Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Tuesday, 13 Jun 1944

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

Mr. McCarthy

I was dealing with the question raised by Deputy Byrne regarding certain aspects of leave for children in industrial schools. I live beside an industrial school, probably the one to which Deputy Byrne refers, and I know that during the summer season the boys there are allowed to return to the custody of their parents or their guardians. Who pays for them I do not know, but before they are let go either the parent or the guardian has to intimate that he is prepared to take charge and be responsible for the boy during the holiday period. Therefore, I do not see any difficulty in the matter about which Deputy Byrne seemed to have a grievance, because what has been done in certain cases can be extended to other cases if the conditions required by the principals of the schools are complied with.

The question of the Irish language has been mentioned repeatedly to-day. In that regard, there is one feature which I think should be developed, that is, subsidising bodies of earnest workers who are providing funds to send children to the Gaeltacht. In the school the children get a good deal of Irish but when they return home they are helped very little. Most of us remember from our experiences in our young days that Irish came more fluently to us when we were in the Gaeltacht from the very atmosphere of the place. Those of us who were not able to speak Irish very well, in a few days developed a fluency which we could never develop in the Galltacht. This scheme of sending young children to the Gaeltacht where they hear the language spoken naturally, is the best method that I know of. There is no use in making Irish an academic subject and confining it to that. It must be brought into the principal activities of life. It must be brought into religion, which is an important part of life. That can be done by having Irish prayer-books. At first they could be bilingual prayer-books, having Irish on one side and English on the other, just as some prayer-books have English on one side and Latin on the other. Irish must be brought into the children's games and amusements. All these things must be done gradually. We find that the children who have been to the Gaeltacht are most anxious to go there again, even children whose parents know no Irish whatever. A Deputy made a very wise suggestion to-day, namely to have children who have been to the Gaeltacht during the summer season formed into clubs during the rest of the year where they would meet for an hour in the evening or a couple of hours a few times a week. These clubs would continue the benefits derived from their visits to the Gaeltacht.

I wish to refer to the position of some teachers in industrial schools who, so to speak, have been allowed to fall by the wayside. When industrial school teachers were taken over for payment by the Department of Education some time ago, certain teachers were not taken over because they were supernumeraries on the staff. They had been in receipt of very poor salaries all their lives. They had given years of service in the institutions where they worked and now they are facing the end of their years without adequate provision for pensions. I am sure there are not many such cases but some of them have made representations to me in the matter. Some of them had a paltry £1 a week. They were left in that position because they were supernumeraries and were not taken over by the Department. The same thing applies to the pensioned teachers, to whom Deputy O'Donnell referred to-day. After years of service, after years of struggle in the cause of national education, they are left and there is nobody to take any notice of them.

In connection with the many schools that have been established for vocational and technical purposes there should be departments where adequate instruction in farming and agriculture could be given. Such instruction is given in some of the schools. There is a theory that you must go out after the plough or the machine to learn agriculture. But, if we are to improve our methods, we must treat agriculture also from the academic point of view. Progress in this country largely depends on the capacity of the people who work the land to co-operate with the Government—no matter what Government is in power—in the various schemes that they may promote in the interests of the country. Therefore, agriculture is a most important subject and one to which we should devote our attention. When we see rooms idle in many of these schools, it is time steps were taken to provide instruction for those increased numbers who desire to learn domestic economy and those who desire to study the soil and its products. I would suggest that the Minister should give attention to that matter because I know many places where it could be put into effect. The country in general needs such facilities. The people are asking for them. We have the accommodation and all we want are the teachers, and I am sure they can be provided. It is sad that training colleges are being closed down while in some schools there are classes of 40, 50, 60 or more pupils to one teacher.

General Mulcahy

90 and 100 in Dublin.

Mr. McCarthy

The situation is even worse in rural areas, with small classes. I remember teaching in a building which was called a school but which local tradition says was a hospital in the famine days. It is still there —a rat-infested hovel on a hillside. My successor is now teaching there. I remember having 57 pupils in that school divided into five classes. In other circumstances that number of pupils would have warranted an additional assistant. In half an hour five classes had to be set to work and educated. How is any teacher to do that? It is worse than having large classes. If I had one class of even 70 I could do better work than I could do with 50 pupils divided into five classes. I do not think so many teachers need be unemployed if the whole system of things were reconsidered. We took over a certain institution and it is taking years and years to alter it. Padraig Pearse said that what was wanted in education was not a change but a revolution of the whole thing. I think we have not yet reached the position that we are giving the adequate inspiration that he asked for or modelling the whole system on the requirements of the localities where the schools are.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Mulcahy in opening the debate struck the right note in appealing for a higher ideal in education. There is no doubt that the entire future of our nation depends upon the standard of education in the first place and, to a greater extent, upon the ideal which inspires those in control of education. Unless those who set themselves out to train the young mind have some definite clear-cut ideal before them, this nation will drift along from year to year, following dry text-books, dry rules and regulations, without inspiring new ideas in the youth of the country. Sometimes we have been inclined to ridicule the standard of education in the public schools in Great Britain. We have been inclined to ridicule the snobbery and other evils associated with the public school system but, at any rate, in the British system of education they set out to achieve some object, whether it was right or wrong. Here, apparently, there is no definite clear-cut objective in education and, as a result, we have a rather futile system which has achieved very little in the past 20 years. Criticism is frequently expressed of the low standard of citizenship of our young people, the low standard of respect for truth, honesty, honour and justice. It would be well to consider whether that low standard is due to a failure in our educational system to set before it a higher standard and higher objectives.

The teacher has been described as God's second priest and there is no doubt that his function is a very high and noble one. He is entitled to a decent status in society and a decent standard of remuneration, but he is entitled also to such help, co-operation and assistance as would enable him to improve his standard of teaching and his work in the school. It may be asked what ideas I have to suggest in that respect. At any rate, the Department of Education, acting in co-operation with the teachers, perhaps through their organisation, should seek to provide courses that would be helpful to the teachers and an inspiration to them in improving the standard of their work —courses of lectures and instruction and bringing the teachers together for the purpose of helping them to get better results from their labours. That should be one of the first aims of our Department.

I am glad to note from the Minister's statement that there are proposals for a vast improvement in the school buildings throughout the country. There is no doubt that such an improvement is long overdue. I am not, however, prepared to give approval to the ideas of Deputy Dillon in that respect. Deputy Dillon started out to-day by boasting of the success which he had achieved in having his ideas accepted in regard to the closing down of the Summerhill Detention Home, and in other directions. I would be rather alarmed if I thought that all Deputy Dillon's ideas would be accepted, particularly his idea in regard to primary schools in the rural areas. He suggested that the small primary school should be levelled, and that larger buildings should be provided in the towns in which the children over a vast rural area should be concentrated. Life at the moment is sufficiently complex without making the education of our children in rural areas dependent upon mechanical transport. Those of us who have been reared in rural districts will recall that quite a substantial proportion of our education was acquired on the journey to and from school, and I do not think that there would be any definite improvement in the outlook of our rural population if children were to be collected from the rural areas and brought in by buses or lorries or other motor vehicles to urban areas for education. The rural schools ought to be preserved. They fill a very useful function, and if, unfortunately, many of the rural schools to-day are half-empty, that is not the fault of the teachers or of the schools; it is the fault of our economic system, which tends to promote means of livelihood in the larger towns and cities, to encourage, by every possible means, the population to leave the country districts and to settle in the larger towns and cities. I believe that position will eventually be rectified, and that we will reach a time when the rural schools throughout the length and breadth of the country will be at least half as full as the schools in our cities and large towns.

On the question of primary education, I have always held that education in the primary schools should be simplified to the last degree. No subject should be introduced which cannot be taught thoroughly and fully. No child should be sent out of a primary school without a thorough and complete knowledge of any subject in which he has been instructed. Nothing tends to destroy self-confidence and to send young people out in life with an inferiority complex more than the knowledge that they have not acquired all the education that they are supposed to acquire in primary schools. If a boy can leave a primary school satisfied that he has learned everything that it was intended to teach in that school, that he is fully qualified in every subject in which he was instructed, he will leave with a sense of confidence and an assurance which will be helpful to him all through life. Therefore, I say that we should confine the number of subjects in the primary schools to the lowest possible minimum and teach those subjects thoroughly.

Reference was made in the Minister's statement to lack of parental control. There is a tendency to blame youthful delinquency and all such other evils entirely upon the parents. While everyone will admit that a large measure of the blame is attributable to the failure of parents to exercise proper control, our educational authorities must accept a fair amount of responsibility also. We must remember that it is through our educational system we have to raise the standard of good citizenship and the outlook of our people, nationally and morally. If, for some reason, whether because they have not the necessary training or because they are physically or mentally unequipped to train and control their children, parents have failed, it is the duty of our educational establishments, and, to begin with, the primary schools, to fill that need and the fact that parents have neglected their duty for some cause is no reason why their children should be compelled to be bad citizens and eventually to be the parents of bad citizens.

There must be a change for the better, and it is through our educational establishments that that change must come about. Much of the minor crime and bad citizenship amongst our young people is due to the fact that boys and girls when they leave the primary schools have no settled employment. This raises the question of continuation education, and I hold definitely that it is a duty of the State, and there is a moral obligation on the State, to see, when boys and girls leave the primary schools, that either post-primary education will be provided, or employment will be found for them. If boys and girls, having left the primary school, can secure positions on the land, in the factory, or in business, where they will be properly trained and looked after, all is well, but if they are to remain unemployed when they have left school, all is wrong.

In that case there is a duty on our Education Department to see that education is provided for all boys and girls who cannot find employment on leaving the primary schools. In this respect also it is desirable in regard to vocational education, that even where a certain measure of employment can be found for young boys and girls, the Department should seek to provide night classes, so as to ensure the better training and better mental development of our young people. That should be the aim of our vocational schools—to provide regular day classes for those who cannot find employment and night classes for those who are in employment, and that, I think, should apply both to rural and urban areas.

The Minister, when last speaking in this House, took me to task rather severely for having suggested that rural vocational schools have to a large extent been a failure. In making that statement, I was not casting any reflection upon the teachers or even upon the programme in these schools. What I wanted to point out was that, in the rural areas, the people who avail of our rural science schools for education are mainly those young people who have no intention of remaining on the land. Boys and girls who intend to work on the land—on the farms of their parents or as agricultural workers—almost invariably absent themselves from these vocational schools. It is only those who intend to get away from the land and into some other occupation who avail of these schools, and, for that reason, a great deal of the good work being done in these rural vocational schools is brought to naught. I fail to see how that position can be remedied unless we have what must ultimately come, that is, a raising of the school-leaving age by one year and provision for education in these vocational schools for all young people who intend to take up work on the land or manual work of any other kind.

It must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of our people have to depend for their livelihood on manual work, and the main purpose of education, both primary and whatever vocational education we can provide, should be to ensure that these manual workers will be as skilled as they possibly can be and will have as high a standard of education as it is possible to give them, without impairing their efficiency as manual workers, because there is no doubt whatever that if our boys and girls are kept at school for a very prolonged period and kept away from work on the land in particular, they will find it difficult to acquire a taste for such work in after life. This has been demonstrated by the educational system in Denmark which provides that boys and girls, and particularly boys, who intend to work on the land shall go to work at an early age, and, at the age of 18, shall receive supplementary education. The motive there is to ensure that these boys will acquire a taste for manual work early in life, and, having acquired that taste, will set out at the age of 18 or 19 years to acquire the mental training and improvement which they will find desirable and beneficial.

The Minister was on quite correct lines when he suggested that one of the best methods of instruction in our primary and other schools is the setting of good example by our teachers. There is no doubt that our teachers must set for themselves a very high standard of conduct and very high ideals which will inspire our young people to follow their example. It ought to be impressed upon them by this House and by every section of the community that the people expect from them a very high standard, so that by their example they will inspire their pupils to aim at being better citizens and better workers in whatever sphere of life they may be called upon to make their livelihood. Nothing gives to any boy or girl a worse start in life than to cultivate habits of idleness or deceit during school hours. Whether or not the teacher is very brilliant, he can turn out very good pupils so long as he inspires them with the ideal of diligence and hard work in class, and the ideal of truth and honesty in their dealings with their fellow pupils and later on with their fellow citizens.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I should like to say at the outset that I consider our whole education system here to be wrong. In what is primarily an agricultural country, we do not seem to fit our children for the life which the majority of them will undoubtedly have to lead as adults, nor do we, on the other hand, adequately prepare them for the type of life which some of them will take up if they leave the rural areas. We have on the one hand a system of trying to get the rudiments of higher education into their heads, and on the other hand of leaving them without the necessary knowledge in the life which the majority of them will lead. That system seems to fall between two stools of educational thought. I think we ought to make up our minds which line we are going to follow. We ought either to teach them more with a view to the life they will lead, or prepare them generally by expanding their minds. We do not seem to do that very effectively. People who are dealing with children nowadays tell us that they notice a falling away in the standard as compared with previous years. I do not intend to go into the reasons for that, but a number of unbiased people seem to be firmly of that opinion. Never before in the City of Dublin was there such a large amount of juvenile delinquency. I am not one of those people who think that the unfortunate teachers should be asked to teach the children everything. If parental control is lacking, it is very difficult for the teacher to take the place of the parents; in fact, it is impossible, and nobody should ask them to do it. I think, however, that more attention ought to be paid to that aspect of education.

In connection with the teachers themselves, I should like to pay a tribute to them in regard to the very difficult work they have to do. I do not think their conditions of employment or their salaries are in keeping with the dignity of the teaching profession. Every parent feels that there is no body of people to whom he ought to pay more respect. The teachers are dealing with their own children and with the citizens of to-morrow. Those are all truisms. You have all heard them before. The teachers have an opportunity of moulding the character of our people. They are making the citizens of to-morrow. There is no finer or nobler work in the country, and we here in this House do not give the teachers either the status or the salary which that noble work should ensure. I would warn the Minister quite seriously that, after this war, unless there is a radical improvement in the status of our teachers, we will find that a very large proportion of them will go across to the other side where they have brought in a sort of Magna Charta for teachers, and we will find ourselves faced with a very grave shortage; we will certainly find that the more clever teachers will have gone away from us. I would ask the Minister to take steps to prevent that.

Another matter to which I want to refer—it has already been touched on by other speakers—is in regard to the number of pupils a teacher is asked to teach. There is a definite limit set by educational experts, and, I think, by our own Department of Education here, but in many cases that standard is not being adhered to, and the classes are far too large. Everybody knows what the result is—tired, irritated teachers and insufficiently taught pupils. I hope the Minister will remedy that situation as quickly as he can. I think he is aware of that position, and certainly it reflects no credit on the Department of Education.

As I said at the beginning, we are primarily an agricultural country, and it seems a great pity that the children are not taught more about agriculture. Even if they were not exactly taught agricultural methods, they should at least learn something of the dignity of that calling. Now, I should like to come to what is really a very vexed question in this country, and that is the question of the teaching of Irish, and particularly the teaching of subjects through the medium of Irish. It would appear that our educational system is revolving around the question of the teaching of Irish, and that that is the be-all and the end-all of our whole educational system. That, in my opinion, is quite wrong and against all tenets of educational thought. Now, when I say that, I do not wish to be taken as being opposed in any way to the teaching of Irish. I am not. Irish is being taught at the present time, and should be taught, in our schools, but I am definitely opposed, and always will be opposed, to the teaching of subjects through the medium of Irish when the pupils themselves do not know Irish. It is an offence to every known educational canon to try to teach a small child certain subjects through the medium of a language which is unknown to the child.

That is against every known educational tenet, and I believe that in the end it will defeat the object it is intended to serve. It will mean that the child will only get a hotch-potch knowledge of the subject he is supposed to learn and, in the end, it will mean that he will have a definite dislike for the Irish language. In putting this point forward, as I have said before, I am not by any means opposed to the teaching of Irish. I am saying this in all sincerity: first of all, because I believe that the teaching of subjects through the medium of a language which the pupils do not understand is an offence against every educational tenet, and, secondly, because it is a method which, in my opinion, will destroy the whole object which it sets out to encourage. On that note, I shall sit down, but I wish to mark my disapproval, as a Deputy of this House, of that method of teaching.

