deputies of the Minister's own Party have denounced the report, and notwithstanding the effort made by the Irish Press to get views in consonance with its own on this matter the result was extremely disappointing even from the particular point of view which it was postulating. The fact of the matter is that nobody has any respect whatever for the report of this inter-departmental committee, and the only people apparently who can be induced to stand for the report are the committee itself, the Minister, and the Government Party organ. A member of the Minister's own Party so well versed in educational problems as Deputy Cormac Breathnach has felt that even the restraint of Party discipline could not keep him from denouncing the report, lock, stock and barrel. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Minister in his speech does not want to say much about the activities of this inter-departmental committee which dealt with the problem of the school-leaving age.

The committee, in my opinion, approached the problem from an entirely wrong angle. Judging from the summarised version of its report which appeared in the Press, it seemed to have been concerned more with making a case against the general extension of the school-leaving age than with examining the problem which arose out of the fact that children are at present permitted to leave school at 14 years of age. We were told in the committee's report, if we are to judge by the summarised version of it which appeared in the Press, that children were not too immature for entering into industry at 14 years of age.

The committee seems to have taken the viewpoint, in its approach to this problem, that the problem to be dealt with was one of taking the child out of industry; and appears to have had the belief that the main case for raising the school-leaving age has been in order to keep children from going into industry, and, by the passage of legislation, to endeavour to have those who are in industry ejected from it. Those who have been advocating the raising of the school-leaving age have never advocated it solely on the ground that it would prevent children going into industry during their tender years. The case for the raising of the school-leaving age has been based on two main considerations. One was that in a complex life in which education is playing, and will continue to play, an increasingly important part, it is desirable that we should equip our future citizens with the maximum measure of education which it is possible for the State to impart to them. Those who have been advocating the raising of the school-leaving age in any representative capacity have pleaded in support of that reform the necessity, in the first instance, of keeping the child at school as long as possible in order to give the child the maximum possible education. It has also been urged as an important secondary consideration that it is undesirable in the interests of the education, the health, the general physique and the physical well-being of the nation that children should be allowed to enter industry at 14 years of age. It has been pleaded that the return to the State and to the community, now and in the future, would be very much greater if these children were prevented from entering industry until a later age, and were enabled to absorb in the schools the education which, in these formative years, they are more capable of absorbing than when they are very much younger.

The case, therefore, for raising the school-leaving age has been based on two main considerations; firstly, to equip the child better for the intellectual battle in life; and, secondly, to prevent the child going into industry at a time when its undeveloped mind and body are incapable of meeting, without seriously impairing its own health, the full impact of modern industrial life. The committee appear to think that the question of the retention of the child at school is a small consideration compared with the question of the child being prevented from entering into industry.

Mr. MacDermot

On a point of order. Are we at liberty to discuss on this Estimate the whole question of the desirability of legislation for raising the school-leaving age?

Seeing that the State provides schools and that it provides teachers, the Minister should see that there should be a recognition of the fact that it is just as necessary to provide text-books as it is to provide schools and teachers. One has only to contemplate for a few moments the situation of the child attending school without books to realise how much of the teacher's time and talents are wasted in endeavouring to impart knowledge under such circumstances. It might cost a considerable amount annually to provide these books, but I think such money provided by the State would be a very valuable investment. It would ensure that the child was, at least so far as the text-books are concerned, equipped with the medium of absorbing information. The provision by the State of school-books for necessitous children would result in improving their standard of education and would prevent the appalling waste of time and talent which takes place to-day. Many children, through sheer economic necessity, are compelled to attend school without books.

A matter closely related to the provision of text-books is the question of the condition in which the children are housed in school during their attendance there. Many of these children are the children of the 143,000 who are registered at the employment exchanges as unemployed. Many of these children are the children of a father who has not merely to sustain himself but his wife and children on the small allowances provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Children trying to exist under these circumstances are inevitably forced to leave home in the morning sometimes with no breakfast and in most cases an inadequate breakfast. They trudge the long weary way to school with a body suffering from mal-nutrition or probably famished. These children are compelled to remain in school for six hours. During that period, through sheer economic necessity, they are unable to provide themselves with a lunch. The State does nothing really effective to ensure that the child will be physically sustained during this period in the school. Trying to impart education to famished bodies, suffering in many cases from mal-nutrition, is a very trying task to those on whose shoulders that responsibility devolves.

We talk about free education in this country, but I do not think that we can ever justify that claim so long as the school-children are sent to school without books and many of them without a breakfast. Remember these children are not able to obtain any sustaining meal during their long hours at school.

So long as these conditions are present in the national schools in practically all areas in the country, it will be impossible for the State to get an adequate return on the money spent on national education. While it would cost more money to provide a simple mid-day meal at school and free text books to necessitous school children I think the expenditure by the State would been expenditure which would yield a very substantial dividend in the form of a better educated citizenry and a bolder and physically stronger nation. It may be urged against the policy of extending national school education to the extent I have mentioned that it would cost money. Again I suggest to the Minister that ultimately the problem will have to be tackled. In the meantime, any delay in tackling the problem is going to continue to give us unsatisfactory results such as we have in an inadequate system of education where children have to attend school in an unnourished condition. Many of them have not even the necessary textbooks through which the teacher is to impart knowledge.

I would have thought the present Minister for Education, who was fond in other days of giving expression to radical views in this and other matters, would not have occupied his present position very long before he came to this House and asked for a bold policy of that kind, one which will give to the working-class children free national school education in the fullest sense of the term. I hope the Minister will not allow any pettifogging impediments such as have been created for him in other respects by the Inter-Departmental Committee to stand in the way. I hope no impediments will be created to prevent his undertaking a bold policy of providing a mid-day meal for the school-going children, and that, at all events, he will have sufficient courage to face up to the necessary expenditure involved in providing school-going children with the textbooks they want for their educational advancement.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I rise to draw attention to one particular point. Before I deal with that specific point, I should like to say a few words upon the question with which Deputy Norton was dealing—the question of the school-leaving age. I am dealing with that question entirely from the point of view of the agricultural community. I think that the Minister might exhort persons who live in the country districts—the ordinary farmer and farm labourer—to go back much more to what used to be a custom in my youth— the custom of the "winter scholar." Boys who were of age to be of use upon farms, large or small, during the summer, used not to attend school in the summer. They attended regularly during the winter and they were known, as I am sure, you, a Chinn Comhairle, are aware, as "winter scholars. By way of exhortation rather than by legislation, the Minister might urge on rural districts that more grown boys should be kept at school during the winter months, even though they be required to work at home. I am dealing with agricultural circumstances and not with town circumstances with which I am not so familiar.

There is another matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. I do think that in rural schools the programme is altogether too wide. If the Minister consulted the ordinary national school teacher, he would tell him that he has too wide a programme to teach, that he cannot teach any single subject intensively because he has got to teach a lot of subjects extensively, and that this is not giving the boy the same training or equipment as the intensive teaching of a few subjects would give him. I question whether, with all the reforms that have taken place in national education in recent years, boys coming out of our national schools are as well ground in the important subjects as boys coming out of national schools 40 or 50 years ago were. These boys were not taught a number of things which boys are being taught now but they were thoroughly ground and, what they knew, they knew completely. To my mind, education has three aims. In the first place, the aim of education is to form moral character; in the second place, to train the intellect to work and, in the third place—if it is an aim of education at all—to acquire knowledge. The acquisition of knowledge is only the means by which the intellect is trained in education so-called and character is formed by acquiring habits of industry, concentration and the like. Nowadays, it seems to me that there is a tendency to put the acquisition of knowledge— knowledge which will be of very small importance to the child in after life— in the first place and the training of the intellect in the second place. I should rather have the boy able to do sums which he would require to do in the avocation which he is to follow. If the ordinary boy from an agricultural district goes to a fair or market, he should be able to do mental arithmetic quickly. That should be the main thing and a lot of these other subjects which he will forget the moment he leaves school should not be driven into him. If the Minister went to a group of country national teachers and asked them their views on the present programme, he would find almost unanimous agreement that the present programme tends to be too wide. It seems to me that the opinion of the national teachers as a body does not get the recognition it ought to get. I see resolutions passed and views expressed by national teachers which do not seem to carry as much weight as they should. They do not seem to have attributed to them the weight that I think should be attributed to them. After all, the national teacher has got practical experience of the work he is doing. He sees how the children under his care are progressing. He sees that really better than the inspector because he is watching them from day to day. He is giving them, more or less, individual attention. I am sure that, when the views of a considerable number of teachers are expressed, they are given attention. I am not saying that they are completely ignored but I do not think they are given the force in the Department that I should like to see them receive. I do not make these few remarks on the general subject of education with any hope that these established programmes will be substantially altered as a result of them. I make them in the hope that the question of narrowing down the programmes may be considered rather than the modern tendency to extend them.

The one subject on which I have risen to address the House is the question of the £2 prizes which are given for the Irish language. So far as the principle is concerned, I am in agreement with the Minister. I think it is very good, but I am not at all in agreement with the way in which these prizes are being given. Some information has been placed at my disposal, and I am going to give it to the Minister now and ask him to inquire into it. In certain instances I think great unfairness is being done. The principal case I have in mind is one which I have already brought to the notice of the Department of Education. For obvious reasons I shall not mention names, and neither shall I indicate the school to which I am referring, or the teacher. It appears that these £2 prizes are given when two things concur—one is that the child is able to speak Irish, and the second is that Irish is used to a considerable extent, or is made the principal language, in the child's home. On the first ground, the inspector is the natural judge and I am not quarrelling with any decisions any inspector has given as to the competency of the child to speak Irish. On the second ground, it appears to me that great abuse may creep in and, in one instance, I am satisfied, on the facts before me, that great abuse has crept in. The facts have been brought before me, and I have mentioned the case to the Department. The parents themselves in this particular instance tell me that they have communicated with the Department. As far as I can gather, the practice is that the teacher mentions to the Inspector whether Irish is or is not the language of the child's home, and no further investigation is made. That I understand is the amazing position, leaving everything completely at the mercy of the teacher. There is a particular case which I have brought to the notice of the Department; the charge is roundly made that unless a person belongs to a particular school of thought he is not getting these prizes. A certain teacher—I am not mentioning his name; I do not think from anything I say that he can be traced, but the Department have the particulars before them—according to the reports which have reached me, refused to certify that Irish is the home language of the children unless the people happen to agree with his political views. This has occurred. He has refused to give certificates, and children have not got these £2 prizes. Suddenly the parents say to him they have changed their political views, and immediately they become eligible for the prizes.

Mr. Derrig

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but in connection with individual cases of the kind to which the Deputy alludes, I will make the fullest possible investigation. This is the first I have heard of the case to which he has referred.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I am very glad to hear the Minister say that. I have communicated with the Department on the matter. The communication may not have reached the Minister. If the Minister does not wish me to press the matter any further in public I will send the details to him, the name of the school teacher and the names of the children and of the parents involved. Will the Minister then send down an inspector who will see as to whether the parents are or are not Irish-speaking, because I can assure the Minister that in this particular instance I am satisfied—of course, I have only a one-sided statement—that an injustice is being done? If the Minister will send an inspector to inquire as to whether what I have said is well founded, I am perfectly satisfied. I am sure that the inspector the Minister will send will act fairly and properly in the matter. I shall send the Minister, if he has not got them already, the names of the people concerned, and of the school.

That was the main subject on which I rose to address this House, and there are no further views that I wish to put before the House.

Mr. Kent

There are one or two matters which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. I desire, first of all, to state that I did not get a translation of his speech last night, and I regret to have to admit that I did not understand one word of what he said. Notwithstanding all that, I was pleased to hear the Minister introduce this Estimate in Irish. He held me spellbound with his musical Irish tongue for two hours. Several comments have been made here on the teaching of Irish. I am pleased to inform the Minister that the teaching of Irish in the National Schools has made tremendous strides within the past few years. It is a grand thing to hear the children on coming home from school conversing in our native tongue. I sincerely hope that there will be further advancements in that direction. Perhaps in the near future all the debates in the House will be carried on in the Irish language. We must remember that it was the sweet tongue of our Druids in past ages and of our sages, and when the Minister ceases to preserve the Irish language his glory expires. I cannot say whether he omitted any important items in this Estimate or not.

I thoroughly agree with Deputy Norton as regards the unsuitability of some of the schools in the rural areas. There is no doubt that some of them are in a bad condition and in some places sanitation is in a shocking state. I cannot say whether it is a matter for the Minister's Department to rectify that state of affairs. I know that in a number of national schools from time to time there have been outbreaks of diphtheria and scarlet fever and those schools have been kept open when they should have been closed. I think it shows great neglect of duty on the part of doctors in those areas that they do not insist on schools being closed up when outbreaks occur.

There is another matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. There is general complaint amongst parents all over the country of the volume of home work which children get. The time of parents, which they cannot very well spare from their house work and farm work is taken up with the teaching of those children. I consider that six hours a day is quite sufficient for school children and that this large volume of home exercises should not be given to them. It is a system which should be put a stop to. I consider that it only makes children dull to be cramming their immature brains. It is a matter I think the Minister should take into serious consideration.

As regards books for the children of the labouring classes, there is a tremendous amount of money spent on education. I think that some money should be devoted to the purchasing of books for the children of agricultural labourers. These poor people cannot afford even to provide their children with luncheons and certainly cannot afford the expense of the books which their children need in the school. I have not much more to say upon this matter. But I would like to know from the Minister why a number of privileged Deputies were supplied with translations of his speech while others have been treated with scant courtesy and especially members of the Centre Party. We never got a copy of the translation of his speech. I think the translation should have been delivered to all of us so as to give every Deputy in the House an opportunity of going through the Education Estimates and criticising the Minister, not, perhaps, for what he said so much as for what he omitted. He may, perhaps, have made an attempt, in that speech, to take a short cut through the Estimates. I do not say he did but we do not know. The Minister should consider in future when proposing huge Estimates such as this giving every Deputy a copy of the translation of his speech and not compelling them to wait for the reports in the Press.

Mr. Tadhg Murphy

I do not think this debate ought to close without the Minister being reminded about a number of matters that I have not heard referred to so far. The Minister must be aware of the fact that there are still a small number of the old convent teachers, and junior assistant mistresses, who have been very badly treated. The number is not very big, and the amount of money that would be necessary to give them some recompense for many years of faithful service would not involve much of a strain upon the Exchequer no matter how hard the times may be. I realise it is not entirely correct to put all the blame for this matter at the door of the Minister. He is only partly responsible for this rather serious omission so far as the people concerned go. I urge he should avail of an early opportunity to talk to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, about this matter and take the earliest possible steps to remedy this blot, for it is a blot, not only on his administration, but even on the State, so long as it continues without being remedied.

I want to refer to another matter very lightly touched upon by Deputy Gearoid O'Sullivan. I was sorry to find a Deputy like Gearoid O'Sullivan touch upon it as apologetically as he seemed to do. I have before me a statement of the correspondence that took place between the national teachers' organisation and the Minister with reference to a member of the inspectorate staff of his Department. I do not at all agree that the matter should be discussed in the manner that Deputy Gearoid O'Sullivan wished last night. He just whispered about it and left it there. It is unquestionably a very serious matter in view of the settled policy of the Department's inspectorate in regard to the inspection of national schools. I have been at teachers' meetings, occasionally, and I have heard complaints about the inspectorate system. Sometimes I wondered if these complaints were not slightly exaggerated. But in view of the terms of the document I have before me I am forced to the conclusion that there is a great deal to be desired if the condition of things as represented in this correspondence are allowed to continue. The regulations of the Department with regard to inspection of teachers and schools provides for certain things. Certain principles are laid down including the following:

"When examining pupils the inspector should prove by his manner that his object is to elicit what they know—not to expose their ignorance. He should, therefore, avoid showing signs of dissatisfaction or impatience. He should not frighten the children in any way or confuse or puzzle them by unreasonable questions."

And there are extracts from a number of other regulations in a similar strain which I think are very commendable and very proper. But this memorandum contains all sorts of complaints from all parts of the State and practically from every county in the State which go to show that a particular inspector is entirely ignorant of or absolutely tramples upon the instructions of his Department. Now it may be said that there is some exaggeration in the complaints. But I think it is very unlikely that a responsible organisation like the teachers' organisation, and after they had examined a very large number of complaints that, significantly enough, have come in from various parts of the country where this official has operated, would send them to the Minister and ask without very, very serious cause that this matter should be investigated with a view to the taking of certain actions.

I want to comment upon what I think deserves comment, and that is the fact that although this complaint was forwarded on the 28th of February, 1935, a reply was not received for several months afterwards, and that that reply was only received after there had been frequent reminders sent to the Department that that important document was not acknowledged or any decision announced upon it. It seems to me at all events clear that this young official of the Minister's Department has been running amok here and there through the country, and that he has been endeavouring to show, not how his services should be employed to serve and to advance, but to show how faults can be found over every small matter and to show how much distress a bad-tempered and unpleasant person can cause to others whom he visits occasionally. It is an interesting thing in connection with this matter that the National Teachers' Organisation desire to have this man's conduct investigated. Of course there is no need to say that that generally represents the position so far as the teachers are concerned. Certain complaints, vouched for in a very definite manner, detailed in every degree, were sent to the Minister, and if the Minister was well satisfied that the complaints were well founded, it appeared to the teachers' organisation there was only one remedy in that matter.