Cormac Breathnach

Traosluím don Aire fén óráid bhríomhar a thug sé dhúinn agus é ag moladh an Mheastacháin seo don Dáil. Mar is gnáth nuair a bhíonn an Meastachán so á phlé againn tógann ceist na Gaedhilge mórán ama. Anois, fén gceist sin, cadé ár geuspóir; cadé an ceann sprice atá againn? An é go mbeidh dhá theangain fé chomh-réim sa tír seo? Ní dóigh liom gur féidir é sin. Níl dhá theangain fé chomh-réim in aon tír sa domhan fé láthair. Tá fhios agam go bhfuil iarracht á dhéanamh san Aifric Theas an Béarla agus an tAifriceánas do chur ar aon dul le chéile. Níl aon eolas cruinn agam ar conas tá ag éirí leis an scéim sin, ach táim cinnte dhe seo, nach féidir dhá theangain do bheith fé chomh-réim sa tír seo. Dá bhrí sin tá dualgas orainn cinneadh ar cheann éigin den dá theangain atá againn fé láthair dó dhul i ndíse do réir a chéile. Agus nach léir dúinn uile gurab é an Béarla a caifear a leigint i ndísc más mian linn ár dteanga féin d'aithbheóchaint. An bhfuil plean ar bith leagtha amach chun sin a dhéanamh? Ní heól dom é. Cathain a tosnófar ar an bplean san? Rinne Comhairle Chontae na Gaillimhe tosnú ar a leithéid trí bliana ó shoin— agus molaim iad—nuair a cheapadar clár scoláireachta agus an Béarla mar abhar neamh-riachtanach.

Ba mhaith liom dá gcuireadh an tAire in iúl dúinn an bhfuil aon scéim ar aigne aige chun seo a thabhairt chun críche. Caifear é dhéanamh luath nó mall—cad é an fáth ná déanfaí anois é? Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire. Sidí an cheist: conas a tharlaíonn go dtéann buachaillí agus cailíní isteach sna Coláistí Ullumcháin, go gcaitheann siad cheithre bliana ionta san, go dtéid isteach i gColáistí Múinteóireachta ar feadh dhá bhlian agus go dteipeann ortha i ndeire dála teisteas dhá-theangach a ghnóthú?

Táim á mholadh don Aire le blianta comhairle oideachais a chur ar bun. Molaim arís é ach is dócha go rachaidh mo mholadh gan toradh mar is gnáth. Ní thuigim cadé an fáth ná deineann sé sin. Tá aithbheóchaint na teangan, cuir i gcás, mar chuspóir ag gach dream sa tír. Tá an Teachta Risteárd Ó Maolchatha chomh láidir ar son na teangan agus atá an tAire féin, acht ní bhfuigheann an Teachta Ó Maolchatha caoi ar bith ar thagairt don scéal ach an tráth bhíonn, an Meastachán so os cómhair na Dála.

Dúirt an Teachta Diolún go raibh an Taoiseach agus lucht Fianna Fáil ag baint feidhm polaitíochta as ceist na Gaedhilge. Níl fírinne ná éifeacht sa chaint sin. Deineann an Taoiseach an tslua a ghríosadh chun cabhrú le cúis na teangan. Ní polaitíocht é sin ach dualgas—dualgas atá orainn go léir, dualgas go mba cheart dúinn a chomhlíonadh i dtráth agus in antráth.

Thagair Teachtaí do scéal na múin téoirí agus mhol teachtaí áirithe go mba cheart tuarastal na múintéóirí d'árdú. Cuidím óm chroí leis an moladh san, go mór mór ar son na Múinteóirí óg. Tá an saol go dona acu san, go mór mór annso i mBaile Átha Cliath toisc a dhaoire atá earraí.

Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil áthas orm go bhfuil dea-cháirdeachas fé láthair idir chumann na Múinteóirí agus an Roinn Oideachais. Go bhfágadh Dia buan an dea-cháirdeachas san.

Mr. Norton

At a time when the Government is telling us about its post-war plans regarding arterial drainage, agriculture and electricity— long-term plans which cannot be fully implemented for a considerable period —one would imagine that the Minister for Education would avail of this Estimate to tell the House and the country generally what the Government's plans are in respect of post-war education. I should have thought that a substantial portion of the Minister's introductory speech would have been devoted to some attempt to review in a progressive way the State's acceptance of the policy of raising the school-leaving age. For some reason or other, the Department of Education appears to have made up its mind that, whatever other reform may be introduced in the sphere of industry, agriculture or fiscal control, there is to be very little reformation of our present inadequate methods of education and school-attendance. It is not long since we had a report from a very notorious committee which told us that children of 14 years of age were not too immature to enter industry.

If a referendum could be taken of the opinions of parents, particularly parents who do not think that all their geese are swans but who have a realistic view of education, the conclusion would be reached that we are not getting results from our educational system comparable with the amount expended on that system and that we are not giving the children the standard of education which was available, and which was certainly absorbed, 15 or 20 years ago. It is true that we have examinations, more examinations and new types of examinations but the general experience of people in touch with the educational equipment of children leaving school at 13 and 14 years of age will convince any impartial person that we are not giving to the youth of the country that educational and intellectual equipment which will be more necessary than ever in the stern years which lie ahead. If the Minister wants an opinion on this matter, he will get it from the teachers' organisation. He will certainly get it from a very wide and ever-widening circle of parents who are disappointed with the results of our present educational methods. I suggest to the Minister that, now that we have had an educational programme in operation under a native Government for 22 years, and as that period is adequate in which to test the efficiency or otherwise of a system, the time is overdue for an inquiry by impartial people into the results of our present educational system, our present educational direction and the standard of education which is being imparted to the children. I do not know any parents who would not welcome an inquiry of that kind. I do not know any teacher who would not welcome such an inquiry. I do not know any taxpayer who, realising the amount spent on education, would not like to be satisfied that we are getting the best results from the educational system to which we have wedded ourselves during the past 20 years. If parents and teachers want an inquiry and if the taxpayers would welcome such an inquiry, why is the inquiry not held?

For some reason or other, the Department of Education seems to be opposed to the holding of an inquiry. Nothing but good could come from an inquiry of the character I have indicated. If it confirms the efficacy of our present educational methods, well and good. It will run to earth the erroneous belief that our present methods are not satisfactory or efficient. If, on the other hand, it shows that our methods are by no means satisfactory, that they fall far short of reasonable efficiency, then we shall, at least, be in a position to take steps to remedy whatever defects show themselves in our educational methods and to correct, so far as possible, the mistakes which may have been made in the past. The one big complaint appears to me to be that parents and teachers seem to have no effective voice in directing our educational programme. The function of parents seems to be to provide the children and send them to school. The function of the teacher seems to be to try to get whatever education he can into the heads of the children under a method of education in the direction of which he has no control. Parents and teachers seem to be regarded as Enemy No. 1 by the Department of Education. Their voice is never heard. No machinery is provided to enable their voice to be heard when it comes to directing our educational activities.

It was believed in the early days of this State that a council of education would be established on which teachers and parents would have representation and that the Department of Education and the Government generally would be kept informed through regularised channels of the viewpoints of teachers and parents on educational problems which arose from year to year, and that in that way we might, by such impact, by studying educational methods elsewhere, as well as by an examination and analysis of the results of our present teaching methods, be able to correct whatever blemishes were revealed in the light of our experience of the present educational system. Here again the Department of Education decided that there was to be no council of education, just as, apparently, they decided that there would be no inquiry into our teaching methods. Consequently there is no council of education and, in the same way, no inquiry into the result of our teaching methods. I cannot see on what grounds the Minister can easily resist the demand for an inquiry into our teaching methods. I have instanced the advantages which would flow from an inquiry, no matter what the result would be. It is time the Department indicated that it will welcome an inquiry into our teaching methods, will welcome an examination of the results of those methods over the past 20 years by an impartial body of persons, who will be given the opportunity of examining results, which I believe to be unsatisfactory results, and which a large number of people equally believe to be unsatisfactory.

On the question of raising the school-leaving age, I cannot understand the Minister's attitude as to the intention of the Department and the Government. There is every advantage to be gained here that has been gained elsewhere by raising the school-leaving age, and thus allowing children to remain at school until 16, instead of permitting them, as at present, to be running wild through the streets of our cities and towns. Any examination of the destination of children who leave national schools at 14 years of age will reveal that a very large number of them find their way into idle, destructive and wasteful pastimes. Considerable numbers of them get no employment whatever, and from 14 to 17 or 18 they are roaming the streets and their energies, unfortunately, are not harnessed to useful purposes. In many instances if they were kept at school until they were 16, not only would their characters be improved enormously in those formative years, but they might be able to equip themselves for employment much easier than when released from school at 14, when they abandon all educational effort, with the hope of getting freedom from restraint, and earning a few shillings a week. In a large number of instances they are not working, they are a source of anxiety to their parents, and a source of national loss because of idle and destructive pastimes. For the generality of our people national schools are their kindergarten, their schools and universities. That is the only school they have ever known, except what the hard battle of life teaches them, and we ought to make sure that if these children have not, under the present educational system, a passport to secondary education and university education, at least they are kept at national schools and given the greatest measure of education that it is possible to impart there, until such time as they have sufficient sense and wisdom to attend secondary schools and universities, to which a number of them have no access because of the difficulty of getting there without the wherewithal.

I felt that when the Children's Allowances Bill was being discussed in the Dáil, a little more consideration might have been given to the repercussions of that measure, when it, probably, would have been decided to have it for two purposes: (1) to endow large families, and (2) by raising the school-leaving age, making it possible to endow large families by paying an allowance for children kept at school until 16 years of age. That opportunity was unfortunately missed, and any extension of the school-leaving age now will presumably have to stand on its own, because of the manner in which the Act was framed. Personally, I think that a very excellent opportunity was missed in not using the expenditure under that Act in regard to raising the school-leaving age. If that had been done, those with large families would have got whatever measure of endowment was provided in the Act, and we could ensure children remaining at school until 16. Where there was some economic loss as a result, at least, parents would get some compensation for the fact that we were preventing children from entering the employment market between 14 and 16 years of age.

On this Estimate there is a reference by the Minister to the cost of primary education, and a brief reference to what the small increase in the emergency bonus granted to teachers in recent years will cost. It must be well known to the Minister— it was certainly well known to his Party when in opposition—that there have been widespread complaints by teachers at their present unsatisfactory conditions of employment. They complain that the salary scale which was introduced for them away back in 1920 was a scale appropriate to normal times, but that since then they have suffered a number of cuts, cuts which were unreasonably imposed, and which had no economic justification, and not only that, but that they were cut further to make good a deficiency in the pension fund for which they were not in any way liable, but for which the Government was liable.

The teachers complain that bad as their condition was in 1939, owing to these cuts being imposed, and the obligation put upon them to make good a deficiency in the pension fund for which they were not liable, the position has been worse during the past four and a half years by reason of the fact that the cost of living has increased in that period. Even the Department of Industry and Commerce rates that increase to be over 70 per cent., while the increase granted to the teachers has been little more than 10 per cent. It requires only a very cursory examination of the position to realise from these figures how the teachers have suffered. Cost of living has gone up by more than 70 per cent., wages by 10 per cent., so that the gap represents a rapidly deteriorating standard of living as far as teachers are concerned.

From what I see around me from the results of our educational system, I think we should, as soon as possible, embrace the philosophy that we are too poor to save money on education. Teachers represent the pivot on which our whole educational system swings. If teachers are dissatisfied with their salaries, and are placed in the position of wondering how they can balance their domestic budgets, and if they are constantly worried as to how the baker, the milkman, the tailor and the landlord are to be paid, we cannot get satisfactory service when they are beset with such perennial problems. We will only get satisfactory service from the teaching profession, if they feel that they are getting a fair deal, that their conditions of service are reasonably good, and that their complaints will be listened to with a sympathetic ear. I understand that efforts by the teachers' organisation to see the Minister for Education to discuss the question of the shrinkage in teachers' incomes, due to the rapid increase in the cost of living, met with a rather stony rebuff so far as the Minister is concerned. He took the view that it was not a matter for him, and that there was no use in seeing the teachers, notwithstanding the important part which they play in our scheme of national education.

The teachers have a very genuine complaint also in respect to their pensions. For all practical purposes, they are public servants, as much public servants as any civil servant is, and as much a civil servant as any civil servant. A teacher on retirement gets a pension which, at the maximum, is 40/80ths, or half his salary, but if he happened to be an inspector in the Department of Education, and not a teacher in the school, he would get not merely half his salary, but would get a lump sum based on a thirtieth of his salary and emoluments for each year of service, subject to a maximum of one and a half years' service. Because he works in a school trying, under desperate odds, to impart education to children, he is deprived of a year's salary on retirement, whereas if he were an officer in the Minister's Department he would get not merely half his salary on retirement, but would get a year's salary as well. He might possibly get one and a half years' salary on retirement. That is an obvious blot on the teacher's superannuation code which ought to be remedied. It is a principle which is recognised in the local government service and in the Civil Service. There is no reason why it should not be extended to the teachers or why they should be left with the feeling that they have been singled out for differentiation in the matter of superannuation, and in a way which is unfair in conception, which is inequitable in its operation, and for which there can be no justification whatever when one thinks of the different types of superannuation which are applied to other public servants.

Some few years ago the Department of Education introduced a scheme by which a female teacher who had 35 years' service had, on reaching the age of 60 years, to retire. The anomalous part of this direction was that, where the teacher was required to retire at 60 years of age, if she had 35 years' service, she could not manage to get her full pension of half her salary unless she had 40 years' service. Technically, she could qualify for a pension of half salary on retirement, but the Department of Education issued an instruction which compelled her to go out before she had the 40 years' service necessary to get half her salary on retirement, and so that she had to go out with 35 years' service. That, of course, may have been done for the purpose of providing employment for other women teachers. I understand that the necessity for the continuance of that regulation does not now arise. If that is the position, as I believe it is, I think the Minister for Education ought to indicate the abandonment of that emergency direction which is unfair to women teachers and deprives them of a very definite normal right to earn half their salary on retirement. They cannot get that unless they have had 40 years' service. The Department edict on the matter, however, prevents them from reaching the 40 years' service because they are retired at 60 years of age if they have had 35 years' service as teachers.

I put it to the Minister that no system of education can function harmoniously and efficiently if the teaching profession is seething with discontent. It is difficult to remember one year during the past 22 years when the teachers have not complained bitterly of the harsh and unsympathetic treatment they have received at the hands of both the Department and the Government. You cannot have satisfactory educational results while the teaching profession is seething with indignation. I put it to the Minister that, for the good of education, steps ought to be taken, through the medium of the Government, to listen with reason and understanding to these grievances which the teachers have, and to remedy them. The continuance of these grievances, even though it may save the Government certain expenditure, is militating against getting value for any type of expenditure on national education.

There is one other matter, and that is the question of the erection of school buildings. Under the present method there is a certain obligation on local people to raise a certain sum of money towards the cost of the erection of school buildings unless the school is to be owned by the Department of Education, in which case, I think, the whole cost is borne by the Department. This problem is somewhat related to the question as to who controls and owns the school, and is inter-related to the problem of the management of the school. Whatever its difficulties may be, I, at all events, think that some solution will have to be found for the present unsatisfactory position. It seems absured to require an area with limited financial resources, due largely to endemic poverty, to bear portion of the cost of erecting a new school. It is particularly wasteful to have a long harangue as to who will pay for the school if the effect of the continuance of the harangue is to house the children in buildings which are not fit to house cattle in. Some steps ought to be taken by the Department and the Government to bring to an end this age-old see-saw as to who owns the school and who is going to manage it. From the point of view of the children, the important matter is that they should have school buildings where the circumstances and environment will be such as to be conductive to the absorption of knowledge. That should be the primary concern.

I strongly appeal to the Minister to take steps to bring that issue to an end so that in future schools will be erected where they are needed. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do, in the circumstances as we know them in many areas in the country, would be for the State to pay the whole cost of the erection of schools so as to ensure that decent schools are erected, and that the children are given the educational facilities which are so necessary if they are to derive real benefit from our scheme of national education.

Mr. Hughes

However much sections of our people may differ fundamentally on matters of social and economic policy, one is struck by the universal agreement there is among our people, representing every shade of political opinion in the country, as to the unsatisfactory condition of our educational system. I have even heard supporters of the Minister's Party express the view that we have not made any progress whatever in that direction; that, in fact, the children leaving school at the present time are leaving with a poorer foundation of knowledge than that possessed by children leaving school some years ago.

Mr. Derrig

I suppose it would be too much to ask the Deputy, or any Deputy who says that, to tell the House what is the evidence on which that statement is based.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. F. Lynch)

The Minister will have an opportunity of dealing with that when replying.

Mr. Hughes

I think it is a fair question to ask. Surely the Minister will not deny that people have the right to express their views and opinions. The Minister must have heard the expression on every side of the House and outside the House of general dissatisfaction. That point was also put to him on Votes for his Department in the past few years.

We are at the end of a cycle now and facing the difficult post-war period, when there may be new standards, new ideas and keener competition. We are almost at the end of a quarter of a century of self-government, and the time has come for a thorough investigation into our educational system. That request has been put to the Minister and he should hearken to it. It is no pleasure to Deputies to say that our educational system over a long period has been a failure, as there is something fundamentally wrong with it. They do not come in here for the mere pleasure of stating that. In all sincerity, I may say I have heard all over the country that the children coming back from the primary schools do not appear to have had laid in them as solidly as in the past, the foundations of education, and I add my voice to those who call now for a comprehensive investigation into the whole matter.

From the point of view of my particular calling in life, I am satisfied there is something fundamentally wrong with our educational system which is reflected in the character of our people. One of the difficulties affecting the expansion of agriculture and the development of industry generally is the lack of ambition in our people. We have not at all the same ambition as is to be found in people in other countries. That may be due to our climatic conditions or to our religious principles, but it is a difficulty facing, not merely a Fianna Fáil Government, but any Government. The average person in rural Ireland has no ambition to improve the amenities of his home or to raise the home standards. If we have not inculcated into our youth a high ideal in life, surely that is a matter worthy of careful investigation?

Look at the history of Denmark, where that famous Protestant Bishop started the Folk High Schools. That big idea was the basis of industry and agriculture in Denmark and the foundation of a nobler ideal and a higher standard of living. That gives the youth the ambition to carve out a way in life; without doles or subsidies. It cannot be denied that many of our people lack that ambition, which is so essential if our country is to make progress. Our youth emerge from the primary school with a passive acquisition of factual knowledge. No attempt has been made at character formation, no attempt has been made to inculcate into the youth a nobler outlook on life, which is the very foundation of everything. In that respect, I cannot understand why we go in for such a highly standardised system here, instead of adopting the curriculum which suits the particular district best. The curriculum of a rural school should not be the same as that of a city school.

Mr. Derrig

Any school in the country is entitled to suggest a curriculum of its own.

Mr. Hughes

I am not sufficiently informed on that aspect of it to discuss it in detail with the Minister. As far as I can see, the curriculum is generally the same all over the country. One reason for the highly standardised system we have inherited from the British was that they had a highly industrialised outlook and merely required a certain type turned out, as if out of a machine, to suit particular industrial occupations. Our social and economic circumstances require a completely different outlook and the type of education in rural areas should be very different from that in the large city areas.

I quite agree that it is necessary to lay the foundation of knowledge—the three R's—and that educationists generally are concerned with the means and the methods and not the end. The end of education is to equip people for the battle of life, to equip them as best we can for their particular walk of life. That appears to be lost sight of in our educational system. We merely cram a lot of factual information into the youngster at an impressionable age. That is the time to lay the foundation of his education, to teach him how to acquire knowledge for after-life and how to use it to the best advantage, how to observe things in life and assess them at their true value. Surely it cannot be said that our people are so equipped on the average that they have reached a high standard in that regard? It is in that respect that we have failed almost ignominiously and that our whole educational outlook is fundamentally wrong.

I am not an educationist in any shape or form and do not aspire to be an authority on the matter, but I can give the point of view of the man living in rural Ireland. I believe there must be a careful investigation into this matter, as it is fundamental to the future prosperity of the country. Time and time again I have come in here to criticise the failure over a long period to make progress. It has not redounded to the credit of our people that we have failed in that regard to make progress. The statistical facts are there, no matter what Government is in office or is responsible, and the fact remains that we have not made economic progress in the past half-a-century. I am forced to the one and only conclusion that our educational system is wrong and that, before we can hope to make progress, we must reorganise it and change our whole ideas and outlook, so far as it is concerned.

In regard to the Irish language, without going into the matter in detail, I may say that I think compulsory Irish and the teaching of other subjects through the medium of Irish is fundamentally wrong. From the point of view of encouraging the use of the language in everyday life, it is the wrong method. The children are crammed so much with Irish that, instead of getting a love for it, they hate it. If the acquisition of the language is not voluntary on the part of the children, it will not become a living language in this country by a system of cramming.

Donnchadh O Briain

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Hughes

I believe we have suffered very considerably in other respects. No matter how much the Minister may be inclined to challenge the statements by Deputies here, a very substantial number of discerning people outside believe it is time the Government examined its conscience on this matter. We are not stating these incontrovertible facts merely for political reasons. Complete compulsion will not succeed in this respect and will mean serious loss in other directions.

In the matter of vocational education, too, we have made no progress. So far as primary education is concerned, one would expect a bias, particularly in rural education, in favour of agriculture. There does not appear to be any such thing there, and the subjects taught in rural schools are not practical. I have come up against this situation directly. I live in a beet-growing area in Carlow. Quite a number of Deputies will understand how a load of beet going to the factory is treated, how the sugar content is calculated, and how the tare is calculated. I believe there are few children leaving national schools in the four beet-growing areas who have been asked to calculate the tare and weights and sugar content of loads of beet, although that might be a very practical matter for them in later life. Those are real things, and we are not realistic enough in that regard; we are not practical enough. In the same way, how many young fellows who leave the national school can lay-off an acre of land if they want to sow grain? It is all by rule of thumb, and there is far too much guess-work.

It is not unreasonable to expect that a child leaving school at 14 would be capable of doing these practical and useful things. In the schools they are supposed to be given the foundations of knowledge on which they can build and on which a youth with ambition can go far. It is not unreasonable to expect that, having been taught how to acquire knowledge and where to look for it, a youth will be able to build on that foundation. It is not unreasonable to expect that in rural Ireland the education of our youth will be related definitely to their particular calling. I do not think any proper attempt is being made to do that.

We hear a lot about the flight from the land. Our chief aim should be the raising of the rural standard of life so as to bring it into more favourable relationship with what obtains in the larger towns and cities. We should endeavour to make our people appreciate the real things of life in the country districts rather than be attracted by the artificial life that exists in the towns and cities. We should endeavour to make them appreciate to a far greater extent the values of rural life and the great natural advantages of living in the country, where they are more close to nature, as compared with the artificial life in the towns and cities.

What attempt is being made in rural Ireland to make the people appreciate those higher values, the real things in life, the nobler things in life? What incentives is given to the youth in the country to make them say when leaving school: "I am out to carve my own niche in life. I am not looking to the State. I do not believe in the totalitarian system under which people look to the State for everything. I am capable of making my own way without any help or assistance or any perquisites from the State." That should be the object of our education. We have failed completely in that regard, I submit.

Last year the Minister defended vocational education. I agree it is absolutely sound, but it has not made the progress here that one would expect. To a very large extent the rural science school is a failure because the parents do not appreciate the value of vocational education. The majority of young people go to the vocational school in the hope of getting a job and not to equip themselves with higher knowledge for work on the farm. The girls go there largely to get a job and not so much to interest themselves in domestic economy so that they can attain a higher standard in the home and improve the amenities of the home. Their main anxiety in going to the vocational school is to secure a job.

Many a youth is sent to Glasnevin to obtain a higher scientific knowledge which may later be applied to the farm. I believe that 99 per cent. of them are sent to Glasnevin and other schools and colleges in the hope that they will get a job and not have to go back on the land. The outlook of the average farmer is that, for every other walk of life except the land, education is necessary. Many a farmer is afraid to educate the son he wants to keep at home because he thinks that if he is well educated he will run away from the land.

Mr. Corry

That is not the fault of the Minister.

Mr. Hughes

I am not saying that. I merely suggest that this subject will have to be properly examined. Let us see how we are going to change that system.

Mr. L. Walsh

Try compulsion.

Mr. Hughes

This is not a matter for one political Party; it is a national question that must be tackled if this Parliament is to do its job in an effective way. I want to add my voice to the voices of Deputies who pleaded with the Minister for a thorough investigation into these matters. I am quite satisfied as regards the one aspect of the problem on which I am capable of offering an opinion—the agricultural aspect—that a lot of our shortcomings and failures, and the fact that we have not kept abreast of other countries in the matter of technique, new methods and ideas and greater organisation and higher production, can be attributed to the failure of our educational system. I urge the Minister to consider these matters and give serious attention to the representations made from all sides of the House. He is not so omniscient and he must not be satisfied that he is right and everybody else is wrong.

Mr. Corry

I cannot for one moment agree with Deputy Hughes with respect to the teaching of the language in the schools. If our children do not learn the language in the schools they will never learn it. The only hope we have of preserving the Irish language is by having it taught compulsorily in the schools. I agree with my colleague, Deputy McCarthy, that there should be some provision in this Estimate for sending the school children on holidays to places like Ballingeary, sending them to Irish-speaking districts, where they will learn far more than if they were sent home to parents who probably do not know Irish and any Irish they learned in the schools would quickly be lost during their holidays at home.

We must remember that 75 per cent. of the youth of this country must find their way back to the land. The groundwork in agriculture which was taught in the national schools 25 years ago has vanished from the national schools to-day. I am not a university graduate. I had to leave school at the age of 13½ but, if we are to judge by the products of the university who find their way in here, whose main talent seems to be the dissemination of filth and filthy abuse, and whose only skill seems to lie in keeping that abuse within the Standing Orders, I have not lost much. We send our young lads to evening classes in agriculture and the agricultural instructors have to start training them in what they should have learned in the schools if the national schools were functioning as they should. That is my principal complaint in regard to the national schools to-day.

We come then to our agricultural colleges, whose sole purpose, apparently, is to turn out young fellows for jobs. Not 3 per cent. of the young lads of to-day who attend the agricultural colleges find their way back to the land and take up farming as an occupation. You have them roaming around chasing after jobs. We are entitled to ask where are our universities leading to? The universities of this country are costing the State a lot of money. Each year they turn out graduates for crowded professions. We have 20 doctors produced each year for every one that is required. We have teachers coming out of universities and no schools to teach. We have the Civil Service, like the frog in the fable, trying to swell as big as an ox. That is the position of the university graduates. It is rather sad. There should be in the universities a definite programme, limiting the number of graduates to be trained for the professions in this country. Let not State money be used for the purpose of training young men for export. Let us get down to that situation some time. Undoubtedly there will be a big opening for engineers when the drainage schemes go through. We will need hundreds of good engineers who know their job, if the rural electrification scheme is put into operation. Our universities should start training with these schemes in view, instead of training for professions in which the only outlet is the emigrant ship. I should like to ask the Minister for Justice how many applicants for the Gárda he had last year who had B.A. and M.A. degrees. Every day I meet university graduates looking for jobs, with degrees that are absolutely useless to them in this country to-day. Let us have a ground work in agriculture given in the national schools. As I said, I had to leave school at the age of 13½, and to go out after the plough, but I knew more about agriculture, at the age of 13½, than 95 per cent. of the lads leaving the agricultural colleges to-day. Let us consider education in the light that 75 per cent. of the boys in the schools will have to earn their livelihood either from or by the land, and let us prepare our educational system on that basis, so that our boys will not be like the young lads I meet on the roads in the rural areas at the present time, who could not recognise turnip from beet growing in a field.

Mr. Halliden

We have been rather disappointed that no provision has been made in the Estimates for the further education and direction of boys and girls who leave the national schools at the age of 14. The national school has always been recognised as the university of the poor man's children and of the children of the middle classes. Yet, as Deputy Corry and other speakers have said, fully 90 per cent. of those children get no education of any kind after they reach the age of 14 years. I think that is very unfortunate because, at that age, the children's minds are just being formed; they are at a plastic and impressionable age. At that important period in their lives they are turned, as it were, adrift, with very little direction, very little control at the present time and with the culture they get at the crossroads. I think that is very unfortunate. In most progressive countries, boys and girls of 14 years of age and over are regarded as the nation's greatest asset. In this country, too often they become burdens to us and they become the worry of their parents. I think, with a native Government established here for a quarter of a century, it is regrettable that no comprehensive scheme has been evolved for the development of these boys and girls, for training them according to their natural propensities, with a view to providing for them a decent livelihood in their own country.

Vocational schools fill a useful purpose in many districts but we have not sufficient of them and, consequently, a big percentage of the boys and girls have no chance of developing their minds and their natural gifts between the ages of 14 and 18. They then find that they have no future but the emigrant ship and when they go to a foreign country they have no qualification for any employment except as unskilled labourers. That is a pity, and I think our Minister for Education should seriously consider the desirability of putting into operation a scheme whereby those boys and girls will be properly directed, properly influenced, impressed and controlled, so that they will not be, as they are at present, unfortunately, in many cases, a burden to the country and to their parents and very often out of hand and not properly controlled. That is one of the greatest slurs on our educational system.

Some Deputies stated that the system of education is not in keeping with our main industry. That is true fundamentally, but I must admit, as one having practical experience, that there is no objection to a teacher in any rural area introducing a programme or curriculum into his school which may give the education of the children a rural bias. I have seen that done very effectively and there is nothing to prevent others doing the same. But I think the kernel of a great many of our social evils, and one of our greatest difficulties in maintaining the people on the land, is the fact that our children are thrown as it were into a promiscuous crowd at the age of 14 without any direction or control, while in Denmark and other countries they are taken up, directed and guided and are regarded as the greatest asset in the country. I hope the Minister will seriously consider that particular aspect of our educational system.

I think our women teachers have got a very raw deal. In 1934, a regulation was introduced obliging female teachers to retire at the age of 60, after 35 years' service, and in that way they were deprived of five years' salary and their pensions were reduced by about 6¼ per cent. A great many of them, who had a programme outlined for themselves and their families, have been grossly disappointed and, I say, unjustly treated. I, therefore, appeal to the Minister to make some provision for these teachers to meet the emergency regulation that was then enforced and to compensate them in some way for the great loss they have endured. As regards the future, we know that a regulation is in force that lady teachers when they get married must retire. In that connection I was given some figures recently by the Minister for Education which are very illuminating. In a question I asked the percentage of married women teachers who were rated highly efficient, efficient, and non-efficient. An overwhelming majority of these teachers were rated highly-efficient, or efficient, and very few non-efficient. That being so, it cannot be said that they were obliged to retire at the age of 60 from an educational point of view. I am afraid it was more from a financial point of view. In view of the present circumstances in the teaching profession, I think that the regulation should now be withdrawn and I definitely ask that it should not be enforced in the case of young lady teachers who were in the preparatory colleges or training colleges when the regulation came into force.

Another strong reason why I would advocate post-primary education is that at present the Irish language is being taught very intensively in the national schools. Some Deputies complain that the standard of education of the boys and girls leaving school is not as high as it was some years ago. That is possible and there is no reason why it should not be possible, because in the short period they are at school at present from six or seven years to 14 years of age they are obliged to learn two languages—English and Irish. In my school days we had one language; now we have two languages. As a man who has practical experience, I can assure the Minister that we will never see the day when the Irish language will be the spoken language of the country except an effort is made to enable these children to continue the speaking of Irish, after they leave the primary school at the age of 14, through post-primary schools. At present when they leave school, packed with Irish as I might say, they very soon lose the environment of the school and, when they meet in towns or at fairs, markets, dances or other social gatherings, they will not speak much Irish. It is only the spoken language that can keep Irish alive. Until such time as we have post-primary schools, I can see no hope for the establishment of Irish as a spoken language. I am absolutely certain of that.

I find that nearly all the matters I meant to deal with have been already dealt with by other speakers, but I rise specially for the purpose of making a plea for the children of the poorer and middle classes who reach the age of 14 and whose education is then, as it were, completed. I think it should be the function of the State and, particularly, the function of the Minister to devise and plan a comprehensive scheme to give these children a proper education, a proper outlook, and a means of developing their natural bents so that they may fit themselves for a decent livelihood in their own country.

Mr. Coogan

Practically every aspect of education as affecting rural and urban Ireland has been touched upon to-day and I do not intend to go into any great detail in what I have to say. But Deputy Dillon mentioned a recent appointment in the Department of Education and it would appear from the case he made that the Minister, in making his selection, acted rather arbitrarily, at least to this extent, that he selected a man trained in the scholastic atmosphere of philosophy for an appointment in the technical or trades branch of the Department of Education. He also selected a man who had been largely trained abroad, in Germany. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that the German system of education is more appropriate in the vocational education section of his Department than the Irish system, or perhaps the Minister thinks that his selection may Hitlerise the vocational education committees and the vocational education officers throughout the country. There is a rumour that that is the intention.

The Minister has extraordinary powers under the Vocational Education Act. I do not wish to criticise these powers, as they have been passed by the Dáil, but I hope that in the exercise of these powers he will not act as arbitrarily as he acted in the case of this appointment. There is one word which I should like to put to the Minister in regard to that appointment. Did he at any time, either before or after the appointment was made, receive representations, objections or protests from any authorities, lay or ecclesiastical, in this State? I am not casting any aspersion whatever on the individual concerned, but I think it right that the Minister should make his case for that appointment clear to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon established a precedent to-day in raising the question of the appointment to which the Deputy now refers. The Deputy now goes further in inquiring whether there were any ecclesiastical representations against the selection. Does the Deputy not see the possible implications of such a query?

Mr. Coogan

I do not wish to cast any aspersion on his character. I do not know the man personally, and I know nothing about him. One point which strikes me about this Department is that it is not making sufficient use of the cinema as a means of educating our youth. I should like to see a development in the Department whereby educational films would be made and circulated to the school districts of Ireland. This has been done in England in the case of the Traffic Association of England with quite good results. Traffic pictures have been made for school children to teach them the dangers of the road, the dangers to avoid when crossing roads, and so on, and they have been put in the form of motion pictures for them. I see no reason why a similar development should not take place here, so as to educate our children in matters of history, geography, agricultural science, and, of course, the matter I have mentioned, road traffic.