Mr. Derrig

On a point of explanation, the Deputy is, perhaps, not aware that the charges were not vouched for. A list of cases was given, but the only information we had was the names of the counties in which incidents were stated to have occurred. We were not supplied with the names of the teachers or the schools in question. I do not see how the Deputy can say that a case against the inspector was vouched for in any way.

Mr. Murphy

I have only to point out that it very clearly appears from this memorandum that, having regard to the details given, there would be no difficulty in ascertaining whether they are correct or not. In return may I inquire from the Minister if his Department took any steps that would enable them to identify the schools of the teachers that made the complaints?

Mr. Derrig

We got no assistance.

Mr. Murphy

May I respectfully suggest to the Minister that in view of the serious nature of the complaint it was his duty to make inquiries, and that he had that responsibility to his officials. The Department, without ascertaining if the complaints were a serious libel on an official in question, simply evaded the fact.

I suggest that the Minister is evading the question in refusing to say whether or not such steps were taken by his Department. This is quite a serious matter, and I sincerely hope that the fact that it has been rather lightly dismissed in a correspondence of a few lines will not end the matter. I suggest that if the Minister finds there are fair grounds for complaint, and that the particulars supplied are justified, reasonable and proper steps should be taken in restraining the person concerned from the very undesirable activities which are complained of. This is not a pleasant matter to refer to. Complaints of this kind do not usually come from this quarter of the House. It is regrettable that they should have to be made on this occasion, and I hope that the occasion for making complaints of the kind will not arise again for a very considerable time.

On the question of school buildings, I want to endorse what has been said. I want to express my appreciation of what the Minister has done recently in the part of the country that I represent, in regard to some long standing extremely bad cases of defective school buildings. In two cases grants for the erection of new schools were sanctioned as far back as 1912, and have since been held up owing to the difficulty in connection with a local contribution. I do with pleasure express my appreciation of the way in which the Minister met the representations made to him on this matter recently, and enabled provision to be made for blotting out two of the worst schools in West Cork and providing proper schools without entailing any great financial hardship on the local people. It is very commendable, and I have only to say in connection with the matter that there is still a very large number of defective school buildings in that area, and in many other areas, which would merit the early and sympathetic attention of the Minister's Department. I should like to remind him that it does appear very inconsistent that we should continue very energetically to proceed with a housing campaign for the purpose of eliminating unhealthy surroundings for men and women and very largely for children, and at the same time permit the desolate and unhealthy surroundings that are inflicted on the children during the school hours. I would urge that, in connection with school buildings, the same energy might be displayed in blotting out some of the miserable old hovels which are still masquerading as schools in this country, and we might put into the drive for new schools a portion of the very commendable energy that is used in the matter of housing generally in this country at the present time.

In view, Sir, of the hesitancy of the Ceann Comhairle to permit of any prolonged discussion on the question of the school-leaving age, I do not want to refer to it at any length, beyond saying that the Minister ought to consider that it is absolutely essential, especially in present circumstances and in view of the developments that are likely in this country in the next few years if it is to progress, that children of all classes of people in the country should have an equal opportunity in the matter of education. As long as there is a position that does enable the children of many persons in the country to leave school long before they should do so, there remains a problem which the Minister himself or his successor will have to tackle and remove. I hope that the credit for the removal of that problem will be earned by the Minister, and that the whole position in regard to this question will be reviewed in a much more reasonable and democratic manner in the near future than has been done up to the present.

I have only to say in that connection that I have long ago lost faith in the reports of the Inter-Departmental Committees. If I mistake not, another Inter-Departmental Committee examined, within the last two or three years, the question of the provision of free school books for children, and whether or not any report was made I know that certain Departmental inquiries in connection with that matter proceeded for a considerable time. It is very regrettable that this whole present problem of the provision of school books for children did not appear to present itself in the important manner in which it should have presented itself to the officials of the Department who conducted such investigations. Again, I would say to the Minister that in the question of national school education, which is alleged to be free, the Minister should take the necessary steps to make sure that it is free in every sense of the word. Children ought not to be compelled to obtain school requisites through the generosity of their neighbours or the generosity of the teachers, or, in the absence of that generosity, to do without such school requisites. It is clearly inequitable that such conditions should exist, and there is a growing feeling, which will be extremely strong in a short time, that this matter will have to be dealt with.

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer also. Deputy McMenamin referred here last evening to the question of reformatories and reformatory school boys. I want to make reference to industrial school children, and to bring to the notice of the Minister certain things which I have seen in connection with the entire absence of supervision of ex-industrial school children. One hears occasionally—and one is always glad and proud to hear it—of an industrial school boy who makes good in the world; who becomes a well-educated person, and obtains a position in life which reflects much credit on himself and on the training that he received. But there is the other side of the story, and I want to complain with all the sincerity I can command about what appears to me to be the appalling lack of supervision in the case of many ex-industrial school boys. I have seen a number of them appearing from time to time recently before courts of referees in pursuit of claims to unemployment assistance, and from questioning a number of them I have elicited the fact that from the time some years before when they left the industrial schools and went into what is termed "employment," they had never received any wages. They were badly clothed and presented the appearance of being entirely neglected. It seems to me that this hiring out of industrial school boys without any full inquiry as to the manner in which they will be looked after is a very serious scandal. They are badly treated, and no attempt is made to train them. The whole thing to me savours of a traffic in human beings that is entirely deplorable. I am sure the Minister is not responsible, and the superiors of the industrial schools may not be entirely aware of what goes on. But there are a growing number of cases of the kind all over the country.

References were made last night to the growth of crime amongst juveniles. I do not know whether that is so or not, or whether it is worth all the references that were made to it. But if there is any foundation for it, I suggest to the Minister that it might easily be accounted for by what I have referred to. An inquiry might very easily be made as to what contact is maintained between the industrial schools and the boys who leave them and as to the conditions under which they are housed, clothed, fed and employed after leaving them. That inquiry would enable the Minister and the officials of the Department who control the industrial schools to get a full appreciation of what appears to me at least to be a very unpleasant position in many respects.

Then as to another matter. Regret must be expressed that the provisions of the Temporary Economies Act, which have lapsed so far as most of the public servants are concerned, still continue in regard to the national teachers. I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter which ought to be considered at an early date and that an effort ought to be made to remove the feeling that exists that in regard to working and general conditions the representations made through their organisation by the national teachers do not get the consideration that they deserve from the Minister's Department. It would be regrettable if such a responsible organisation, representing several thousands of responsible people, should get the feeling that the representations made were treated lightly and without due consideration.

I sincerely trust that an effort will be made to maintain between the general body of teachers and the Minister and his Department that harmony which, in my opinion, is essential to the success of the educational system. I hope the Minister will keep in mind the points that I have tried to make, not with any desire to be unduly critical, but from the point of view of showing how far the removing of the difficulties might be helpful and beneficial to education and to the more efficient administration of the Minister's Department during the coming year and in the future generally.

Mr. Haslett

I suppose most Deputies realise that this Vote is one of the most important which we can discuss. Of all the Votes that will be discussed it provides the most material for speculation and experiment and for the expression of different ideas. Therefore, I do not think it would be wise for any Deputy to go very broadly into the question. There is a time and a place when theories and proposed experiments might be discussed. In debating this Estimate one has to confine oneself just to a few points. I should like to pass on to the Minister some of the things that one hears spoken about, especially in regard to primary education, as one moves through the country. I pass them on as I hear and receive them.

For one thing, one hears a good deal of talk about the text-books. Last year on the Estimates reference was made to the text-books. But, coming from a country constituency, I must represent the country viewpoint. There is a feeling amongst country folk that the text-books are not all that they might be—that we might attain a higher standard in these things, and that the facts of history might be presented in better form than what they are.

It is said that the facts of history in some history readers are presented according, possibly, to the viewpoint of the writer. One is speaking frankly —it works out obnoxiously to the parents of a great many of the children. It is said that taking the facts of history out of their setting and presenting them as if we were writing about them in the twentieth century is not a fair way to set out the facts. It is said also that there is a departure from the high moral tone of some of the school books with which we were familiar in our early days.

There is no period of life so impressionable as the school-going age. One has to think of the child-mind as a white sheet of paper just like wax. All the impressions the child gets in its earlier years will help to cover its afterlife. It is a great thing for every State which through the medium of that white sheet of paper has an opportunity of implanting in the child's brain high ideals of purity, morals and the rest of it, so that it may grow up thinking of the things that are best in life. It is said that we fall far short of that in our school readers and that there is a great room for improvement. On looking over the readers one is inclined to agree with that viewpoint. I would again urge on the Minister the possibility of getting a better standard of readers. On other occasions we meet another kind of complaint, and that is with regard to the frequent changes made in the schools from one reader to another. Where there are families of five or six children it is found when the readers are changed in the class from year to year that, instead of being passed on to the next member of the family, the reader has to be scrapped and a new one bought. These are details which are worthy of attention from the Minister. The remedying of this latter complaint would go part of the way towards meeting the demands made by Deputy Norton and Deputy Murphy when speaking of the difficulty on the part of the parents of providing text-books for their children.

Then there is another matter that is pretty current, and that is that one has to visualise the fact that in a country district the child will only receive, in the primary school, whatever education he is to get. I am not, of course, shutting out the fact that we learn in the school of experience. What I do say is that the child's school life will be within the compass of the primary school. It is there that we have to equip the child for the battle of life. It is complained that too many subjects are attempted in the schools— subjects that are non-essentials. It is suggested that if we concentrated more on the things that would be useful to the child in its after life, it would be more advantageous for the child. I was speaking the other day to an old pupil of a school which we attended long years ago. He is a man who has achieved success in the educational world, and he said, in speaking of the primary school which he attended, that the mathematics which he got there during the early years of his life equalled anything he afterwards got in the university. It is said to-day that our children are not getting a good ground work in the primary schools. It is said that the three R's are not regarded as essential nowadays, that the children get a smattering of other things. I have been frequently told that when a child gets home and is asked by his father to make up the price of certain articles, the child is not able to do the sum in a practical way. With regard to the teaching of geography, it is said that we are not teaching it efficiently. I know that it is being taught in a different way from the way in which it was taught in the old days. If you ask a child to-day what are the principal towns in a certain county in Ireland, he will tell you: "We do not learn geography that way to-day." We are not giving the children a grasp of the things which would enable them intelligently to meet the battle of life.

I do not know what Deputy Murphy visualised when he said that the State should provide facilities where an equal opportunity could be given to everybody. I do not know whether he visualises university education or not. Whether he did or not I think the great thing for the country boy or girl is to get a good groundwork at the primary school, so that he shall learn not alone his A B C but that he shall also learn those principles of reading, writing and arithmetic; those things that go to make a good citizen, and that would make them appreciate their own country instead of turning their eyes always to a foreign land. In this way we shall have growing up with us a better peasantry and a better class of people. It is in that way that we can work out our destinies in our own country in an intelligent way.

When speaking of providing those facilities for school-going children, surely Deputy Norton's picture is overdrawn when he told us of children going to school without breakfast. I do not think that we should ask the Minister to shoulder that problem. Surely that picture must be overdrawn in a State when the local government provides so much for the comfort of the people. In a State where necessitous children can have pure new milk for the asking, in a State where into the needy and necessitous home there come free beef, unemployment assistance and home assistance, surely Deputy Norton's picture is entirely overdrawn. Again and again I have heard it said that we have no starving people in this country, and that there is a bite and a sup for everybody. I would venture to hope so. I do not think for a moment that the picture that Deputy Norton drew is a typical picture of our country as a whole.

I would like to stand behind the Minister in every effort he makes for the advancement of education in this country. We would all like to see the average boys and girls in the country able to read, write and count and do the things that help them to earn their living and make them useful citizens of our State.

Dr. O'Dowd

There are a few points to which I would like to draw attention before this debate comes to a close. I would like to endorse what has been said by the previous speakers about the necessity for the provision of suitable school buildings throughout the country. While I admit that in the last seven or eight years a big improvement has taken place in the provisions of suitable school buildings, there are yet in many parts of the country buildings that are totally unsuitable for use as school rooms. In addition to the provision of suitable buildings, there should also be an effort made to provide suitable playgrounds attached to the school in cities and large towns that would keep the children off the roads and would enable them to enjoy the exercise necessary to their mental and physical benefit. I am at a loss to know how Deputy Kent, when speaking of unsuitable schools in East Cork—or whatever part of Cork it was—could have made the charges he made. Some of the Deputies from Cork are very fond always of levelling charges at the medical officers of health in the County Cork. Deputy Kent said there was an epidemic of scarlatina and diphtheria in his constituency, and that it was due to the neglect of the doctor. I do not know whether that remark of Deputy Kent's was really used seriously. I would prefer to think that the Deputy made such a remark without reflecting on its seriousness. In case the Deputy does not know the procedure in these cases, I want to tell him that the local medical officer in the particular district to which he refers had no power to close the schools. The Deputy should know that the medical officer could only make representations to the Manager. The Manager is the person who has power to close the schools. Deputy Kent should also know that diphtheria and scarlatina are notifiable disease, and that once they occur in an adult or in a school-going child, they are reported to the county medical officer of health, and that it is the duty of the sanitary authority to take the necessary steps to prevent the spread of the disease. I think Deputy Kent, or any other Deputy, should not make a statement of that kind reflecting on the medical officers of the district from which they come, especially when they know that these medical officers cannot reply to these statements. They should not use their privileged position to make such attacks on these officers.

With regard to the School Attendance Act, I should like to say that the parents of school-going children, and especially those whose children are entitled to free medical treatment under the Medical Charities Acts, have the impression that they are entitled to go to their local dispensary doctor and ask for a certificate if a child is unable to attend school. Often, the teachers send them to the doctor to get a certificate, and often, perhaps, the school attendance officer, the Civic Guard, asks them to supply a medical certificate, but the parents should know, and the teachers and Civic Guards should know, that the dispensary doctor is not in any way bound to supply such certificate. If the case is brought into court, the onus is on the prosecution to supply the certificate and I might say, incidentally, to pay for it.

Some Deputies in this House, like some people in other positions in the country who use occasions such as the National Festival to make a general attack on the morals of the Irish people use every opportunity to make attacks on the Irish language, and the use of Irish in the schools has been subjected to attack by some Deputies here, some openly and others in a veiled way. I have personal knowledge of the fact that children who attend schools in which the teaching is done through the medium of Irish are no more backward, and, if anything, are more advanced, than the children of the same age in the English-speaking schools. I think it is an injustice even to insinuate that children who are taught arithmetic, geography or any other subject through the medium of Irish are not getting as good an education as children taught through the medium of English. Deputy Dillon would never get up in this House and say that a child in Germany does not learn arithmetic properly because it is taught in German, and neither would he say that a child in France does not learn the geography or history of France because it is taught through the medium of French.

But Deputies in this House and people outside it, who would like to see us forgetting all about the Irish language, take every available opportunity to tell us that too much time is spent in the schools at present in learning Irish and imparting instruction through the medium of Irish. There are schools in this city and throughout the country in which the teachers are imparting knowledge to the children through the medium of Irish, and I would safely say that if a fair and impartial test were made, as between a group of children attending these schools and a group attending any other school, it would be found that the children who were being taught all their subjects through the medium of Irish are far in advance of the other children. I have personal knowledge of children going to Irish-speaking schools in the city and I can safely say that these children are as far advanced, if not more advanced, than children of the same age who are learning their subjects through the medium of English.

I do not want to say any more on that subject, but I felt that I could not allow to go unchallenged the attacks which have been made and which have been replied to already by other Deputies. There is nothing more to which I wish to draw attention except to recommend to the Minister and to everybody who wishes to see physical development going hand in hand with mental development in the schools, that the Land Commission, in dividing estates in the neighbourhood of schools, should allocate a certain portion of the land for use as a playground by the children. That is very important, because I think that healthy exercise and physical development in the schools, if not of primary importance, are at least important enough to merit very serious consideration by the Department.

Mr. Curran

When this Vote was previously before the House, I mentioned the question of the heating of schools and I mention it again now. Most Deputies here have seen little country children toddling along the road on a cold and wet winter's morning. Invariably, they go into a school which, if it is heated at all, is only very inadequately heated. I put it to the Minister that every effort should be made to make the school something like it ought to be and not an ice-box when the children arrive there. In a good many rural schools now, the heating consists of a little bit of a fire in a big school-room which everybody knows is not sufficient to heat the school on a winter morning. I think that is the first thing that should be done in providing for the comfort of the children. We cannot remedy climatic conditions here but we can certainly remedy the conditions in the schools in this matter of heating.

The next point I want to refer to is that the Minister ought to provide free books for necessitous children. Everybody is aware of the difficulty of parents at present in providing books for their children. It has become, I am led to believe, a heavy charge on people. I understand that books have become very expensive since my school days, and I know it must be a very difficult problem for many parents, some of whom are possibly dependent on home assistance or unemployment assistance. It is impossible for those people to provide these books. I am not an authority on education matters and I just put these two points before the Minister and ask him to consider them.

Mr. Keely

Before the debate closes, I wish to extend my congratulations to the Department of Education for the successful efforts they are making to revive Irish as the spoken tongue of this country. I have noticed with pleasure during the past few years that children, coming from and going to school, carry on their conversations and play their little games, using Irish as their spoken language. At one Feis last summer, which close on 1,000 children attended, from considerable distances around the town, in practically every case I heard those children speaking Irish.