With regard to agricultural science, the elements of agriculture, of botany and of zoology could be given to these children by a system of educational films. We have recently had a development of that kind in Dublin in relation to Irish, and I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should undertake a similar development in relation to the matters I have mentioned in the schools. This is a quiet period on the roads, but when this war is over and cars come back on the roads, I anticipate an epidemic of road accidents and now is the time to prepare for the terrible period that may lie ahead.

Juvenile delinquency, of which I have some experience, has been mentioned. No cause, I think, can be assigned as a definite contributory cause of juvenile delinquency. It is a feature of crime in every country to-day. Some people suggest that lack of parental control is the primary cause, while others tell us that it is due to the cinema and the gangster film. There must be some cause for it, but, in spite of commissions of inquiry in every country, nobody seems to have been able to put his finger on the cause. There are, however, a few points which strike me in this connection. One is that the parents themselves are cinema-goers— they are cinema mad in many cases— and every night they are at some cinema or other, and the children are left on the streets. There should be some sort of curfew, if you like, for children under a certain age, to keep them off the streets after a certain hour. That system obtains in the Nordic countries. I think there also should be a minimum age for children attending cinemas at night, and that, after a certain hour, say, 6 or 7 o'clock, no child under 14 years of age should be permitted to attend a cinema.

Another factor which would contribute to a reduction of juvenile delinquency is the raising of the primary school-leaving age from 14 to 16 years, and, coupled with that, there should be a system of compulsory attendance at vocational education schools for these children who, having left the primary school, find themselves without employment. It is from that group that the modern burglar and housebreaker is appearing in Ireland to-day. He does not belong to any particular class or grade of society—he comes from all classes and grades of society.

The Minister has outlined a large scheme of school building, and we welcome it, but when he comes to consider the plans for his schools I suggest that he take in an extra piece of land—it will not cost very much— to provide a playing pitch for hurling and football, and also to give us a ball alley at the school for handball. These are matters which have been neglected up to now in the modern schools which I have seen erected. I would go further and suggest that a small patch of ground be set aside for a school garden, to be worked voluntarily by such children as take an interest in gardening or agriculture, and that the garden be placed not under the control of the teacher, who has enough to do, but under the control of the local agricultural and horticultural instructor.

I propose now to touch on politics for a moment, but I do not wish to be taken as trying to disfranchise the teacher or to put him out of political life, but I think that some rule should be made whereby teachers could not take an active part in politics. A member of the Defence Forces is allowed only to vote. He is not entitled to give free expression to political opinions and cannot take an active part in politics. A member of the Gárda Síochána not only cannot give vent to his political feelings, but is denied the franchise. It is doubtful if that is constitutional, but he is, by law, denied the franchise. The civil servant likewise may vote, but he cannot take an active part in politics, and I see no reason why an official who, above all, has the formation of the youthful mind in his charge and control for five or six hours a day should be allowed to take an open and active part in Party politics. Is it not clear that such a man or woman will be biassed and prejudiced and will not be impartial in the discharge of his duties in the schoolroom?

Mícheál O Cléirigh

Would the Deputy extend that to medical officers of health?

Mr. Coogan

I do not know that the medical officer of health is in the same position as the school teacher.

Mícheál O Cléirigh

He has very great influence.

Mr. F. Lynch

That would suit me beautifully. I am ringed around by them in Kerry.

Mr. Coogan

With regard to the enforcement of the School Attendance Act, there is a gap in the 1926 Act which, I think, should be closed at the earliest possible moment. It arises in Section 17, which deals with the failure of parents to comply with the Act. There is a provision there that a warning in the prescribed form may be served upon the parent, and if he, within a week after its service, causes the child to attend school, or gives a reasonable explanation for his absence, everything is all right. But if, in the following week, the child's attendance drops off, another warning has to be given. That is happening all over the country. When the delinquent parent is warned, he is cute enough to send the child to school for about a week. Then the child drops out again, the Gárda or the school attendance officer has to come along with a fresh warning, and the same old farce goes on. The parent is dodging prosecution all the time, and we are not getting effective school attendance. Under the Act, if he is prosecuted, no warning is necessary within three months of proceedings. I suggest that the warning in this case should be made similarly effective, so that, once the parent is warned, the child will have to attend school for at least three months, or the parent must face the music. It is just a small point, but it gives considerable trouble, particularly to the Gárda Síochána in rural areas, who have enough duties to perform without that type of thing being imposed upon them.

There is one last point which I want to mention, and that is that the difficulty with regard to Irish, as I see it, is largely created by two hostile atmospheres. The home atmosphere is hostile to the child from the Gaelic point of view. In 90 per cent. of the cases, the parents know no Irish. The brothers and sisters probably know no Irish, or, if they do, they do not speak it. The home atmosphere is against Irish at the moment. That may pass with a new generation of parents. The cinema atmosphere is dead against Irish, and I seriously suggest to the responsible Minister and to the Government that, if they are serious in this matter of Irish, they should pass legislation compelling all cinemas to show a certain percentage of their programme in Irish. Under present legislation, they may not devote more than 5 per cent. of the time of the programme to advertising. Why not make some provision like that compelling them to devote 5 or 10 per cent., or whatever it may be, to Irish films? Considerable expense may be involved in the development of Irish films, but the matter has never been tackled, and unless a beginning is made I see no hope for Irish. I would seriously suggest that an inquiry be set up to consider those matters, in addition to the alleged mis-teaching of Irish at the moment. I will not go into that matter because it has been fully dealt with already, but I would suggest that those two points, together with the teaching of the language and the teaching of other subjects through it, might easily form the subject of a Government inquiry.

Mr. Murphy

I think we all heard with considerable interest and with a good deal of sympathy the constructive speech to which we have just listened from a new member of this House, Deputy Coogan. There is only one claim made in his speech with which I join issue, and that is that the freedom of teachers who take part in public affairs should be restricted. I think, on fuller consideration of this matter, Deputy Coogan will probably form a different opinion. I do not know whether he is aware—it is a very important factor in discussing this matter—that the winning of civil rights for the teachers took a very long time, and that in fact in certain parts of this country those rights have not yet been extended to them. On closer investigation of this matter, I think the Deputy would probably agree that, whatever political opinions the teachers do hold, such opinions are never obtruded on their school work. Why they should be deprived of their elementary right as citizens to exercise their views on public affairs outside school hours is a question that I do not think could be answered in the way he has suggested. I say that with all respect, and with all sympathy towards the general tenor of his speech. It was a very interesting speech, and was made in a very proper way.

I understand that the main questions which usually arise on an Estimate like this have already been fully discussed, and I do not propose to trouble the House with a repetition of pleas for various changes, reforms and adjustments. There is, however, one point that I should like to put to the House and to the Minister. It is a point arising out of the marriage ban imposed on teachers. I do not propose to discuss this question in its wider application to all lady teachers at the present time, except to impress on the Minister that there is a very strong view in various parts of this country that, in regard to the comparatively small number of teachers who had actually entered on their career and were undergoing a course of training at the time that this regulation was made, the ban should not be imposed I refer to the teachers who were then in the preparatory or training colleges. I think the number is small, and I think the Minister will agree that the comparatively few people who had made arrangements to embark or had embarked upon a career of teaching, and who were unaware of this impending change, could be reasonably said to be in a different position from lady teachers generally. I think that is a point which is worthy of further consideration, and accordingly I bring it to the notice of the Minister.

I want also to add my plea—I think this matter ought to be stressed very strongly—to what has been said in favour of some adjustments of the miserable condition of the old, pensioned teachers. In some cases £1 a week represents their total income. I understand that it is as low as 10/- a week in other cases. Whatever our financial difficulties are in this country, I think nobody will deny the justice of the claim of that dwindling, pathetic few in this country at the present time to have adjustments made in their position. I want to impress that on the Minister. I think no section of people in this country, no matter how they may feel the necessity for keeping taxation at its lowest possible level, will grudge whatever may be spent in doing some belated measure of justice to the small and rapidly disappearing number of people involved in this case.

There is only one other matter to which I should like to refer, and I am afraid that, in making this plea, I am asking for something that cannot be answered at the present time, and that is the appearance of an extraordinarily large number of young boys and girls in this country who, in spite of having received very high standards of education and being afforded very high educational possibilities of one kind or another, are not, seemingly, fitted for the battle of life. I refer to the very large number of boys and girls in this country who have gained very high educational qualifications, such as the leaving certificate, and even higher qualifications, and who yet are compelled at the present time to take any kind of casual work. That is something that we all regret. I am sure that every member of this House is aware of it, and I can only hope that there will be some change made in this regard in the future. Perhaps, we might be emboldened to hope that there may be some prospect of a change in that regard in the future as a result of the prospects held out by the Minister for Finance in the statement he made to-day, when he said that he hoped that, in the years to come, there would be better prospects in that direction. At any rate, I think it is very disappointing and depressing that, in this country at the present time, there should be such a large number of young people, with high educational qualifications for whom there seems to be no opening or no immediate prospect of employment.

I admit that that is a much wider matter than could be discussed within the scope of this debate, and I only mention it because it is an ever-present and pressing matter in the minds of parents at the present time. Parents, at the present time, can see very little future for their children, and that is the reason I have raised this matter. With these few remarks, I shall conclude, hoping that the Minister, in his reply, will deal with the points I have made, or that, if it does not come within the scope of this debate, he will find an opportunity subsequently to give his attention to this matter.

Mr. Anthony

On previous occasions in this House, when this Estimate was under consideration, I always waited almost until the last speaker had spoken, because I wanted to hear what was the view of the trained educationist on this matter before I intervened—or even the views of those who, in other spheres of life, might have been associated with the teaching profession or with the bringing up of children, in general. For that reason, I listened with great interest to what Deputy Coogan had to say because, knowing the experience that he has had over a number of years in dealing with juveniles, I realised that any contribution he might make to this debate would be of interest and probably of considerable benefit. For that reason also, I listened very carefully to what a new member in this House —Deputy McCarthy, from Cork—had to say, because I knew that he was interested in the matter of education. I want to make it clear, however, that so far as I am concerned, I stand in this matter where I have always stood. I join with my old friend, Deputy Murphy, in the plea he made on behalf of the old pensioned teachers. I feel that the Minister's heart is in the right place in regard to the old pensioned teachers, and I am sure that the Minister will sympathetically consider the plea that has been made on behalf of those aged servants of the State.

Now, in relation to this question of married lady teachers, I took up the stand on a previous occasion, and I stick to it still, that because of the amount of unemployment amongst unmarried lady teachers in this small country, lady teachers should be compelled to retire on marriage in the same way as lady civil servants are compelled to retire on marriage. Deputy Halliden raised the question of a lady national teacher who entered one of the training colleges long before this ban on married teachers became operative, and I admit that there is an injustice there, since young girls entered the service at that time, not knowing that, on marriage, they would have to retire. Many years ago, I advocated that lady teachers should be compelled to retire on marriage, because I maintain that if a man marries he has a jolly good right to be able to keep his wife. I have always advocated that, and I still advocate it; but, having made that point clear, I also want to make clear, in regard to the regular spate of oratory that we heard here to-day on the matter of juvenile delinquency and juvenile crime, that there should be included in the curriculum of our national schools some text-books on civics. Long before juvenile delinquency or juvenile crime became as bad as it is now—whatever may be the cause of it, and many causes are assigned to it—I advocated that a reasonable attempt could be made to deal with the problem if we had included in the curriculum of our national schools some text-book or text-books on civics. I think that the value of a knowledge of civics cannot be overestimated either in this House or outside it.

It must be obvious to all of us that, in this country in recent years, young boys and girls coming from the national schools have no regard for public property. Dublin City and Cork City Deputies are fully aware of the destruction that is done to public property by these boys and girls. You have cases of lifebuoys being cut to pieces on the quays, street lamps broken, trees torn up, and so on, and I suggest that if a course of teaching on public civics could be given to these children in their early days in the national schools, it would go a long way towards eradicating or diminishing juvenile delinquency.

Now, the Minister talked about our universities and their worth to the nation, but it must be remembered, whether we like it or not, that we shall always have an exportable human surplus in this country, and, thank God, we have it. We are a prolific race, and there is no natural way of keeping the race down. There may be an unnatural way of doing it, as has been discovered in other countries, but I shall not enter into that. However, so far as this country is concerned, we are a prolific race and we know that we have and, with God's help, will continue to have an exportable human surplus, but the question is: What is to be done with that human surplus? I hope that we shall never see this country turned into the condition of other countries where the race has practically ceased to exist. Please God, that will never happen in this country, but we should endeavour to train our young people to face the world and prepare them for the battle of life. For that reason, I join with Deputy Corry in his plea for an agricultural bias in the training of our young people, especially in the country districts; but, at the same time, I suggest that it would hardly be necessary to create that agricultural bias in the training of children from the cities and towns.

I remember, when I was a youngster, we had a little green book—I forget its title at the moment, but I think it was written by Fr. Finlay—in which special emphasis was laid on agriculture, the rotation of crops, and so on. That would be of no use to city boys in after life. It was certainly all right for country boys who would be looking forward to spending the rest of their lives on a farm, but it would be no use to boys of the city as a preparation for their after-life. I have the feeling that if we are to continue to have that surplus export population, as I hope we shall continue to have, these young people must be qualified to make their way in some other country and to earn their livelihood in other countries. They must be equipped for the battle of life. If we are to send that surplus of our population across the Channel, to the United States of America, to New Zealand, Australia, or other colonies, then I think we shall have to see that our children will be properly equipped for the battle of life in these countries.

Again, I have to preface a whole lot of what I have to say because of the methods, and the nasty methods, particularly of our political opponents, in taking words or phrases out of their context and implying that, because some of us may speak on this matter of education, we are enemies of the movement for the restoration of the Irish language. I have every sympathy with the restoration of Irish as the spoken language of this country, but I am absolutely opposed to compulsion in any shape or form. I attended a meeting some months ago, in the City Hall in Cork, at which the Taoiseach made a wonderful appeal for the Irish language. One of the new Deputies of this House, a councillor of Cork Corporation, who is now Deputy Daly, was sitting by my side in the City Hall in Cork when that appeal was made by the Taoiseach. Now, a well-known and distinguished educationist was also on the platform—the Right Reverend Monsignor Sexton, Dean of Cork—and he was vigorously opposed to compulsion, and, of course, when the Taoiseach was replying he joined issue with the Dean on that matter, and pointed out that English was made compulsory here. The Dean is not here in this House, but I am sure that we all feel that that was not right, coming from the Taoiseach. I felt that even though that appeal was well put, he had not his whole heart in it because he knew there would not be 50 or 40 per cent. of the audience who wanted compulsion.

If we are to have that exportable surplus—and we know we are going to have it—continuing in this country we should give some consideration to the people who constitute it as well as those who remain in the country and who will continue to remain in it so long as they can get a living in it. If we are to continue compulsion it will have very bad results and these results are already apparent. What are the facts? The child, be he boy or girl, is reading a primer, a first or second year book which is in Irish and contains no English at all. That child goes home to an atmosphere in which, in 99.9 cases out of 100, no Irish is spoken. The parents at home speak no Irish, the result being that the child doing its homework cannot receive any help from the parents or the guardians. Any teacher will bear me out—I had 12 months' experience of teaching myself a long time ago—that the help and co-operation of the parents are a wonderful asset to the teacher. In the past everybody in the home was able to spell out for the child in difficulty ordinary words in the primer, the second, third, fourth or fifth book. That co-operation exists no longer because the people in the home are unable to co-operate with the child in the direction I have indicated. Although we have a lot of statistics on paper which go to show that pupils in the Seventh Standard are as advanced as similar pupils were a quarter of a century ago, the Minister must know that that is not the case. Anybody in business who has any kind of experience, such as I have had myself going back over 30 years, of boys leaving the national school after having been through the Fifth or Sixth Standard, will know that such boys in former years were fully equipped to take up most positions offering in the commercial life of the country.

To-day what do you find? I can produce to the Minister—no names, no pack drill—a letter written to me by a boy with the Leaving Certificate in which four or five words were wrongly spelt. That is a common experience. Ask any employer, if he had his choice as between the type of boy who in the past came from the Fifth or Sixth Standard in the national school and the boy nowadays with the Leaving Certificate, which he would prefer. The odds are 100 to 1 that his answer would be that he would prefer the type of boy who left the national school after having reached the Fifth or Sixth Standard some years ago. We know that boys were prepared for the British Civil Service in national schools in remote areas in former years and that they passed into that service with the highest honours. We had the case of a boy from a national school near Sneem who topped the list for First Division of the Civil Service in Great Britain. To-day we have our colleges turning out a number of professional men. Deputy Corry seems to deprecate that. But if those men have to go abroad to earn a living, that should not be regarded as discreditable to the Minister for Education. It is a good job that we have our colleges and universities even if we have to export our physicians and surgeons to another country. I agree that of course if we had a population of three times its present size, if we had a population of 9,000,000 or 10,000,000, things might be different, though I imagine we would be eating our heads off if we had a bigger population than we have now.