That shows, if any proof were needed, the success that is meeting the efforts of the Department to revive Irish. From an educational point of view, I feel and hold that a study of the Irish language is as conducive to the training of the mind and the development of the mental faculties as the study of any other subject which could be undertaken in the schools, national or secondary. The aim of education should be rather the development of character and the production of good citizens than the acquisition of knowledge. As Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney pointed out, the acquisition of knowledge is a means by which character is developed and by which thoughtful serious citizens are turned out by our schools. I am afraid that, in a great number of our schools to-day, the means have become the end. It appears that in many cases the acquisition of knowledge is the criterion by which the success or efficiency of the teachers is to be judged. The Department of Education pays too little attention to the development of character in our schools. I know schools where children have been crammed from morning till night so that they might acquire a certain amount of knowledge in the minimum of time in order to satisfy the inspectors. These teachers were able to satisfy the Department of Education as to the amount of knowledge crammed into the children's heads. The rating of the teacher depends on that. I believe the knowledge acquired through cramming or forcing is worse than the non-acquisition of knowledge. The evil is greater than letting the children grow up almost illiterate or ignorant, because if children are crammed with knowledge at school and if they are forced to study at a time when they should be playing, their minds will be turned from the pursuit of knowledge and from study in the years after they leave school. Complaints have been made in many cases that children, once they reach the school leaving age and are free from school, never devote any time to study of a serious nature. If that be so, I believe the fault lies in the national school and that it lies not so much with the teacher as with the system which forces the teacher to cram knowledge into the heads of the children. It would be better to progress slowly and in accordance with the development of the child's capacity for acquiring knowledge. If that be done in a natural way, that child can be made to take joy and pleasure in acquiring knowledge and that joy and pleasure will be a stimulus to the child in after years to continue the pursuit of knowledge. If our teachers' rating and consequent remuneration depend on the amount of knowledge they are able to cram into a child's head during the school-going period, we shall not have the slow and methodical system of education whereby the minds of the children are developed and their character formed so as to make them good citizens and encourage them to seek knowledge in after years.

A great deal could be done on those lines by a graduated system of home work. I think the efficient educationist aims at, if I may use the term, "schoolifying" the home—carrying into the home, particularly in rural areas, part of the work done in the school. I remember the time when the home was part of the school, when the children of the advanced classes studied their history and literary lessons at home and discussed their school problems with the older people. I am afraid that that system has died out. At present, when children arrive home, they throw their books on one side and do not open them until the following morning. I appreciate the objection to excessive home work, but home work could be utilised to create a taste for study which would be carried on to after years. If there are faults in our education system, I believe the greatest is the cramming of knowledge into the heads of your children—the forcing of education.

A greater amount of attention should be paid to the development of character. The development of character in any school depends entirely on the personality of the teacher. The Department of Education, in selecting candidates for the training colleges, should allocate higher marks for the personality of candidates than for their knowledge of any of the subjects on the programme. If that were done, we might succeed in getting a higher standard amongst our teachers. That higher standard would be communicated to the children under their care in such a way as to help to elevate still more our national characteristics of justice, rectitude and so forth.

I should like to refer to the problem of the great variety of subjects on the school programme. It would be much better for education and for the development of the child's mind to have a small number of subjects on the programme and to teach these subjects thoroughly. It is better to give a sound grasp of the principles of a few educational subjects to a child than to give him a smattering of a varied programme. By concentrating on a few subjects, you will be able to train the child to concentrate, to think for himself, and to solve many of the problems he will meet with in after life, whereas, if you have a varied programme and a wide range of subjects, the result will be that the child will be only able to skim over and get a smattering of these. He will not have his mind sufficiently trained to concentrate on the subjects with which he is dealing, and so he will be handicapped by his inability to concentrate on the more serious problems of life which may meet him in after years. In conclusion, I congratulate the Minister and the Department on the progress made in the revival of the Irish language during the last few years.

Mrs. Redmond

I do not purpose saying very much on this Vote, as I was one of the unfortunate ones who were absolutely at sea for three-quarters of the debate, in so far as it was conducted in Irish. Some people may consider that that was very appropriate in the case of the Education Estimate, but, personally, I could not agree with them on that point. I think it was rather wanting in consideration, having regard to the fact that practically half the House was as much at sea as I was. Therefore, I just wish to say that I do not agree with the teaching absolutely through Irish of every subject which children in the schools are taught. The teaching of Irish as a subject is very desirable, and we would all agree with it. I think when it comes to teaching subjects that have absolutely no relation whatever to Irish, through the medium of Irish, it is absolutely foolish to think that we can ever impart to the children the knowledge which we want to impart to them. I think it is all due to the wave of insanity that has swept over this country for some years past in trying to force Irish on children and on the people when it is not necessary and when it is not advisable. We can never succeed in that policy.

The children, I am afraid, are not being educated as they were heretofore. The subjects which they will require in after life are being neglected, because they simply do not understand one word of what they are being taught. I believe it would be much better if we could have Irish taught as one subject, instead of teaching every other subject through the medium of Irish, a practice which has become absolutely an obsession with the present Government. I think for the most part the children are not being educated as they were heretofore. We can see for ourselves that the children are not being given a chance because they are not able to understand what is being taught to them by the teachers. The teachers are not getting a chance, and the country, as a whole, is not getting a chance. I think, therefore, that we really ought to revise the course we have adopted, look at it in a commonsense way, and understand that it does not serve the country, the teacher, or the child.

Mr. S. Brodrick

There are just a few questions which I want to raise. The point in which I am principally interested is the erection of schools. Certainly a great amount of work has been done in that way but there is need for much more. I have come to the conclusion that much delay in this regard is due to the fact that there is a lack of co-operation between the different Departments and the managers down the country. One finds that applications for new schools have been made as far back as five and six years ago, and that these schools have not yet been erected. The application is first made to the Minister for Education. The Board of Works then comes into the matter. I know instances in which schools are being erected by the Board of Works and in which the Board refused to give the manager even the estimated cost of the school. They refused to give the amount of the tender accepted for a particular school. All they do is to say to the particular manager: "You will give us £150 and we will build a school for you." Owing to the delay in the erection of these schools it frequently happens that the average attendance has arisen so much from the time since the application was made for the new school, that when the school is finished a further classroom has to be added after a year's time or so. I think provision should be made for a contingency of that kind while the school is being erected. Even if there has been a delay and that the average has gone up by degrees, extra accommodation could be provided while the school is being provided.

Another point which I wish to bring before the Minister has reference to old schools. I am not aware whether it is his fault or not. I do not know whether they are called non-vested schools or not, but one finds them in a very bad condition. The floors are very bad, there is nothing provided in the way of sanitary appliances, and the roofs are bad. I should like to know from the Minister who is responsible for repairing these schools. Sometimes children have to walk two or three miles to these schools in wet weather. They hang up their coats and hats on the walls but the condition of some of the schools is so bad that these articles of clothing would be much drier if the children wore them all through the day. Deputy Dr. O'Dowd referred to another matter which I would like to stress. That is, that where new schools are being erected, the Land Commission should provide sufficient playgrounds. Even in the case of new schools, sufficient space is not allowed for playgrounds. There is no reason why playgrounds should be restricted to a small space when there is plenty of ground available. In addition to providing bigger playgrounds, there should be an open shed attached to each school in which children could play during wet weather. Frequently during the winter, children are obliged to stay the whole day in school even during the half-hour allowed for recreation, because of the absence of shelter outside. They remain in the school-room once they enter in the morning until three o'clock in the evening.

I should like to see more co-operation between the Minister and the Board of Works in the erection of schools and I should like to see greater inducements held out to managers. In some cases throughout the country very close to the Gaeltacht—for housing purposes these districts are really in the Gaeltacht—you find that the managers are asked to provide one-third of the estimated cost of the erection of the school. Then in the next village you find that the manager is asked to provide only one-sixth, one-seventh, or one-eighth of the cost. That naturally leads to a good deal of delay, because the manager does not see why he should be asked for one-third of the cost, while the manager of an adjoining school is asked only for one-seventh or one-eighth. I think that the neighbourhood should be taken into consideration, and that the Minister should be more liberal in these poorer areas along the western seaboard. I should also like to see the van services extended along the western seaboard. Children in these areas have to travel a very long way to school. I would ask the Minister to have an investigation made with a view to seeing whether these services could be extended and improved. I know areas in which the parents are obliged to keep their children at home because of the long distances which they would have to travel to school.

Mr. McGovern

I do not propose to say much on this Estimate, because I do not pretend to be an authority on education, I know more about the outside of some schools than the inside. Speaking however, as an average man, I think I can say that I know something about our elementary and national schools, the progress that is being made in them and how it compares with the progress made some time ago. With the exception of the Minister, it is evident to everyone that something is wrong; I do not propose to show what is wrong; it is for the Minister to find that out. Is it not plain that there are no results for the time spent on it by the pupils and the industry of the teachers? The teachers are certainly working hard, and the children are working hard, and there is an extraordinarily good attendance at school, yet there is nothing to compensate them for their time and industry. That is unfair to the teachers and to the children. It is agreed that the system must be wrong. Having regard to the strict rule compelling children to attend school, and to the number of days that they attend school now, compared with the position some years ago, as well as all the home lessons that are imposed on them one would expect better results. What are the results? The children know very little about arithmetic. They are certainly not as good after the same number of years at school as the same type of pupil 20 or 30 years ago. They are hopelessly in the background in regard to geography, of which they know practically nothing. Even in spelling they are as a general rule very deficient. It is admitted by parents and teachers in my part of the country that the children never worked harder. Therefore, there must be something wrong in the system. I hope the Minister will apply himself to that. I do not propose to say what is wrong. Some teachers attribute the blame to the fact that Irish cuts in and wastes time, and that it is hard on the children. I think there is something in that. However, if progress were made in Irish it would go far towards compensating for losses in other directions.

Unfortunately progress is not being made. With the exception of those in the Gaeltacht, the ordinary pupils of 13 or 14 years of age are not able to use the Irish language. Is it not time that the Minister reviewed the whole position, to find out what is wrong both with the teaching of Irish and other subjects? I believe teachers would be able to point to where the error lies if the Minister inquired from them. My opinion as to the teaching of Irish is that the pace is too fast. It is being rushed, and anything that is forced on the people, instead of making them take an interest in it, is rather inclined to turn them against it. It has been forced to a certain extent upon the children. That is wrong. If they could be induced to seek after such education, and if the Minister granted facilities to those who wanted to acquire a knowledge of the language, there would be a hope of making progress, and there would be better results for the amount of money spent in that way. The one outstanding thing is that the system is not a success. I suggest that the Minister should recognise that fact and try to find a remedy. If it is found that we are on the wrong road there is no use in forcing the pace. I do not pretend to be able to point the way. I believe the Minister could do so. If I were to offer an opinion I would say that the system by which English was made a success in this country might be successfully availed of in restoring the Irish language. That was, by getting the educated classes to acquire a thorough knowledge of the language when the desire to imitate them would work down to the children. If the Minister concentrated in making good Irish speakers of people in the higher schools for the first ten or 15 years, that would affect the position in the national schools where the children would be given the chance of acquiring the necessary knowledge of Irish for use in the ordinary affairs of life. A proper stimulus would then be given to the language, and the people would take an interest in learning it.

If the Minister said that he did not want them to learn Irish, but that he wanted the educated people to know it thoroughly, or if he said to the back benchers in the Dáil that he did not want them to learn Irish, but that he wanted the front benchers to know it, then we would all learn it, if only to spite the Minister. It would be the same way in the country. If the Minister did not try to force the pace, but gave facilities and encouraged pupils in the higher schools to acquire a thorough knowledge of Irish and to become fluent speakers, that would be the right path to follow for the time being, and there would be more progress. The first thing to be done is to induce the people to acquire a wish to learn the language. Unless they take an interest in it they will not learn it. Years ago I spent many long nights trying to master Irish. I got the text-books and studied them, but when Irish was forced on us in every direction I took very little interest in it. I believe that applies all round, and that if the people could be induced to acquire a knowledge of Irish, and if the Minister supplied the necessary facilities, that would be the right road. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to the points I have mentioned.

Tomás O Deirg

Is dóigh liom go bhfuil moladh ag dul dos na Teachtaí do labhair as Gaedhilg ar an ndiosbóireacht so. Ar ndoigh, do labhair Teachtaí as Béarla go raibh Gaedhilig maith aca agús a bheadh in ann labhairt níos fearr as Gaedhilg. Ní bheadh siad chó scapaithe agus taim cinnte go mbeadh siad i ndán na rudaí seo do chur os comhair na Dála níos cruinne. Ar aon chuma, ba mhaith liom a rá gurab í an Ghaedhilg an teanga náisiúnta sa tír seo. Sí an teanga náisiúnta i, ní amháin i gcroidhthe agus i dtuairim na ndaoine, ach do réir dlighe agus Bun-Reacht na tíre seo agus, dá bhrígh sin, ní cheart do Theachtaí bheith ag iarraidh a chur in úil do mhuinntir na tíre nách bhfuilimíd annseo i ndáriribh i dtaoibh athbheochaint na Gaedhilge. An polasaí atá ag an Rialtas so agus an polasaí a bhí ag an Sean Rialtas—is ionann iad. Is léir do gach duine nách raibh annseo ach dream beag de Theachtaí nuair a bhí an Meastachán á phlé aréir, agus is mar sin a bhíonn an scéal i gcomhnuidhe. Ar an adhbhar san, is cuma ciaca as Béarla nó as Gaedhilg a cuireadh an Meastachán os comhair an Tighe. Tá cead ag Teachtaí labhairt as Gaedhilg nó as Béarla agus bhí sé de nós agam freagra do thabhairt as Béarla i ndeireadh na díospóireachta ar Theachtaí do labhair as Béarla, mar déanfaidh mé anocht. Is cóir do Theachtaí agus do lucht an Rialtais deagh-shompla do thabhairt sa Dáil do na daoine óga agus do na daoine fásta i dtreo go dtuigfidh siad go bhfuilimíd i ndáríribh i dtaobh staid na Gaedhilge i gcúrsaí puiblí, go bhfuil an Ghaedhilg mar bhun-chloch don Stát, agus nách "camouflage" chor ar bith í.

Tá scríobhneóirí aineolacha ag cur síos ar cheisteanna oideachais, daoine gan cleachtadh nó taithighe i gcúrsaí oideachais, agus daoine nách bhfuil aon bhunadhas le n-a dtuairimí. Is cuma leo i dtaobh na Gáedhilge. Ba chuma leo dá gcuirtí deireadh leis an bpolaistí atá againn ar an gceist seo. Tagann Teachta isteach annseo, Teachta gan aon chiall aige, ach amháin an chiall a bhíonns ag páiste a théigheann isteach i measc daoine fásta, agus a thosnuighead ar leadradh. Tá an Dáil cráidhte ag an duine céanna agus' sé mo thuairim go bhfuil sé ag tógaint an iomarca air féin nuair a bhíonn sé ag leigint air go bhfuil cúltaca aige san tír. Nuair a théigheann sé ar ais don Dáil-Cheanntar na a bhfuil sé mar Theachta ann, chídhfidh sé go bhfuil na Gaedhilgeoirí agus lucht na Gaedhilge agus na daoine atá i ndáríribh i dtaoibh na Gaedhilge i bhfad níos láidre ná mara a cheapann sé. "Precedents"—sin é an faithchíos atá ar dhaoine taobh amuigh agus b'fhéidir ar dhaoine sa Tigh so freisin, Má labhrann Aire as Ghaedhilg ar ocáid mar seo, deir siad go mbeidh nós ann agus ní bheidh duine ar bith i ndan dul ar ais ar an mBéarla. Nuair a thiocfas togha, b'fhéidir go gcuirfear an cheist "an bhfuil Gaedhilg ag na daoine seo nó ag an duine úd?" Do réir mar tá, nách bhfuilimíd ag déanamh "precedents" gach lá agus cé'n fáth nách ndéanfadh muid "precedent" i dtaoibh na Gaedhilge, agus í do chur in uachtar am ar bith is féidir linn. Mura mbeadh aon rud eile chun náire do chur ar dhaoinibh annso atá ag cáineadh na Gaedhilge badh dhoigh le dhuine go gcuirfidh an rud adubhradh in áit eile indé náire ortha bheith ag tabhairt masla don teangain, "Sé sin: "Even in the Free State where Irish is the national language they have to translate it into English for one half of the people."

I shall refer briefly to the points that were raised by different Deputies, taking Deputy Norton's speech first. The Deputy, of course, says: "Away with all caution in this matter of educational policy; let us have a broad and generous policy," and, in a few minutes, he outlined to us a policy that would cost something like £1,000,000 a year and perhaps more. It is not, of course, part of the Deputy's duty to suggest how the money for these improvements in education should be provided.

Mr. Norton

£1,000,000 out of the £2,000,000 which the Minister for Industry and Commerce was going to save.

Mr. Derrig

There is no doubt whatever that these improvements suggested by the Deputy would cost very large sums of money. To raise the school-leaving age to 16 years would, it is estimated, cost about £1,000,000; to give maintenance allowances, of which the Deputy has also proclaimed himself an advocate, would cost something like £500,000; and in the case of school-books there would be an additional cost of, I suppose, £100,000, at least, in respect of primary schools. With regard to school-books, there is also the question of secondary school-books, which are very costly, but there are special circumstances connected with secondary schools.