I wanted to hear some trained educationist speak on this question, those who are in contact with education in the country, but I agree that the man in the street should have a little more to say to the education of his child than he has had up to this. I know that we have enshrined in one of our measures the principle that the parent should have that right. I think the right still exists to say: "Well, I want my child to be educated and to have a knowledge of Irish, but I do not want to have Irish rammed down his throat. Let him learn all the Irish he can but I am totally opposed to compulsion in the teaching of Irish." I have often given expression to that view myself and I have been dubbed an Imperialist for saying so, yet I have been elected six times to the Dáil. All this talk cuts no ice with certain people, but the fact remains parents are not sufficiently vocal on this question. They are vocal in their homes and they are vocal when they come to see their local T.D., whether he be Fianna Fáil, Labour or Fine Gael, and I may tell you they do not say anything very complimentary in regard to the teaching of Irish in the schools—in fact, sometimes, rather the reverse. Occasionally their language is of a lurid type that I should not care to repeat in the Dáil as I do not want to bring the debate down to the level of the proceedings here last Friday. I say that on this question we should face up to the facts. By all means let us have Irish taught in the schools and let us encourage the teaching of it in every way, but there should be no compulsion.

Mr. Lynch

Deputies Murphy and Anthony have mentioned two points to which I specially intended to refer, indeed two points to which I have referred on various occasions on this Estimate. I refer to the case of pensioned teachers and the marriage ban as applied to those who had entered preparatory colleges or were in training at the time that that ban was promulgated. In reply to a question put in the Eleventh Dáil by the then Deputy Connolly from the Labour Benches, the Minister gave the various grades of pension and the number of teachers in receipt of these pensions. His answer was very illuminating because we find from it that the number of old retired teachers who were in receipt of pensions not exceeding £52 per annum, £1 per week, was 320; that those in receipt of pensions not exceeding £78 per annum or £1 10s. 0d. per week numbered 136; that those in receipt of pensions not exceeding £104 per annum or £2 per week numbered 230; that those in receipt of pensions not exceeding £2 10s. 0d. per week, numbered 679; that those in receipt of £156 per annum or £3 per week numbered 792; that those in receipt of £182 per annum, that is £3 10s. 0d. per week, numbered 494; that those in receipt of pensions of £208 per annum or £4 per week, numbered 332 while those in receipt of over £208 per annum numbered only 129. The total number of pensioned teachers at the date the Minister replied to the question was 3,112. Of these only 129 had pensions in excess of £4 per week. There were 320 who had pensions of less than £1 per week and 136 who had pensions between that amount and 30/- per week.

I think that the feeling of everybody in this House would be in the direction that Deputy Murphy outlined, that at any rate for old teachers who are in receipt of a pension under £3 a week some concession should now be made. It would not cost a terrible lot and even if it did it would be a dwindling sum, because most of those men are now well on in age. The persons in receipt of the smaller pensions, we may take it, are very old, because they must have gone out at a period before the granting of the increase in salaries which carried a rise in pension with it. I have worked out the various figures here and even if you gave a flat rate increase of 10/- per week to all those who have pensions under £182 per year, that is to bring their pensions up to £3 10s. 0d. per week, it would amount to a sum of £1,325 per week or about £68,900 a year. It is a substantial sum, I agree, but it is a sum at the imposition of which no taxpayer would grumble. Every one of these men gave long service of a particularly strenuous type to the country.

Some people may think that, because the hours appear short, teaching is an easy job. Anybody who knows anything about teaching and about the spending of five or six hours a day in charge of young children from five to 15 years of age realises that there is scarcely any work more strenuous. These old people spent from 35 to 45 years doing that type of work. Now, at the end of their days, there is a strong case for making some little concession to them. Even the small sum of 10/- per week to these poorly-paid pensioners would make a very substantial difference to the comfort in which they can live. I ask the Minister to go once more into that question and to consult the Minister for Finance with a view to seeing if anything can be done for those pensioners. I leave the matter at that.

I raised the question of the marriage ban before. I pointed out to the Minister one extraordinary anomaly in the concession he made to persons who were junior assistant mistresses at the time the ban was promulgated. I forget exactly what the amendment he made was but I know the effect it has had. Take the case of two girls sitting on the same day for the examination for entrance to a preparatory college. One got a very high place at the examination and was admitted to the preparatory college; the other failed to get a place. The girl who succeeded went on to the training college from the preparatory college and became a fully qualified national teacher, having spent six years in preparing—four years in the preparatory college and two years in training. That involved some expense. There is a State grant to assist students but in nearly every case there is some contribution by the student. In many cases, a very considerable contribution is made by parents towards the training of their children as teachers. What has happened? In one case of which I know a girl who succeeded in passing the exams, and going into training, spending six years in the process, came under the ban and, if she marries, she will be obliged to resign. The other girl, in due course, passed the qualifying examination and became a junior assistant mistress. She commenced to teach as junior assistant mistress and was earning during portion of the time that the other girl, who had been more successful in the examination, was in training. She is now married and still a junior assistant mistress. There is something wrong in that. I am making this plea only for those who were either in the preparatory colleges or training colleges when the ban was promulgated and my plea can affect only a very limited number. I make no plea on behalf of any person who entered a preparatory college after the ban was promulgated. Those who did that acted with their eyes open. I think the ban is unfair to the girls who were in preparatory or training colleges at the time it was announced and unfair to their parents who expended a considerable sum in preparing them to qualify as teachers. Many of them could ill-afford the money which they spent in this way. I know one man who says that he would not have spent a five-pound note to qualify his daughter as teacher if he had known at the time she was about to enter the preparatory college that this ban would come into force. That is a matter which, I think, the Minister should review.

I listened with great interest to such of the speeches on this Estimate as were delivered while I was able to be here. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present for the Minister's statement or for some of the earlier speeches. Deputy Dockrell made what I regarded as a very interesting speech. He referred to educational canons and tenets. I agree that all this work which we are attempting to do through the medium of Irish appears to be against some of these educational canons. Some years ago, I referred to that in this House. I told the Minister that I remembered, when sitting in the lecture room before the late Dr. Corcoran, that one of the first principles of education we learned from him was that we must proceed from the known to the unknown. That is an ordinary canon of educational science but the fact of the matter is that I know of cases where all that has been blown sky-high. I know teachers who have carried out this work of teaching through the medium of Irish children who had not a word of Irish when coming to the school and who have done that successfully. Unfortunately, I am afraid those are exceptional cases. Where you have a gifted teacher, a born teacher, fully equipped, with a magnificent knowledge of Irish, and where you have all the enthusiasm you usually find in the good teacher, then this thing can, undoubtedly, be done successfully. But it would be far too much to expect that the general body of teachers would conform with these requirements. I am afraid that the canons to which I have referred, though they cannot be generally applied, have still a certain amount of justification. We should, at least, sit down and examine what has occurred over the period of years in which the experiment has had a trial. It was from that point of view I spoke here in the past.

Deputy Breathnach made easily the best speech I ever heard him make in this House. He spoke entirely in Irish and his was one of the best and one of the most moderate speeches. I have heard on an Education Estimate for quite a long time in this House. It was an excellent speech. On one point I did not agree with him. In reply to Deputy Dockrell he tried to show that the Deputy was wrong, not from the angle I have pointed out, but because of the way in which English was brought in as the language of this country. That is mixing up two different things. If it is our desire to force Irish over as the national language, and as the sole language, then I should say that what we are doing is quite correct.

Deputy Coogan instanced the operations of the British Government here for a number of years in the educational line. Through teaching entirely through the medium of English, and through the documents, summonses, etc., that were distributed in the Gaeltacht, and where Irish was spoken, they desired to have English the spoken language, where such was not the case previously. That was not the educational programme. Nobody could say that that method of putting English across was good from the educational point of view. It was good from the British point of view to make English the spoken language here. We must segregate that from the educational principle. If we are setting out to forget that educational system, and to force Irish across as the spoken language we are going in the right way. I think we ought to consider the position if we want to do two things, not only to bring Irish along as the spoken language but also to educate children who are growing up.

It is time that we took stock to see where we have gone. Deputy Breathnach was quite good on that. He said:—

"B'feidir go bhfuilimíd ag dul amugha—bféidir nach bhfuil an slighe ceart againn agus go mba chóir feuchaint isteach 'sa sceul."

That was a moderate point of view from a person who, from youth, is well known as an Irish revivalist. It was advocacy of inquiry into the educational system now, to see how it has worked, to see whether, in fact, we are making an advance even in knowledge of the spoken language. Side by side with that you must have the effect it is having on the general educational standard.

I join with Deputy Breathnach in saying that we ought to have such an inquiry. About 22 years have gone by since this system was instituted. Some Deputies forget that this is not one of the things for which Fianna Fáil must be blamed. It was Professor O'Sullivan, when Minister for Education, brought in that system of education, and gave it a trial. It was he who, some years ago, was the first to advocate that, after the number of years that had gone by, it was time to take stock to see where we were going, to see what advance we were making with regard to the progress of the Irish language, and whether we were advancing our educational system generally. Therefore, I think, now that the Minister has had that spur from his own benches, and from a man who has been a lifelong enthusiast on the side of the revival of Irish, one who is a native speaker, he ought to listen to views from his own benches and concede that inquiry.

Some of the things that Deputy Breathnach said would make one doubt whether there had been any substantial advance. I was amazed when he mentioned that some persons who had spent four years in a preparatory college, and then two years in training, and, who, presumably, must have had a considerable knowledge of Irish when they succeeded in passing the entrance examination to the preparatory colleges, when they came from the training colleges were unable to teach the bilingual programme. I was amazed to hear that. It was the first time I heard that such a thing could be possible. Certainly if that is the case, then there is room for inquiry as to how the colleges are acting. The Report of the Department of Education on page 15 contains a paragraph entitled "Labhairt na Gaedhilge—an dul chun cinn ins na hÁrd-Ranga." What that report shows would make one sit up and take notice because it indicates that in the higher classes in the national schools now, there is far from being that advance that might be expected. In fact, in the higher classes teachers have to go back and teach things that were learned in the lower classes some three or four years previously. That being so, it is right that the Minister should look favourably now on the suggestion that some inquiry should be made by some body set up by himself, preferably composed of persons whose bias is entirely pro-Irish and who are themselves enthusiastic in the revival. I concede that. Let a body of that type be set up, which will go into the whole question of what success we are achieving by present methods, to see whether they are successful with regard to Irish. I assume that you would have amongst those with an Irish bias, people with educational qualifications, and that they would look into the general effects on our educational system. There is a strong case for that. It is giving nothing away and is no slur on the Department to have such an inquiry. It is no slur on the teachers to have such an inquiry. I can see no reason why the Department would consider it a slur or why the Minister should consider it a slur. He was not the originator of the system. If the thing is wrong blame a previous Minister for Education, Professor O'Sullivan. There is no slur on the Department if it is found, as a result of inquiry, that the system needs reforming. On that point I think the Minister should agree to have an inquiry.

Those who have been advocating inquiry in the past have now support in asking for it from Deputy Breathnach, who is a very experienced teacher and a well-known revivalist of Irish. Deputy Breathnach referred to other matters with which I have sympathy. One which would have considerable effect in helping the work done in the schools after the children have left ordinary schools concerns night schools which were abolished. I had forgotten that it was so long ago since these schools were abolished. These schools were conducted by national teachers as an extra. Possibly when national teachers became a little more affluent, and when their salaries were improved as they were in years gone by, they were not so keen on carrying on these classes—but they were very useful institutions in the country at that time. I do not know that I could agree with Deputy Breathnach that they would be so attractive now. If Deputy Breathnach knew his native Kerry as well as I do in the last few years, he would find that there are other institutions more attractive now, such as dance halls, and that while in the past people used to go to classes in the national schools, there is the attraction of the dance halls which take all their spare pence. If the Minister, after consultation with the teaching profession, thought it advisable it might be worth while giving the thing a trial because the ordinary boy or girl, after leaving school, will have few opportunities of keeping in touch with any Irish reading or any chance of improving their knowledge of Irish through conversation unless some opportunity of this sort is provided for them. The number of vocational schools in the country is few as far as the rural areas are concerned. They are very difficult to reach, but the night school is there in the locality and a lot of the young people from 16 to 21 years of age would turn into it for social purposes. If they did nothing more than speak Irish there, that, I think, would probably be a considerable help towards the spread of the language.

Captain Giles

We had an interesting discussion on this Estimate. It will give heart to people, especially when they read the speeches made by those who, because of their teaching qualifications, can be regarded as speaking with authority on this subject. Many grievances brought to my notice by the managers and teachers in my county deserve to be raised here. Most of the teachers hold that the present Minister for Education is too dictatorial, that he will brook no opposition and will not listen to reasonable complaints put forward by the teaching profession. I think myself there is something in that. We need to have friendship and harmony in order to give the best education possible to the children. Therefore, the Minister, I think, should keep in closer touch with the national teachers' organisation. At the moment there is a wide gap between the two. Instead of divergent views, there should be harmony and a closer coming together between the Minister and the teachers. That would be for the good of all. The managers in different parts of my county feel that there is no use in their going to the Department with any grievances such as trying to get a teacher with long service—8, 10 or 15 years—promoted principal when another teacher retires. They find that the Minister overrules and wipes out all their pleas and complaints, and will not listen to reason. I think that is wrong. After all, the managers of the schools have long experience behind them. They have had a good education and should be listened to. They know more about the work done by the teacher in the school than either the Minister or the Department. After all, the manager of a school knows the type of teacher that is there, whether he is good at the character-formation of the citizens of the future. Therefore, I say the manager should get more consideration from the Department and the Minister. I hope that will be so in the future.

The teaching profession is one of the noblest in the country. It comes next to the clergy and should be maintained on the highest plane. It is not right that the teacher should always have to be begging and craving for an increase of salary. It should be at such a figure as will enable him to live in reasonable comfort and fulfil the task allotted to him. That task is a very important one—to lay well the foundation of the coming generation. If the teacher has to be constantly making complaints that he cannot live on his salary, it tends to lower him in the eyes of the people. Deputy Lynch referred to the unfortunate position in which the old retired teachers find themselves to-day. It is too bad that respected teachers who gave 30 or 40 years' service to the country, and who are in retirement in this difficult time, should have to try and live on small, mean, niggardly pensions. They are not able to do so, and are in such a bad way that they nearly have to seek home help. It is not a good thing for education that any teacher should have to beg or crawl. The Government should make a noble response to the appeals that have been made on behalf of these old teachers.

A good deal was said to-day about the present position of teaching. According to statements made here, almost everyone is a dunce and education has gone to the dogs. I do not hold that view at all. Our education may not be up to the standard that we would like, but I think that, on the whole, it is reasonably good. Almost every parent thinks that his child is a genius. The fact is that, while you may have one brainy child in a school, you will have 20 or 30 dunces. As a people our abilities are moderate enough. We do throw up a genius occasionally, but I think that, in the general run, we are a pretty dull people. Education, taking it all in all, is not in such a bad way at the present moment. What, I think, we are most backward in at the moment is in the character formation of our children. Something has gone wrong there. That is a subject that will need more attention in the schools in the future. What I find is this: that most of our children when they get into any mischief are ready, in order to escape the consequences, to tell lies and to swear holes through a pot. There is nothing manly in that. If a child does wrong, he should be manly enough to own up to it. The fact, however, is that he will evade every means of telling the truth. That is a bad thing. There is too much untruthfulness in the youth of to-day. They are ready to tell lies in order to escape the consequences of their acts. In the old days if farmers' children did anything wrong, they would own up to it and take their trouncing like men. The children of the present day will not do that. They will do anything to evade punishment and will try to get off as easily as they can. Therefore, I would urge more character formation in the children attending school. In the schools the children should be taught civics, respect for the old and the weak and for animal and bird life. At the present time you find children going along the roads in the spring time trying to find out birds' nests so that they may rob them or kill the birds. That is another aspect of education that should get attention.

There is a good deal of controversy as to why we have not a proper agricultural bias in this country. That is a question that I have looked into. I am definitely of opinion that the reason why we have not that agricultural bias is this: in the past, 90 or 95 per cent. of our teachers and clergy came from the farming community. At that time the farmers were able to pay for the education of their children so that a boy might become a priest or a teacher. At the present moment education and the priesthood are almost vested interests so far as the children of civil servants, of teachers and of the R.I.C. are concerned, or they may be the children of some of the new aristocracy that has sprung up in the country. That is very unfortunate, because they have not the proper economic, national or social outlook. They are a different type of people altogether from the agricultural community. We had a far better type of people when the teachers were the sons and daughters of farmers. At the moment, it is a rare thing to find a farmer's son or daughter able to become a teacher. They are shoved to one side by the new aristocracy who have plenty of money, pomp and means to oust everyone out of their proper place. I think there should be some definite bar against the professional classes ousting the ordinary agricultural people from their lawful rights.

This country was a much better place to live in when the agricultural people were in control. At the present moment it is the sons and daughters of the R.I.C. and of the Civic Guards who are teachers. That is why you have not a proper agricultural bias. What in the name of God could they know about agriculture? They would not know a cow from a goat. How could they teach the agricultural community, which represents 95 per cent. of the county, or how could we expect to have good results in agriculture? My old teacher spent a good part of each day forming the character of his pupils. He taught us to respect animal and bird life, how to live on the land and everything that was good. At the present moment we have a crazy system by fanatics who do not know anything. They teach for five or six hours, then get out and have a good time afterwards. A good many teachers blow into my county from God knows where, and do not seem to have any qualifications, but they go around the country as irresponsible fanatics night after night. You could not expect farmers or labourers to send their children to schools where they are teaching They have the gibberish of the Irish language, which they did not learn because they were paid to do so, but rather because they came from native areas. They are trying to cram Irish down the people's throats, in the land of the Pale, where English was forced down the throats of our fathers and grandfathers. These bombasts do not show any great respect for the ordinary people, and they are taking the place of the farmers and other decent people.

Technical education is one of our vital needs, which I would like to see fostered and brought to a high pitch. However, in my county some years ago, some fanatics built a high building in a little village at great cost— that was the huge school at Nobber, which cost £10,000. They also converted an old workhouse into a school at Dunshaughlin. From that day to this, those two buildings have been white elephants and a drag on the taxpayers. A public inquiry should be held into that matter and they should be closed down and the pupils transferred to some other school. Those schools are kept there at present by certain people in their own interests and that is not fair to the county. I would agree to the continuance of those schools if there were a decent class attending, but the teacher has to go around begging and crawling to find students and even has to pay some of them to go to the school, so that it may be kept open. I would like to see these teachers retained in permanent employment, but I do not want these schools to be a drag on the community.

As regards technical education in general, people seem to have a bad outlook, their whole idea being to get a job and get away from the land. Some definite article should be signed by people going to technical schools, that they will go back to a certain profession or do something in their own homes or on the land. In my county, many people of the ordinary cottage class go to the technical schools to learn shorthand and typewriting and when proficient they have no thought but to get a job. They are not willing, when the job is not there for them, to come home again as they are too big for their homes and want to be grandees, ladies and gentlemen and walk around refusing even to pick a bag of potatoes for fear it would dirty their boots. They like to have plenty of lipstick and, as a result, they are just a nuisance to everybody. The people who went to school with them are ashamed of them and look down on them as upstarts. Eventually, they drift to Dublin or over to England and often do not end up well. I do not like to see this type of people with only shorthand and typewriting. In fact, that should be closed down, as it is really a nuisance. They should be taught domestic work, how to make butter, how to bake bread and keep poultry and they should go home to stay with their parents. They will not do that at present, as it would be work then and they want to take the line of least resistance.

I agree that the Irish language should be fostered and brought forward in this generation and the next, as well as we can, but I do not think we should try to force it down people's throats. The people are as patriotic as they can be and want to learn the language, but they do not wish to be rushed too quickly. They do not want these fanatical teachers from Donegal and the West of Ireland to come "faluterin' " around the country driving it down the people's necks. The people in my county are sick of that and do not want these bombasts who come, not for the purpose of the language, but to get themselves bigger jobs.

Regarding school building, I am not at all satisfied that the Minister has made any effort in the last few years to remedy the desperate condition of at least 12 schools in Meath. They are a disgrace, they are dirty, sodden and rat-eaten and the children spend the whole day in damp and dirt, looking at the rats coming up from their holes and they try to hunt them with crusts of bread. It is not fair to expect children to be properly educated in that way. After 25 years of native government there should be a decent, sanitary school, with an acre or two of ground in each parish and every attention given to teachers and children. I would not blame the teachers in any of the schools in my county if they threw up the job. They have been complaining from year to year and asking that something should be done. The wind whistles through the windows and the doors and half the children are sneezing and coughing, and the teachers are at home for months, through the schools being dirty, insanitary, damp and draughty. The managers and the Minister should get something done, as the present state of affairs is not fair to the community.

The debate has been a good one, and I think the Minister will be more helpful, after having heard the views put forward than he was in the past. Teachers and managers have told me that the Minister scarcely listens to reason, but brushes aside complaints and queries by managers. That is a wrong attitude. After all, the Minister is really the servant of the people and should be able to meet the teachers' organisation and the managers and do something.

Mr. Derrig

I asked the Deputy last year—or any other Deputy who had a complaint about a school—to write to me. I do not recollect having heard from the Deputy. Really, in self-defence, I think I am entitled to ask him to come forward and give particulars of the cases in which he alleges there was neglect. It is not sufficient to come in once a year to make general statements. I am entitled, in all fairness, to get some particulars of the cases the Deputy has in mind.

Captain Giles

It is the managers and teachers who come to me and ask me to give ventilation to their complaints in this House and it is my duty to do so. I am here for no other purpose. I am now putting the grievances of my people before the House, in the Parliament of the people, in proper form, and this is the place to do it.

Mr. Donnellan

This debate has continued for about six hours and I am sure that, if the Minister has not benefited by some of the speeches he has heard during the day, he has benefited very much by that of the last Deputy. In regard to any complaints which were brought to him by me, he did his best. That is correct, though I do not want to rub him down. I had to go to him on many occasions during the year and, while he meant well, he was very slow.

There is one point I make, in all seriousness. In my constituency, schools have gone into disrepair, though not as bad as those in Meath, where Deputy Giles says the rats are hunted with crusts of bread; and I would ask the Minister, in the case of rural areas in the Province of Connacht, to give a bigger grant from the Department towards the repair of old schools and the building of new ones. The manager is at present responsible and, in a poor parish in a rural area, he finds it impossible to collect the money, with the result that the years pass on, until at last the school is a total wreck. I have a case in my own parish, where the manager had to go to the bank to raise the contribution which he had to give to the Department, in order to have the school built in that parish. I think in the poorer rural areas, especially in the Gaeltacht, where definitely the inhabitants are very poor and unable to contribute, the amount expected from them should be lowered considerably and the smallest contribution possible should be asked by the Department towards the repairing of those old schools or the building of other schools.

As regards desks for schools, I had occasion some time ago to go to the Minister on the subject of providing desks for a certain school. He sent down an inspector, who reported as to the necessity for desks in that particular school. That was some nine months ago, and it was only to-day, strange as it may seem, that I got a letter on the subject. I do not believe the writer of the letter knew that it would be mentioned here to-day. He says there has been no word yet with regard to the desks. In this school there are four or five children sitting in a desk intended for two, and in some instances there are children who are obliged to sit on the floor. That is the case in one convent school at least. I shall try to see the Minister to-morrow about that matter. There is no reason why, having sent down an inspector some nine months ago, the position in that school should not by now be remedied. Deputy Giles made a complaint as regards agricultural schools. My view is that 90 per cent. of the young people who attend national schools and later go to the higher schools are only anxious to get away from agriculture. There can be no doubt about that. I do not think any discussion here will induce the children attending these schools to become agriculturally minded. I believe the wish of the father and the mother in most cases is to give their children a higher education so that they will be able to go away entirely from the land. That is the trend in the country at the present time.

I should like the Minister to give serious attention to the matters to which I have referred—the contributions from the poorer rural areas towards the building of new schools and the repairing of schools that need repair; the position of some schools that urgently require desks and perhaps other furniture. I might point out to the Minister that in some areas the manager of the school has had to go to the bank to get money in order to have repairs carried out. In my own parish the manager had to get money from the bank in order to put up the amount necessary for the building of a school. There was no hope of work being done otherwise. I hope the Minister will see that only the smallest contribution will be expected from the poorer rural areas.

Mr. Corish

Almost every aspect of education has been mentioned by Deputies in the course of this debate. There are some matters I would like to emphasise. The cleaning of schools is one subject with which I would like to deal. I do not think any Deputy mentioned it at any great length So far as I have been able to ascertain, no contribution is made by the Department to the cleaning of schools. The practice appears to be that children are kept after school hours in order to sweep out the school. I think the Minister will agree that that is not as it should be. Many parents and teachers attribute the spread of tuberculosis in a great many areas to the fact that children are kept after school hours to sweep out the schools.

Mr. Derrig

I will refer the Deputy to sub-head C (6) of Vote 46, and he will see that there is a provision of £47,500 for the heating and cleaning of schools.

Mr. Corish

I do not think the amount given for the cleaning of schools is sufficient, because the managers find themselves in the position that they are unable to pay a decent rate, and therefore cannot employ any person to clean the school. If one goes through some of our rural areas he will find the schools in a very filthy condition. Apart from the cleaning of the floors, the walls never seem to be swept down, and they are seldom distempered or painted.

I notice that there was a paper circulated by the Minister to-day. I suppose it is a translation of the speech he made in Irish. In that paper he refers to the provision of new schools. I presume that means after the emergency. If the Minister proceeds at the same rate after the emergency as he is proceeding at the present moment in the matter of erecting schools, then it will be a very long time before the Department of Education will be able to overtake requirements. There are absolutely wretched schools in some parts of rural Ireland. I know some schools in my own constituency, and they are in a wretched condition. It is absolutely impossible for children to absorb decent education in such a wretched environment.

Some Deputies have mentioned teachers' salaries. I think the Minister knows that there is, and has been for some considerable time, discontent prevailing among the teachers. I think he will admit that it is not good to have such discontent in the teachers' minds. Deputy Norton said to-day that a man whose mind is agitated by reason of the fact that he is unable to balance his household budget, is not in a fit condition to impart education to children. The teachers, for a number of years prior to 1920, were agitating for increased payment. Some time in 1920 they extracted from the British Government a comparatively decent scale of wages. The normal scale for men was from £170 by annual increments to £370, and for women £155 by annual increments to £300. When that scale was in operation in 1923, the Government of that time applied a cut of 10 per cent. In 1932 there was another cut ranging from 5½ to 8 per cent. Before 1938, the new minimum and maximum rates for men were from £140 to £303 as compared with £170 to £370, and for women the figures were £128 to £246 as against £155 to £300 in 1920. These rates remained unchanged until April, 1938, when the Minister announced an increase of 5 per cent. In 1933, when the Public Economies Act was passed, cuts of 5½ per cent. to 8 per cent. were applied. The Public Economies Act expired on March 31st, 1934, and all the services, with the exception of the teachers', had their original salaries restored. So that I think it would be admitted that the teachers, above all other classes of civil servants in the State, have suffered very severely.

In Northern Ireland the position is infinitely better. For men there the salary ranges from £160 to £356 and they get a war bonus of £45 per annum. Taking everything into consideration, the Minister must admit that the teachers have reason for their discontent. Repeatedly in this House Deputies have asked that some increase should be given to teachers who are on pension. I think it will be admitted by everybody that those teachers who have gone out on pension in recent years were the pioneers so far as the teaching of Irish is concerned. They did the spade work in the old days. They were comparatively old at the time and they had to go to a great deal of trouble in acquiring a sufficient knowledge of Irish to enable them to impart it to their pupils. These people are to a great extent in a state of hardship now in consequence of the low pensions that have been granted to them. I have heard a suggestion made lately that even a refund should be made to pensioned teachers who had made contributions to the Pension Fund. The position as regards contributions is different now. I would ask the Minister to do something to increase the miserable pensions that are being paid to the pensioned teachers, as has been done in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There was a great deal of criticism to-day of technical education. I think the system of technical education in this country at the present time is splendid. I do not think the Minister ought to be condemned if having had certain schools erected in certain areas and facilities provided for the people, the people do not take advantage of them. I do not think the Minister can be blamed for that. Some people have asked that an agricultural bias be given to education in the technical schools. My experience on a vocational education committee, of which I have been a member for a considerable time, is that any reasonable demand made on the Department of Education is conceded. Many and many a time classes were asked for in parts of the country where they had not previously existed and when representations were made to the Minister through the committee, the classes were at once established. I do not think any blame should be attached to the Department in this connection. I believe that if a definite desire is expressed on behalf of the population in any part of the country, the Minister and his Department are always most anxious to help. That is my experience at any rate and I think it is only right that I should say so.

In regard to vocational education, some years ago there was a greater tendency to give scholarships for certain trades. In recent years I do not think so many scholarships are given. In domestic economy classes in technical schools, especially in urban areas, and in engineering classes, I think a greater effort ought to be made to secure that pupils attain such a degree of education that they could be given scholarships to enable them to become teachers. I refer specially to domestic economy teachers. The tendency at the moment is, I think, to take people from colleges and universities to be domestic economy instructresses. I would ask the Minister to do something to encourage pupils in the ordinary technical schools to attain a degree of knowledge which would qualify them to become teachers. After all, domestic economy in itself is a humdrum existence. I know it is absolutely necessary and I wish more of our people would take advantage of the courses of instruction in domestic economy afforded in the schools all over the country. But I also think pupils should be encouraged to qualify as teachers.

I wish to refer to the heating of schools. My attention has been drawn to the fact that there was a large school built in Crumlin, in this city, a very short time ago, and that during last winter there was very little, if any, heating provided in that school. No facilities were provided for cooking although the Dublin Corporation were prepared to help in providing food to be cooked under the Free Meals (Necessitous Schools) Act. I understand that electric heaters had been provided in the school but, of course, as everybody knows, for the last two years it was not possible to have proper electrical heating in any building, especially in a school. I would ask the Minister, before next winter is here, to try to provide alternative heating apparatus because there was a number of complaints during the past winter.

With regard to the building of new schools and the repair of schools, I, like Deputy Donnellan, would suggest that the Minister should not insist that a proportion of the cost of a new school, or of the repair of a school, should be collected in the parish. Anybody familiar with the country will know that it is in the particular area where there is a poor population we find the bad schools. Managers in various places have made strenuous efforts to try to collect their portion of the money required for a new school and in a great many cases they have been unable to secure the necessary proportion to qualify for the grant. I think the time has arrived when that question should be examined, and I think the Minister should recommend the Department of Finance to give the entire cost. It is only then that we may arrive at a stage when we will have proper school facilities throughout the country.

Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín

Badh mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an mheastachán seo mar theachta as an Ghaeltacht. Is cuma goidé atá déanta againn mar Rialtas Náisiúnta le fiche bliain, agus admhuím go ndearnadh cuid mhaith do mhuintir na Gaeltachta ar feadh an ama sin. Ina dhiaidh sin ní thig stad a chur leis an imirce as an Ghaeltacht. Agus fágann an imirce a rian ar na scoltacha. Níl na daoine óga ag pósadh agus níl na páistí ann le dhul 'un scoile. I mórán ceanntar san Iarthar, ó Thír Chonaill go Ciarrái, tá an Roinn ag druid na sool nó ag cur dhá scoil le chéile le tinreamh a thógáil a choinneódh múinteoir ag obair. Is cosúil nach bhfuil leigheas ar an imirce seo as an Ghaeltacht. Tá an talamh ró-bhocht le slibheatha a bhaint as, agus caithfidh an fear óg agus an cailín óg tarraing ar an choigríoch. Mar dúirt mé ar mheastachán eile, ní ceist náisiúnta amháin atá le réiteach anseo ach ceist eacnomaíochta. Mar chím-se an scéal, níl leigheas air ach tionscail oiriúnacha a chur ar bun sa Ghaeltacht a bhéarfas saothrú seasmhach do na daoine óga sa chaoi go mbeidh uchtach aca pósadh agus muirín a thógáil. Bíodh sin mar chuspoir ag an Rialtas agus rachaidh mise i mbannaí go gcuirfidh siad bláth ar an Ghaeltacht agus go mbeidh na páistí go líonmhar ann ansin le dul 'un scoile. Tá morán oibre gearrtha amach againn le cur i gcrích nuair a bheas an cogadh thart. Ná déanamais dearmad de thionscail oiriúnacha a bhunú sa Ghaeltacht.

Cuirimís deireadh le hoibreacha fóirthine nó brisfidh siad spirid na fearúlachta atá i gcroí an Ghaeil. Sé mo bharúil gur chóir an aois scoile árdú ó cheithre bliana déag go dtí sé bliana déag. Is ins an dá bhliain deireannach seo a thógas an páiste an chuid is fearr dá chuid léinn; agus mar chímse iad anois cuireann siad an dá bhliain sin amú ag siúl thart ag snaomadh sifín. Nach dtiocfadh leis an Roinn scoil amhain, ar a laghad, a bheith aca i ngach paráiste dá leithéid seo, scoil a bhéarfadh cúrsaí talmhaíochta nó céird éigin dóibh. Bímíd ag dúil le moltaí mar seo ón Choimisiún sin a shuidhe faoi 'n Dochtúr de Brún ach ní shílim go bhfuil cuntas an Choimisiún sin foillsithe go fóill. Tá mé lán-chinte nach dearn an Coimisiún sin dearmad ar na nithe atá riachtanach sa Ghaeltacht i ngnóthaí ordeachais. B'fheidir go dtiocfadh leis an Aire innse dúinn cá huair a bheas cuntas an Choimisiúin seo ar fáil.