I should like to deal briefly with the point which the Deputy has raised as to the school-leaving age report. He seems to think that there was something extraordinary about asking an inter-departmental committee to examine this question of the school-leaving age. We appointed officers in whom we had confidence, officers who, in their respective spheres, had a thorough knowledge of the problem as approached from the point of view of the Department they represented. The gentleman who represented the Department of Education, for example, is certainly one of the most experienced and efficient officers in the State. Nobody can say, either in respect of himself or his colleagues, that they could have any other idea than that of advancing, in so far as they could, the betterment of the educational facilities of the State. No sooner did a summary of the report brought forward by this committee appear than it was violently assailed in the Press by, as I have said, ignorant and uninformed writers who, I venture to say, had not even taken the trouble to read the report.

Mr. Norton

Is that to be taken as applying to Deputy Breathnach?

Mr. Derrig

No credit whatever was given to the committee for its labours. When Deputies get a copy of the report in a few days they will see that a great deal of hard work was put into the preparation of it. It already has been considered worthy of attention by the Governments of foreign States, some of them perhaps the most advanced in Europe in educational matters. Furthermore, the officials in question have been in constant touch with educational developments in other countries. One would imagine, listening to what we heard said here this evening and from reading the rubbish that appears in some of our newspapers, that the officers of the Department of Education are quite unfitted for their task. It is surely well known that they are recruited from the most highly-qualified class in the community and that they have special qualifications which entitle them to advise the Minister. It is their prerogative and their duty to do so, and the Minister has the utmost confidence in them.

When I see the silly rubbish that appears in the newspapers about bureaucrats I wonder where does the question of bureaucracy come in. We are in constant touch, for example, with the national teachers. The Minister is constantly in touch with them as well as the Secretary and inspectors, and there is no barrier whatever to the free and intimate discussion of difficulties between the teachers and ourselves. The people who talk in the way that I have described simply want to have a fling at the Government and at the Minister. They drag the question of Irish and of teaching through Irish into matters that have nothing whatever to do with it. They suggest that, because I speak in Irish, I am attempting to burk criticism. I am not attempting to burk criticism, and personally I would not mind if the debate went on for a week in English. Let me repeat what I have already said in Irish. I consider that it is my duty and the duty of the Government and of the Dáil—I know that the Dáil (even though many members of it do not speak Irish) are with me in this matter—to give a good example to the country: that we should not place it in the power of any individual or any writer to say that there is any window-dressing or camouflage about this question of Irish. Too much work has gone into the task of reviving the Irish language and too much money has been spent on it to have any going back, and while I am Minister, at any rate, there will be no going back. I will go forward steadily and use every ounce of energy that I possess to push forward the policy which, I understand, has been accepted by the representatives of education and by the chief political parties in this country.

To come back to the question of the school-leaving age, the Deputy who spoke conveniently ignored the fact that in a neighbouring country this whole question of the school-leaving age has been discussed and that proposals have been brought forward. These proposals were acclaimed in certain sections that purport to represent Irish educational interests as evidence of the wonderful things that have been done across the water. But, when these proposals were examined it was found that there were exemptions on the grounds of domestic necessity, of beneficial employment, and that the scheme would not be brought into operation until 1st September, 1939. Yet, when our officials who have gone to such trouble to examine this question, to collect data, to get the opinions of the representatives of the rural community, for example, to examine the facilities that we have available, the preparations that we have to make, the organisation that has to be set up, if we are going to move forward—when they bring in a report and suggest that certain specific steps should be taken as an experiment, they are told that they are bureaucrats, and are described, I think, in one daily paper, as "feudal barons." It speaks of this report as if it were written by a committee of feudal barons in the age of serfdom.

I want to protest against that kind of uninformed criticism. It is the kind of thing that we get from some so-called Irish national newspapers. We are told that, in actual fact, the Committee are wrong when they say that, as regards legislative requirements in regard to the school-leaving age, we are in at least as good as position in this country as in other countries. There is not other country with the exception of Great Britain where a new measure has not been introduced in which, so far as I know, there is any general scheme for school attendance beyond the age of 14 years. If there is I would like to hear of it.

Why is it assumed that the officials, or the Department of Education, or the Government are not in favour of giving the fullest possible education to the children of this State? Parents already can send their children to school as long as they are able to do so. An important point arises where, due to economic circumstances, parents may not be in a position to send their children to school after they reach the age of 14. Having weighed all the circumstances, parents may consider that it is better to try and find employment for their children. The report recognises that fact. It has to be recognised in every country. It has to be recognised in considering this policy by every department of education.

Deputy Norton referred at great length-he reiterated much the same as the other critics did, the conclusion in the Committee's report, which states:—

"There is no case for the raising of the school-leaving age on the grounds that young people are too immature for employment at the age of 14 years."

If the Deputy is good enough to read the portion of the report which deals with that matter—page 20 of the proof copy—he will find the following statement under the heading "That children are not sufficiently mature to enter employment at the age of 14 years":—

"It was stated that there was an increasing demand for the services of girls of 14 to 16 years of age in factories where they are engaged on such work as packing, mechanical and monotonous operations by machinery, etc. In such work the girls were often kept standing all day, and their duties in frequent instances necessitated constant stooping. It was contended that employment of this kind was unsuited to girls at the age of adolescence.

"An issue of this kind, involving the physical fitness of juveniles for employment in industry, is one on which we are scarcely in a position to express a view. It is more a matter of expert medical opinion. We are aware, however, that young persons between the ages of 14 and 16 years must be certified by the certifying surgeon under the Factory and Workshop Acts as medically fit before they are admitted to employment, and we presume that before young persons are certified for admission regard is had to the conditions under which they will be employed. It must be remembered that these young people are anxious to start work, to be independent, to earn a little for themselves, to supplement the family income. In any cases where the conditions of employment may be unsuitable, a remedy should be sought by way of improving the conditions rather than by way of raising the school-leaving age and excluding the juveniles from employment".

So far as the improvement of the conditions of labour for juvenile workers is concerned, that matter has been taken in hands and the House knows that a Bill has been passed into law called the Conditions of Employment Bill, which received a great deal of attention in both Houses and which provides for the proper control of juvenile labour.

The Deputy referred also to the question of school buildings. We are endeavouring to build to the utmost of our capacity. I do not think we can possibly go beyond £200,000 a year, having regard to the organisation of the machinery which deals with the matter and having regard also to the fact that there is an intensive building campaign going on in other directions. Obviously, if we cannot get the number of houses built that we would like to have built in the City of Dublin and possibly elsewhere, that is an indication that in regard to organising building we have not sufficient facilities; but to the utmost extent that it is possible to do so, we are pushing forward with our programme.

Mr. Norton

Does the Minister know that there are 8,000 building-trade workers idle?

Mr. Derrig

Another matter referred to by a number of Deputies was the question of statistics regarding juvenile crime. Deputies admitted that the question of juvenile crime was really not one for the Minister for Education and that it might be more appropriately raised upon the Vote for the Department of Justice. In view, however, of the fact that so much attention has been paid to the matter, I think it well to call the attention of the House to this, that in my opinion it might be rash to draw hasty conclusions as to the prevalence of crime from statistics covering such a very short period as two years. I think in a matter of this kind one is apt to draw a wrong conclusion unless one takes a fairly long period into consideration and unless one gives an outline and, as far as possible, the general circumstances of the country during the period.

If it is claimed that an increase in the number of young persons who have been sent to reformatories is an indication of a growth in juvenile crime and that it gives cause for serious anxiety, I would like to point out that, taking the figures since 1928, I do not think that over the whole of that period it can be said that the committals to reformatory schools indicated that the position was very unsatisfactory. In 1928 there were five children under 14 years and 33 children over 14 years, a total of 38, sent to reformatories. In the year 1929, the figures respectively were six and 33. In the succeeding years, 1930 to 1934, the figures fell, but in 1935 there was an increase to a total of 44, seven under 14 and 37 over 14. There was an increase in that year, but, as the increase seems to be peculiar to that year, I think it would be a mistake to jump to rash or hasty conclusions as to the prevalence of crime, having regard to the other figures. Looking back on the position some years ago, I find that whereas, as I have stated, the number sent to reformatory schools in 1935 was 44 which was an increase over the previous year, in the year 1915 the figure ran up to 139 and in the year 1910 it was 113, for the 26 counties.

With regard to the number of children sent to industrial schools for criminal offences, there was an increase also in recent years, and these children are under 14. Taking the case of the reformatory schools, the fact that we have only 44 committals now as compared with 113 in 1910 or 139 in 1915 over the Saorstát area would seem to indicate that we have come down considerably towards bedrock and, when we do reach the bedrock figure. obviously an increase on that can be made to look very large if treated as a percentage increase, although the actual number of increased offences may be rather small.

I am not going to pontificate as to the reasons for any increase there may be in juvenile crime, but I think that perhaps the question of parental control which has been mentioned should be emphasised and it is only right for me to say that, so far as the schools are concerned, I feel they are doing their duty. There is a very good spirit and there is training in good conduct and a good foundation is being laid in habits of good citizenship and so on in the schools. We cannot blame the schools for defects which often come, unfortunately, from lack of parental control. Occasionally, one hears complaints that even in the schools the teachers do not always get the co-operation and the support from parents to which they are entitled.

With regard to the claims made that this increase in crime may come from political causes or that in some way there is a deterioration which may be traced back to our political difficulties. I would like simply to say on that point that so far as the men who were in the national movement were concerned, the old I.R.A., there is no doubt that a finer or cleaner body of men rarely existed in any country and rarely kept such high standards as they kept. In fact, I think it is a matter for congratulation that, in spite of the difficulties that we have had, we have maintained such high standards and I would not like the Dáil or the country to feel that because the figures in a particular year showed an unusual increase in regard to juvenile crime, that that is a proof that we had reached a position where improvement was not possible. We have to wait for future events to show whether that year was exceptional or not. Quite possibly it was. It was an unique year and it would be a mistake, I think, to draw any hasty conclusions on account of it.

With regard to the question of the inspector, in reference to whom a circular was issued by the National Teachers' Organisation, I think that, as the matter has been stressed by Deputy Murphy, and as he apparently considers it to be one of importance, I should devote a few words to it. In this connection, however, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the circular that was sent out to Deputies did not give either the names of the schools or the names of the teachers in question and that, when representations were made to the Department of Education about this officer, representatives of the teachers were asked to supply the names of the schools or of the teachers in question, and they declined to do so. So that it was extremely difficult for the Department of Education to make inquiries. I should like to say in that connection that it seems to me rather strange, if the teachers' organisation considered this matter to be a very grave one, that they did not take steps to take out one or two or three well-defined cases where they felt that they had strong grounds for grievances against the officer in question, and prepare a statement for the Education Office giving all the facts. Their procedure was quite different, however. I think what really happened was that a circular was sent out to teachers asking them to supply instances of grievances against this particular inspector, or cases of improper conduct from the point of view of the relations between teacher and inspector, to make dossiers of these cases and send them on; and it seems to me a great weakness in the treatment of the case that an endeavour should have been made to bolster up the case against the inspector by going to the expense of printing a document of this kind, giving quotations from alleged incidents in practically every county in the Saorstát, and yet not giving the name of a single teacher or school involved, when we know that the material which went to make up that circular was prepared as the result of instructions sent out from the headquarters of the teachers' organisation in which particulars were asked for of all these cases—even of trivial cases. Accordingly, I think that the Department can reasonably take up the point of view that they did not receive co-operation in this matter; that it was not approached properly by the teachers in the first instance; and that, secondly, they did not place the facts before us. Then, on the information which was at our disposal in the office, we went into the question and we got into touch with the divisional inspectors in the different parts of the country where this particular inspector had been working, and we got their opinions regarding the cases in respect of which appeals had been made against his rating. Deputies know that there is an appeal board to which teachers who feel that they have been wrongfully treated or their ratings unjustly lowered, have the right to appeal. We went through the material which we have in connection with appeals and consulted the divisional inspectors. Then we had a letter from the teachers' organisation expressing dissatisfaction that no official action had been taken by way of censure on the inspector. We were asked, as the House will recall, to dismiss the inspector, and representations were made solely on the ground that the National Teachers' Organisation thought that the officer in question was not suited to be an inspector. Apparently, what the organisation wanted was that we should intimate to them that the officer in question had been censured. We are not prepared to make any statement to the teachers' organisation or to any other body as to the result of our investigations in a matter of this kind.

Among a number of other matters mentioned was the question of the standard of English for Fíor-Ghaeltacht candidates in the entrance examinations for the preparatory colleges. In fact, there has been a reduction in the standard of English in that examination, but I think that, so long as the entrants for that examination are candidates for the teaching profession, it will be necessary that they should take English as a subject. It is very extraordinary that complaints regarding English in this examination have only come from one part of the country. In the other parts of the country, where the numbers of candidates who are sitting for the examination, and those who are successful, are increasing year by year, there has been no complaint either about English being compulsory or about the standard of English.

Deputy Breathnach referred to the fact that the Education Office was not sufficiently active in doing their work through Irish. We are sending out circulars in Irish to teachers and managers, except in cases where the managers have intimated that they prefer to receive the circulars in English. With regard to the question of the programme, I think it may be as well to emphasise again what I have stated in previous years, and what Deputy Breathnach and others have expressed in their speeches, as to what the policy of the Department is in regard to teaching through Irish. The present programme was drafted by a committee or conference representative, I think, of all the educational interests in the country, and it is on that programme that the work of the schools is being continued. I shall give one extract from the report in question (page 10), which says:

"One of the leading characteristics of that programme is its insistence on the principle of teaching the infant classes through the medium of Irish. The members of our conference agreed on the supreme importance of giving effect, as far as possible, to this principle."

In the year 1931 a circular was sent out to explain the position fully, in which it was stated:—

"Where a teacher is competent to teach through Irish, and where the children can assimilate the instruction so given, the teacher should endeavour to extend the use of Irish as a medium of instruction as far as possible. When these conditions do not exist, such teaching through Irish is not obligatory. Teachers who hold Bilingual or Higher Certificates will, unless there be evidence to the contrary, be regarded as competent; but the possession of these certificates is not an essential condition of such teaching."

In other words, it is a practical question and a question to be determined on the spot by the local inspector whether, in the circumstances he sees in the local school, he considers that more work should be done in teaching through Irish, or less work. It depends on whether he is satisfied, and I believe that the inspectors, being reasonable men, many of them having been teachers themselves, are working on the basis of this circular and are interpreting it faithfully and carefully and, having regard to the fact that if a teacher is obviously unfitted to teach through Irish he will be only doing more harm than good to Irish and to education generally by attempting to do so.

With regard to our general attitude to the teaching of Irish, we think that perhaps some more time might be given to speaking the language, which, after all, is the important and the fundamental thing in the curriculum. The "Notes for Teachers" which were circulated to the teachers, by their insistence on making the Irish language the language of the pupils, both inside and outside the school, I have no doubt are largely responsible for the happy condition of affairs which Deputy Kent and Deputy Keely referred to, of causing children to speak in the Irish language on their way to and from school. These "Notes" emphasised the importance of getting pupils, first of all, to speak the language fluently and freely. No doubt, if teachers follow the advice given, even where they have not all the requisite qualifications, they can make a very creditable effort, if they are in earnest, and they can do a great deal to create the atmosphere for speaking Irish amongst the children.

I do not know if there are any other matters to which I need refer. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and a number of other Deputies referred to certain individual cases. As I said, if Deputies will be good enough, in case of complaint, to write to me, I shall only be too happy to make investigations in any case where there are complaints of political bias or the introduction of politics into the schools, no matter by what side. The statement Deputy Gearoid O'Sullivan made that references were made to the late Michael Collins in certain schools as a traitor simply arouses my astonishment. I am really astonished that at this hour of day we could have such action. No matter how strongly we feel politically, or how much we may be attached to political Parties, I feel certainly humiliated to think that any teachers should so far forget themselves as to introduce a spirit of that kind into the schools. If my attention is called to cases of that kind I shall certainly call the attention of the managers in question to such.

Then with regard to the history books, Deputy Haslett seems to be dissatisfied with the standard, and the contents, in some measure, of some of our readers. Deputy Kissane, on the other hand, referred to a history book in use in the schools about which a great deal of dissatisfaction is expressed. We do not publish text-books for the schools, and we leave it to the discretion of the school, particularly in the case of secondary schools, to use what books they wish to use. There is, I think, an approved list, and in connection with that list certain books are named, and it may happen that in certain categories and in certain subjects the selection is limited. I think that in the treatment of history in regard to which controversy might arise, it is not the text book so much that is in question as the personality of the teacher. You might find a distinguished member of the opposite side dealing with some book giving the John Knox point of view in regard to a controversial matter; and he might deal with it in a manner giving satisfaction to the opposing point of view. No one can question my predecessor's competence or breadth of view in regard to that. After all, if our teachers would avoid the text-book and not stick too closely to text-books, but infuse history with personality and life and vigour, and give background to all their instruction, detach it from all controversies and current topics as far as possible, and show that history as dealt with is a connected thing going back to the past, ever changing but continuous, then, I think there would not be such cause for dissatisfaction in the treatment of historical subjects.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 25 Mar 1936