Rinneadh casaoid liom tá seal ó shoin nach bhfuil na Gárdaí géar go leor ar pháistí bhíos ag fanacht sa bhaile ón scoil gan aon leithscéal; agus nuair a thig siad roimh bhreitheamh den Chúirt Dúiche bíonn seisean ro-mhaithteach leo mar an gcéanna. Mara bhfuil leithscéal maith aca badh chóir do na páistí uilig a bheith ar scoil.

Chím mórán scolta atá gan páirc imeartha do na páistí agus níl sin mar is cóir. Ba chóir páirc imeartha a bheith le gach teach scoile agus cluichí a bheith aca ó am go ham eadar scolta na paráiste. Bheadh na páistí níos leigthe, níos láidre agus níos folláine dá bharr.

Tá mé ag éagaoin go mór ar an Aire a ghéill don chlamhsán fán toisíocht bheag a bhí ag páistí na Gaeltachta sna scrúdúcháin. Ba cheart caoi speisialta a thabhairt do gach páiste sa Ghaeltacht a bhfuil an éirim chinn aige dhul ar aghaidh sa mhúinteoireacht nó sa Stát-Sheirbhís. Níl dóigh níos fearr leis an "béal beo", sin an Ghaedhilg nádurtha, a fréamhadh ó cheann go ceann na tíre.

Ba mhaith liom leabharlanna beaga fheiceál i ngach scoil sa Ghaeltacht. Níl na páistí seo in innibh leabhraí an Ghúim a cheannacht. Níl ábhar léitheoireachta ar bith aca sa bhaile agus d'óirfeadh leabhraí an Ghúim go maith dhóibh. Bhéarfadh seo blas dóibh ar a gcuid litríochta féin.

Anois focal amháin fá na seanphinsinéirí. Tá beagán aca beo go foill atá ag strachailt leis an tsaol i gcruatan agus i mbochtanas. Impím ar an Aire breis bheag a thabhairt dóibh nó ní bheidh aon duine aca i bhfad anois ar thaobh seo na huaighe.

Mrs. Redmond

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a few points, as I feel that this is one of the most important Estimates that will come before the House. After all, when we talk about education, it embraces everything and everybody. For that reason I think that it is my duty to say just a few words. The first thing I should like to ask the Minister about is the condition of some of the schools. I agree that he is perfectly right when he says that we ought not to come in here with complaints and not be able to back them up. I am wholeheartedly behind him in that. Actually, I have no complaint about any school, but, at the same time, I do know of certain schools that have no sanitary accommodation, and at this hour of the day, in 1944, that does not speak very well for such an important Department that has an amount of money at its disposal. I feel sure that the Minister will, within the next year, see about trying to improve conditions in the schools in country places, because everything should be first-class for the children in order to bring them up to the standard that we expect them to achieve. We want to have them in surroundings that will encourage them to learn and encourage them to go to school. As well as that, it will be an encouragement for their parents to see that they attend regularly.

I often wonder are the children of the present day as well educated as the children were when we had not self-government here. It is my opinion that the children of the present day in the national schools, even though we have schools which are run by an Irish Government, cannot take their place with the children of some years ago. First of all, it has been stated here that perhaps sufficient attention is not given to character-forming and to training them for private life. I quite agree with that, because you do not want anything better as an example than the children's misuse of private or public property. You simply cannot pass by in a motor car without children, for want of knowing better, and perhaps for want of being taught, feeling it their duty to throw stones. I quite agree that children will be children; but, at the same time, I think that sufficient time is not given to their training in this regard, as it was in the old days when people were told how to behave themselves. I think there is a grave lack in this respect in the schools at present. Too much attention is paid to cramming into the heads of the unfortunate children things that perhaps will be of very little use to them in after life. I think it is really time for plain speaking and for stating the facts as we find them.

Something has been said about the technical schools. I think they are very excellent institutions, and my only regret is that it has not yet sunk into the minds of the parents that they should insist on their children, particularly girls, attending these schools. Possibly this is a big thing to ask, but I think the Minister should make it compulsory for girls on leaving the national schools to attend some of these technical schools, even for six months' training, because so many of them are lacking in this training when they look for positions in later life. When you ask them why they did not go to the technical school, they look at you as if they never heard of it. I often think it a pity that they are not made realise, when going through the ordinary school, the necessity for attending technical classes in the afternoon and night on leaving these schools, and it would be well if something could be done to instil into their minds a realisation of the necessity of preparing for after life, and that education is not a great load for anyone to carry, no matter what position he or she occupies.

It has been suggested that some agricultural course should be given in the ordinary schools, and I quite agree. It would be excellent if a few hours in the week could be set aside for the training of boys who are interested in farming, because it is to farming they must look for their livelihood. As I came in, I heard a Deputy say that it was some people's idea and aim in life to prepare children of this country for export to other countries, but any sensible person will understand that has always been the case, and will continue to be the case. We certainly do not want to close ourselves up here on an island and have no intercourse with the outer world, and we ought to be proud of the many who have gone to other parts and made a name for Ireland in the past, and who, I am sure, will do so in the future. We should aim at education which will make us fit and capable of taking our place in any nation, whether we like it or not. We have got to earn our living, and we have to make up our minds to it.

That brings me to the question of compulsory Irish. The Minister knows my feelings on this matter, as I have spoken on this Estimate several times. I quite understand that there may be people who feel that the Irish language must be restored, and if it is the idea that, by doing so, we shall get a prominent position as a nation, I believe we should have it as an independent language and as a language taught in the schools for itself; but we should not try to aim at something which we cannot achieve, that is, the education of our children through the medium of Irish. It is not possible, and the teachers have come to that conclusion. I have been speaking to lay teachers and nuns, and surely they ought to have a good idea of what can be done.

It is very easy to lay down rules in an office, but it is quite a different matter to put those rules into force in schools where a teacher is trying to control 50 or 60 children, which is a small figure for any school. Nuns and lay teachers in country schools find that the task of imparting the knowledge they want to impart to the children through the medium of Irish is really impossible, and no matter how ardent the Minister may be in the matter—and I believe he is—I think he should call a halt to this procedure, because it is not for the good of the children's education. It is for them we are supposed to be catering and we do not want to make them dislike the language. We want to get them to like the language so that they can learn it as a language. That is not the position at present. People have come to the conclusion that it is a matter of putting Irish down their throats, whether they like it or not, and whether they are capable of learning other subjects through Irish or not.

It would be well—and I say it in all sincerity—for the betterment of the education of the children of the present day if the whole matter were re-examined by, if you like, some sort of committee which would not be biased one way or another. Let such a committee examine the facts as we hear them throughout the country and I feel sure that the Minister will alter his decision. No matter how badly he may feel about abandoning the idea, I feel that when he comes to believe it is for the good of the education of the children who have to set forth to make a livelihood in other countries, if not in their own, he will agree that it is not a proper system. At present many of the children are not able to read or write properly, or to add figures. These are horrible facts, but that is the position, and I am sure that when the Minister examines them, he will have no doubt as to what is the right thing to do, that is, to teach it as a language, if he feels keenly about it. I say that sincerely and genuinely, and in no spirit of vindictiveness.

Mr. Heskin

We have had a long debate and I want merely to touch on a couple of points which have already been referred to. First, I think it would be very wise if the Minister would acquire small plots of land adjacent to schools in rural areas in order to instil into the children as they are growing up a taste for agricultural work. Every county committee of agriculture has a county agricultural and horticultural instructor, and the moneys provided by the local authorities would be very well spent if a few hours each week were devoted to demonstrating in rural schools to children in their early years how best they could use their brains on the land. It would be a great help in after life towards making good men of them because it is the early training which makes the man. If a child is trained to agricultural work, it will be an encouragement to him in after life to remain on the land and to have a love for the land, instead of having no love for it and no training in the use of it, but an anxiety to get away from it, as is the case at present. It would have the effect of encouraging a flight to the land instead of from the land.

With regard to fuel for schools in winter, provision should be made by the Department for an adequate supply of fuel for schools in the rural areas during the winter. It is very hard that young children, in many cases badly clad, have to travel two, three and even more miles to school and remain in school in soaking clothes all day. That is a matter which should be given serious consideration by the Minister if the health of the children is to be preserved. Every effort is being made to-day to cope with the dreadful disease which we all know as T.B., and the provision of an adequate fuel supply is one of the ways in which we could eliminate any tendency towards that disease in the children. I know five schools in my own area in which not even a glass of drinking water is available for the children. It is a very serious state of affairs that numbers of children should be gathered in a school for four, five or six hours, without a supply of even spring water, and having to depend on people who cart water past the school obliging the teacher with a few gallons a day.

That is a very serious state of affairs. I think the Department ought to be more conscious of its responsibility, and that the board of health, through the intervention of the Department of Education, should provide an adequate supply of water both for drinking and sanitary purposes in the schools. I would ask the Minister to take particular note of those three points, and to see that attention is given to them as early as possible.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

I think perhaps the first thing I should say in reply to the points which have been made by the different Deputies who have spoken is that the control and management of the primary schools in this State is vested in the Church authorities. As far as the State is concerned, we come in to give certain financial assistance, in the building and improvement and the heating and cleaning of schools, for example, and we come in, through the inspectors, to see that the work is done satisfactorily and that certain standards are attained by the teaching staffs. The Church occupies the predominant position in regard to the control of education here. That is a point which I think Deputies ought to bear in mind, particularly if they are inclined to make strictures upon the Minister for Education or his Department for neglect that has come under their notice in maintaining school buildings properly. The provision of the site and the establishment of the school in the first instance as well as maintenance are matters for the school manager. The initiative must come from him. When a proposal from the manager is received in my Department for the building of a new school, or the reconstruction or improvement of an old one, the matter goes ahead. The Board of Works is responsible for seeing that the site is a good one, and that the work is carried out satisfactorily, particularly if the manager does not make the full local contribution of one-third which is normally expected. If the case is what is termed a necessitous one, that is to say if the district is either a very poor one or there have been very heavy liabilities upon it, and it is clear that the manager is unable to put up the standard contribution of one-third, the State may give more than its normal two-thirds, but I am satisfied that, in the future, the ecclesiastical authorities throughout the country as a whole will make every effort to see that the parishes make their fair contribution. I do not agree at all with Deputy Donnellan, although we both probably have the same idea in mind and we both want to get the work done. It must be my duty, in safeguarding the interests of the State in this matter and in carrying out the wishes of the Government, to see that the local contribution is a satisfactory one.

I am not disposed to hold up necessary work for the sake of a few pounds or for the sake of haggling or bargaining, but I hope that, under the plans for a large building programme which we have envisaged, with the cooperation of the ecclesiastical authorities—to which I am looking forward with confidence—we shall have a better response from those areas that were lacking than we have had in the past.

It must not be forgotten that a great many of the managers have made big sacrifices. When I am told that there are certain managers who have not been able to collect money to carry out their obligations, my first answer is that the managerial system—and I think it is to the interests of the country as a whole that that system should be continued and should be operated satisfactorily; it is in conformity with our traditions; it is peculiary suitable for our needs, and has been so pronounced by the responsible spokesmen of the church authorities— envisages that the parish must shoulder its responsibility in this matter. Unfortunately, owing to historical reasons, in certain areas in the country people consider that they have no obligations towards the schools. They think that is entirely a matter for the Department of Education in Dublin. There may have been some justification for that belief in the long years when the National Board portended to them an alien administration, but there is no justification whatever for continuing that view under an Irish Government. The schools are the property of the trustees for the people themselves. In them their children spend a great part of their lives, and it is to the interest of each one of us to see that they are built properly in the first instance, and, when built, that they are properly maintained. Unfortunately, they are not so maintained in certain areas, and I want Deputies to realise that, so far as I am concerned, I have tried to get the Government to make the largest possible annual contribution towards getting essential work done. During the coming year we hope to expend in grants another sum of roughly £250,000, and I think that is very good having regard to the emergency conditions and to the difficulty of getting the work done. It is quite true that at present we are not in a position to get ahead with our new building programe, but we can plan for the post-war period. The Government, as you know, have set up an organisation to establish priority in regard to post-war building.

Projects for building throughout the country are under the direction of the head of this branch in the Department of Industry and Commerce, and my Department has been supplying that office with a list of the cases in which action is actually proceeding, both as regards the building of new schools and the indication of sites which have been already obtained and sites which will be secured, and we intend to add to these. We realise that, in order to solve this problem of clearing off accumulated arrears, it would be necessary to spend at least double the amount that was spent in the pre-war period. In regard to school buildings, my advice to those who wish to plan for the erection of school buildings after the emergency would be to get in now on the ground floor, so to speak, and to send along their proposals as soon as possible. We have received a large number of proposals already, and I am awaiting proposals from a large number of areas in the country. When I receive proposals from other areas in the country, I intend to send them along, like the others to which I have referred, to this branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce to secure priority for them. If managers of schools do not send proposals to me in time, there is a danger that whatever materials are being allocated to us for school buildings may not be available to them at the end of the emergency, and these schools, therefore, will have to be omitted. Even with the best will in the world, school buildings cannot hope to have absolute priority over other buildings. Hospitals and other similar institutions, for instance, will also have to be taken into consideration, but so far as it is possible to do so, we hope to get priority for schools, as being necessary, not alone for educational purposes, but also from the point of view of providing hygienic surroundings for the pupils of these schools.

With regard to this matter of the appointment of teachers, as there is a number of new Deputies in the House, I should like to make clear, with reference to a statement made by a Deputy here, that the Department of Education has nothing to do with the appointment of teachers, except to the extent of seeing that the teacher appointed by the manager has the necessary qualifications that are laid down under the rules. I have nothing to say as regards the appointment of a teacher, except to that extent. The matter of the appointment of a teacher is entirely one for the manager of the school concerned. There is also the question of the panel and seeing that the panel regulations are carried out. There is no use in Deputies asking me to alter that, because I have no discretion in that matter, and therefore I would ask Deputies not to press me upon it.

Deputy Mulcahy referred to the ideals which ought to actuate us in our educational policy, and he spoke of the foundations being available, so far as I understood him, and being satisfactory in other places. I think that we have the foundations here. We have the happy position that we have Church and State working hand in hand, as I have just mentioned, and in regard to any development which may be considered necessary in the way of re-construction in the post-emergency period we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we shall not have these very critical questions confronting us which divide nations so sharply, even in neighbouring countries. We shall not have these fundamental issues to face here. Thank God, we are all united on these fundamental matters in this country.

Deputy Mulcahy seemed to suggest that, perhaps, I was not fully aware of what is going on in the schools. Surely, I am more fully aware of what is going on in the schools than any other Deputy could be. Not only have I the advantage of personally seeing from time to time what is going on in the schools, but I also have the advantage of seeing the reports of a large staff of inspectors and officials. These are not merely persons who come in to me to give advice on rare occasions. They are people who have spent practically a whole life-time, since their official careers commenced, in dealing with these matters, and they are intimately concerned with education in all its aspects.

I am not one of those who lazily assumed that when we took upon our shoulders the task of reviving the Irish language and making it the spoken language in this country, it was something easy to do. I know that we have undertaken such a task as few other countries have ever taken in hand. I realise that it is a very serious and tremendous work, and I also realise that there is no easy way to achieve success. I know that, if we are to achieve the ideals to which Deputy Mulcahy referred as having guided us in the past, through such organisations as the Gaelic League and Sinn Féin, it will not be easy, and I know that the efforts of all such bodies have been and will be of the greatest possible assistance to us. But we must not assume that we can easily achieve the objective of having the language spoken again generally in this country. It was because the Irish Government, in its early years, realised that this question of the restoration of the language was a fundamental one that they set out to see that its foundation would be laid solidly by Gaelicising the work of the schools gradually and thoroughly. That work has been going on for 20 years, but if one were to pay attention to some of the criticisms that were made here, it would appear that the present critics are in the same position, with regard to lack of information as to the real position, as the critics of compulsory Irish were over 20 years ago. I shall not go into that matter, but I do say that we have precisely the same criticisms at the present time regarding methods of restoring the language, and so on, as we had at the time of the controversy on compulsory Irish over 20 years ago.

We have demands made for inquiries. I am not opposed to inquiries. As I said last year, if it is necessary in the interests of the language that an inquiry should be set up, the Department of Education has nothing to be afraid of. Our instructions are there in black and white, and it is admitted by those critics who, at least, have done us the courtesy of reading these instructions, that they have been carried out, and are being carried out. I have been in infants schools, where I can truthfully say that the knowledge of Irish possessed by these infants would compare favourably with the knowledge of a foreign language possessed by an adult and educated person after having spent a considerable time abroad in learning that language. I wish that Deputies would go into these schools and see for themselves what is happening. I am not saying that all the schools can perform the work that has been set out for them. As has been pointed out in the course of the debate, it requires the greatest skill and devotion to duty to attain the wonderful results that we see, but I know that these results can be got and have been got. I also know, however, that if we are going to relegate the language to the position in the schools where it is only going to be a school subject, we shall not be able to achieve our object. From the very fact that the child is living in an English-speaking atmosphere, that he hears nothing but English in the home, and perhaps receives very little encouragement to speak Irish in the home—and that is for nine or 10 hours out of the 14 or 15 waking hours—I cannot see how the language can be restored without very intensive effort on the part of the teachers in the schools. It would be quite impossible, if we are not going to concentrate on the language in the schools, to make up for the serious inroad that the English-speaking atmosphere all around them must have on the children, particularly at that impressionable age.

Deputy Fionán Lynch said, very truthfully, last year, that even if it were a comparatively easy task to teach children the language in the schools and to get the teachers to teach it efficiently and get good results, and even if the parents were anxious to co-operate with the teachers, nevertheless, granted all these things, there was no proof that the children would like Irish particularly. If the teachers, on the one hand, fail to give the children the necessary background in teaching them the history of their country, and pointing out the way in which it is bound up with our language, and if the parents, on the other, do not help the children along, then obviously it is a very difficult thing to expect the children to speak Irish of themselves.

I think it would be quite unfair and not related to the facts to blame the schools because the children receive no encouragement outside, that they give up speaking Irish after a while and probably lose a great deal of the Irish they have learned. The fact is that the Irish is there; the children know Irish. There is probably more Irish known in this country now than there has been for the last 100 or 150 years, but it is not being spoken. A language cannot live, cannot exist, unless it is spoken. Its continuous use means its existence. It is because the officers and the Minister for Education, from the first Minister down to myself, realised that continuity in the use of the language was essential so that the pupils would not only secure a firm grip of the language but that they would speak it quite naturally in their ordinary lives, that the policy of extending Irish gradually to all subjects and classes was embarked upon. It is not easy to get those impartial people who, on the one hand, have no commitments or no prejudices about the Irish language, or those, on the other hand, who, in Deputy Fionán Lynch's opinion, should be on the Irish-Ireland side and who would be absolutely safe, so to speak, from that point of view. It is very difficult to get persons who will satisfy those who are really anxious about the position and who want a strictly impartial and unprejudiced examination and to satisfy others who want to ensure that anything that has been gained during the last 20 years of hard work is not going to be thrown away now by trying to push the clock back. If it were easy to secure the personnel for such an inquiry, I think I may assure the Dáil that it would have been set up long ago, but it is not easy. Moreover, you would require to have persons who have some intimate knowledge of the work of the schools, who would preferably have spent a considerable portion of their lives themselves as teachers, and who would understand all the matters that are likely to arise.

Deputy Mulcahy seemed to suggest that, if there are criticisms and challenges to the present policy, the Department of Education ought to go out and answer them. It is extremely difficult for anybody in the Department, except the head of the Department who has enough work apart from that, to answer these criticisms. I do not know whether the Deputy means that I should take on the position of answering all these critics, very often nameless ones. If I do, I shall probably be charged, as An Taoiseach has been charged here in the course of the debate, with arrogating to myself the right of being the sole spokesman, the sole custodian and monopolist, as far as the Irish language is concerned. If we are going to make progress we shall require the assistance of all those who are interested in the language revival. We shall require their intense and earnest support in fact. The mere answering of criticisms will not be sufficient.

In my opinion, what is required is a nation-wide movement, to get the support, not alone of all those who had formerly been workers in the language movement and who understand the issues, but of the young people who have seen the Irish programme themselves and who have gone through the schools during these 20 years, to secure their interest and to awaken their enthusiasm. If we can get that, I have no doubt whatever that we can get results because I am quite certain that they have the knowledge of Irish. The fact that we have had this criticism of An Taoiseach to-day is proof that the speeches he made while campaigning in the country have at least had the very beneficial effect that the Irish people have come to see that this is a big national issue and that it can no longer be treated as a mere question of the schools. It must be brought out into the market-place.

General Mulcahy

Would the Minister not admit that an essential preliminary to mobilising support in the country would be a statement of the facts as regards the problems that would be included in the reply of the Ministry to these criticisms? A statement of the facts is essential to mobilising public support.

Mr. Derrig

One fact, in my opinion, whether the work of the school is faulty or not, is that the children have a knowledge of Irish and that the schools cannot be blamed because progress has not been made outside the schools. Other agencies must be blamed for that. I do not think that when your commission of inquiry come to examine individual schools they could ever come to conclusions other than those which other commissions have come to based on general observations. They could discern certain advances or certain retrogressions. They could give us certain general indications of progress or otherwise, but in the schools they will visit they will see results which may range from poor or unfavourable up to results which are very excellent. I have no doubt whatever that you will get schools and teachers of varied degrees of proficiency when your commission go out to examine the position.

With regard to the policy of the Department generally, as I explained to the House on former occasions, our ultimate policy aims at the extension of continuation education until provision is made for the attendance of all young persons between 14 and 16 years of age at suitable courses of instruction.

Under Part V of the Vocational Education Act, young persons between 14 and 16 years of age in any area who are not in attendance at school can be compelled to attend courses of not more than 180 hours per annum. That provision has been in operation in Cork for the past three years. We have brought it into operation in Limerick and we are considering bringing it into operation in Waterford. I said last year that we intended to bring it into operation in Dublin and would make the necessary arrangements but that it would be impossible to state at what date the scheme might be brought into operation. A great deal of preliminary work would be necessary in a large centre such as Dublin. In the meantime, the Commission on Juvenile Unemployment has been sitting under the chairmanship of His Grace, the Archbishop of Dublin, and I understand that that commission has been looking into the educational as well as the social aspect of the problem. We have not been pressing forward with our arrangements pending the report of that commission. I believe that we shall probably receive from the report valuable guidance as to the lines on which we should proceed and the best direction to go in extending our system of education and in providing better post-primary facilities.

When Deputies tell me that we ought to do more, I take it that what they have in mind is that attendance at centres of continuation education should be made compulsory. I should like to refer them to what I said in my opening statement in dealing with a number of counties in which there is a constant absence of from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the pupils even when those pupils should, according to law, be present at school. I am glad to hear from my friends, the farmer Deputies, that, if we extend compulsory continuation education in the rural areas, they feel it will be received with general acclamation. The figures regarding bad school attendance in so many counties which I have read out—this bad attendance has, unfortunately, persisted since the emergency—would seem to show that our people do not appreciate the education provided for them. If they did, we should, certainly, not have those serious absences in the areas which I mentioned. I hope the enforcing authorities will do more, if that be possible, to secure a better attendance. We have been surveying the position generally with a view to ascertaining the financial and other arrangements which would be necessary if a scheme of compulsory full-time education between the ages of 14 and 16 years was being introduced into the towns and cities. As regards the rural areas I do not wish to enter into all the points for and against or to debate at length the question of the school-leaving age. I merely want to say that, as most rural people will recognise, there is, obviously, a question as to whether extended education in rural areas will be compulsorily whole-time or merely part-time.

At any rate, we can congratulate ourselves in this country that, whatever plans are being made elsewhere for education in the near or distant future, we have taken a very practical step, which I always regarded as an essential preliminary to the adoption of compulsory continuation education, either part-time or whole-time—the introduction of a scheme of family allowances. I always believed that, preparatory to introducing any scheme to compel poor parents to keep their children at school over the age of 14 years, some allowance would have to be made to them. When the Family Allowances Bill was being considered, the Government decided that it would not be tied up with the question of school attendance. We were not going to make the payment of the allowances dependent on the attendance of the children at school. We definitely rejected that. The allowances are payable generally, and the school-leaving age has not, so far, been raised in a general way. In my opinion, the introduction of the scheme of family allowances was a necessary preliminary and enables the step for the raising of the school-leaving age to be taken more easily if it should be decided to take it.

Deputy Byrne referred to the provision of boots, fuel and books for the children at school, and he described the schools as "a disgrace to any Government". I do not know whether or not he was here when I was explaining, in my opening statement, that the management and control of the schools, including provision for their heating and cleaning, is a matter for the school managers. In so far as the Department of Supplies has been able to do so, it has, within its resources, provided the school managers in Dublin with the necessary fuel. I know that. Deputy Martin O'Sullivan referred to the size of classes in Dublin. In a number of schools we have those large classes. We have been looking into the question over a long period, and, if it were merely a question of providing additional teachers, the problem would be easily solved. That is not the position. In spite of the fact, to which Deputy Breathnach referred, that a very large number of children— probably several thousands—have been transferred under the housing schemes from the schools in the centre of the city to the outskirts, we still have a number of schools which have not accommodation for the children attending them. They have not sufficient rooms, and under no scheme of reorganisation of the teaching staff or for the provision of additional teachers, could we arrange that there would be sufficient accommodation for the classes. The accommodation is not there. The only alternative seems to be—and we are seriously considering it —restricting the enrolment in those schools, particularly in the junior classes.

Deputy Breathnach referred to the fact that young teachers were not very successful in passing the examination for the teastas dhá theangach. The examination for the teastas dhá theangach, which would enable the teacher to secure the qualification necessary to teach other subjects through Irish, was in the nature of a severe literary test so far as the training colleges were concerned. When a teacher had been trained and was engaged in teaching outside, the examination included a test in the practice of teaching. But, so far as students in the training colleges were concerned, it was really a test of a literary nature and did not give them, in my opinion, a fair opportunity. I do not say that it was not extremely disappointing we had not better results but, since last year, there has been a definite improvement in the numbers which have passed the examination. The standard is, naturally, a very high one. The inspectors do not wish, nor do I, any teacher to attempt to undertake teaching through Irish unless he is fully qualified. If the teastas dhá theangach is to be a criterion of his ability to teach through Irish, it must, obviously, be a qualification of high standard.

Deputy Norton stated that the teachers received a "stony rebuff" from me when they came to see me about the question of having their emoluments improved, in view of the increase in the cost of living. I do not think Deputy Norton's description, in his rhetorical manner, of my "stony rebuff" is an accurate description of what took place. I explained to the teachers, as I explained to the Dáil that since the emergency the Government has followed a certain policy with regard to increases in emoluments. If I asked the Government to depart from that policy in regard to teachers, then it must be departed from in the case of civil servants, guards, and other public servants. I hope that it may be possible to do more for the teachers, but I suggest that it is quite inaccurate to say that there was any lack of interest on my part. I explained the policy fully to the teachers, and told them that they were not likely to be successful when I made representations to the Government, in view of the feeling the Government had, to adhere to their declared policy. That is the position.

As regards teachers' pensions, I explained last year that the Government feel that if they can do more for those in their direct or indirect employment at the present time, who are in the category of public servants, they should have first claim upon them. It is not that the Government feels hard-hearted, or does not realise the position of teachers who are on very small pensions. It is not a situation that should not arouse their compassion. The fact is that these teachers are on pensions in the ordinary way, and we cannot deal with them, apart from the whole class of pensioned public servants generally. If I approach the Minister for Finance again on the matter I am sure I will be told that it would be quite impossible to deal with one particular class of pensions without raising the whole issue of whether pensioned officers are not to receive an emergency bonus, somewhat similar to that which those in employment had received. That is going to be a rather big financial item. A good many of the teachers on small pensions were junior assistant mistresses or lay assistants, and did not come into the pension scheme at all until 1934. A certain number of them I must say are, probably, teachers who had not very long service, but had retired for disablement or for other reasons. I do not contend for a moment that the pensions they are receiving in a great many cases are anything like what one would like to give them, if these matters could be ruled entirely by our natural feelings, or what we would like to do as distinct from what we can do, having regard to the other obligations on the National Exchequer.

On the question of the retirement of women teachers at 60, I hope that it may be possible, with the new measures we have had to take to restrict further recruitment of young teachers, perhaps in the not too distant future, to relax that rule. If it is at all possible I should like to do so. I could not at present, having regard to the state of unemployment amongst young teachers, relax the rule further than in the cases which Deputies know of, genuine cases of hardship, where there was no other income for the family except that of the woman teacher, and where there were children at school, severe sickness, or big debts to be liquidated.

I cannot hold out any hope to Deputy Lynch, in spite of the fact that I would be delighted to give him whatever he asked for in this House, he has such a persuasive and nice manner in making a case. I should like very much to meet him in regard to the question of allowing those girls who were in training or in preparatory colleges, when we made the announcement that women teachers would after a certain date have to retire on marriage. The Deputy has shown the danger of making any concession whatever. A small concession which was given to junior assistant mistresses in the same connection is now being used to try to lever a further concession. We must have finality somewhere. I regret to have to say to the Dáil quite definitely, and, I hope, finally that I do not intend to relax that rule any further. We will have to stand by that. It was not introduced for financial reasons but on general social grounds.

Deputy Hughes and other Deputies referred to the question of an agricultural bias in the schools. We had all that out last year and the position is as the Taoiseach and I explained to the Dáil more than once. If we expect our teachers to give our pupils in national schools the rudiments necessary in reading, writing and in the speaking of two languages, and to have a foundation in arithmetical knowledge, and in addition have some knowledge of elementary history and geography, particularly the history and geography of their own country, we are giving the teachers quite a large amount to do. I do not think it would be reasonable or fair to ask them to do more. Deputy Halliden knows from his experience in the agricultural, as well as in the educational sphere, that if teachers are countrymen and are interested in country things, they can use these as a background and as an illustration for a great deal of the work of the schools. When they are doing arithmetic, they can talk about the sugar content of beet or the results of cow-testing associations where they still exist. Teachers can get any number of practical illustrations which, if they are really interested, will be of far more moment, coming from personal interest than anything we might ask them to do through official instructions. The fundamentals in rural schools, and the basis of learning must be the same as in the city schools. It is all right to say that we should have different programmes, but after all fundamentals must be the same.

As Deputy Donnellan reminded us, people will try naturally to advance their children by giving them the best possible education, so that they may get a better position in the world, perhaps, than their parents had. We have no fault to find with that, but in my opinion it is the simple explanation of that situation. I do not think that Deputy M. O'Sullivan was right in alleging that students could become qualified as teachers without qualifying in English or in mathematics. It is quite true that in order to secure honours in the leaving certificate examination it is not necessary for a candidate to take English, but I think we may take it that, even those candidates who have gone through the preparatory colleges, have to pass in the leaving certificate in English and mathematics, as well as getting honours in the examination as a whole.

We are looking into the question of whether it may not be possible to pay salaries more promptly, or, at any rate, make more prompt payment of salaries to lower paid teachers. The question of closing the Dublin or other schools on the same days for holidays is really a matter for the managers. In that connection I may mention that we are interested in seeing, particularly as long as the present severe restrictions in electricity and fuel last in towns and cities—it may be more difficult in rural areas—that children will be allowed home at the same time for the mid-day interval, so that they may have lunch together at home.

The provision of boots and school meals are really questions for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I hope that he may be able to do more to help the poor children, particularly in the larger centres like Dublin. Deputy Dillon referred to the new place of detention, when referring to orphans, and the necessity for trying to have orphans boarded out with respectable families. The number of orphan children in industrial schools would only be about .2 per cent. The new place of detention at Glasnevin is the building which had been used as part of the preparatory college where the pupils and staff lived for some time. The entire house is not in use. It is roomy. The dormitory and dining room are spacious, and the accommodation generally is, in my opinion—I have been there—suitable. It would not be possible to have a clinic in connection with juvenile delinquency there, because these boys are only kept there on remand from one court to another. That a clinic should be maintained there, that would necessitate that these boys would be kept under supervision for a longer period of time. Normally the period of detention is a week or two. I think that the matter of clinics will be dealt with in another way. In any case, the question of having a clinical examination in these cases would really come more appropriately under the Department of Justice, because that is the Department that should make the necessary arrangements to facilitate the district justices.

Deputy Dillon raised the question of the Institute of Higher Studies and of certain restrictions that have been placed on the members of the staff in the publication of works. I do not intend to set another bad precedent today which, I think, I would be doing if I were to go into the work of the institute here. I think that we ought to leave these matters to the institute and its director, the council and governing boards and committees, to thresh them out. I do not think that the Dáil is a suitable place to do that. Neither do I think that it would be in the interests either of the institute or of the parties in whom Deputy Dillon may be interested, to thresh out these questions here. Deputies know very well that we cannot have the necessary knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, and that this is not the appropriate body to deal with such matters.

The question of the appointment of the chief inspector in the technical instruction branch of my Department was also raised. As the Ceann Comhairle pointed out, it was rather a precedent that the appointment or promotion of a civil servant should be raised in this way. I appointed the officer in question to the position that he now holds. It is my responsibility and that is all I have to say in regard to it. I regard him as the best and most suitable man for the position.

We have teachers, unfortunately, still in control of schools— and important schools—in this country who are not alone not able to teach Irish but scarcely have a word of Irish themselves. I cannot do anything to alter that situation, until those teachers retire and their places are taken by teachers who have the qualifications.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 13 Jun 1944