I was dealing with the question of corporal punishment in relation to primary schools. I am completely opposed to the idea of corporal punishment being administered to a child who fails to answer questions, either because he is unable to assimilate the necessary knowledge or because he fails to make the necessary preparation. I think that is largely a matter which must be dealt with by the necessary co-operation between the home and the school. The same applies to this matter of vandalism which was raised by several Deputies. I would go so far as to say that there is very little by way of vandalism obtaining among pupils of the primary schools. Deputy Corish must have been speaking with his tongue in his cheek when he says that the fellow with an air gun at Christmas who shoots at a bulb in a public lighting system does not know what he is doing by reason of the lack of the teaching of civics in the school. I cannot accept——
Committee on Finance. - Vóta 33—Oifig an Aire Oideachais (Atogáil).
I said that he did not know the effect of it on the town rates.
I think that even if he were told of the effect on the town rates, he would use an air gun in such circumstances. The effect on the town rates would not have any influence on him. The real test to be applied is whether that same child would use the air gun on an electric light bulb in his own house. The fact that he would not is proof that he knows exactly what he is doing and the effect of it when he does it outside. That does not mean that I am opposed to the teaching of civics generally in the school but I think that, by and large, the responsibility for good behaviour is a dual responsibility, that of the home and the school. The major portion of the responsibility lies upon the parents of the children.
With regard to the question of transport in outlying districts raised by Deputy O'Donnell, I think that the rules of the Department are too stringent and are directed more towards the saving of money, or towards the apportionment of the moneys allotted, to be absolutely correct, rather than to the convenience and the well-being of the children concerned. There would appear to me to be no good reason why, when the number of children falls below ten, transport should not continue for the weaker children in smaller groups in any village.
It is necessary from now on that, where two schools are being abandoned and one being built at a more suitable place in the view of the Department and in the generally accepted view, transport should be provided for the children who have to come longer distances than they had to travel to either of the old schools. I am referring particularly now to a new school which it is proposed to build at Aughaglasheen in the parish of Kilmore-Erris in substitution for Shanahy and Tipp schools. Having gone into the matter pretty carefully with the parents in Ballyglass area, I am satisfied that it is the duty of the Department to assist the manager in the provision of transport for the children of Ballyglass to the new school when it is completed.
I am pleased that there is an alteration in the system of recruitment for primary teachers now that the preparatory college system is being abandoned. It is true, as the Minister says, that, when it was instituted, it met the needs of the time, but as it went on, I think, that the system developed a narrowness or, should I say, a lack of opportunity for that maturity and knowledge of worldly intercourse, which is so necessary for a person entrusted with the instruction of the young. I hope that the new system will be a success, but I want to sound a note of warning to the Minister, particularly in relation to the preparations that have been made for the conversion of the preparatory colleges into class A secondary schools. There is a danger that all the people, or a great majority of them, electing to attend what was a preparatory college, will experience the same kind of herding in another place. That should be watched all the time.
The children should be allowed to take their scholarships at the nearest local school. In particular, their attention should be directed to the Diocesan colleges. Children, who might secure scholarships with a view to taking up teaching, will have the advantage, not alone, as the Minister holds out, of going towards further scholarships and entering the Civil Service, but they will also have the further advantage, which they would not have in the absence of these scholarships, of pursuing a vocation for the Church in some particular sphere, whether regular or secular. In that way, you might probably be able to do some recruitment for secondary teaching either in the Diocesan colleges or colleges run by the regular clergy. The competition will be broader. Greater opportunities will obtain.
While on the whole the preparatory college system is being abandoned for what I think is a broader and more erudite scheme, I am glad to see that the system in Coláiste Mhoibhi for Protestant children is not being disturbed. I should not like to think that the situation is being left as it is for the principal reason given by the Minister. Perhaps, he did not mean this but it is something upon which he should elaborate when he is replying. What I understand from him is that the existing Protestant secondary schools have not got sufficient children with sufficient education in the Irish language or sufficient enthusiasm for the Irish language at the present time to supply recruits for teaching direct from their own colleges.
I should not like to think that that is the real reason because I do not think it is a true reason. I can find two instances in my own experience, having been on the staff of two such secondary schools which could not by any stretch of the imagination be called class A schools. They did not have the enthusiasms with which we associate certain educational centres for the Irish language but then, in that regard, I am not at all at variance with James Joyce when he said that he distrusted enthusiasm. The Irish taught in those two schools as a subject was taught adequately—not by me, I hasten to add —but by competent graduates from Trinity College who taught their subjects well and who successfully steered their pupils through the Intermediate and Leaving Certificate courses and through entrance to Trinity College. I can recall that some of them were so well grounded in the Irish language that they were able to compete with the more advantageous schools for higher posts in the Civil Service. I should not like it to be thought that it would go out, from the Minister or anybody else, that the Protestant community in this country are failing to foster the language which is the first official language of the country.
With regard to industrial schools and reformatory schools, I appreciate the difficulty. There are difficulties with regard to buildings; there are difficulties with regard to environment; there are the difficulties that normally flow from moving a rural delinquent and putting him in with a body of city delinquents whose delinquency is, if I may so describe it, of a more advanced character. The rural delinquent is usally kept in detention for so long in the company of these rather citified delinquents that he goes back to his rural surroundings—if he does go back—more of a menace than when he left them. That is not to say that one will not find as between city and rural areas an equally vicious juvenile delinquent in rural Ireland, rural England, or rural America, but the case is often as I have put it.
The Minister's optimistic approach to the question of oral Irish in the Leaving Certificate and his statement that the experiment has proved completely successful is something to be received with great pleasure. We shall have to wait, however, a little longer before we can adequately judge the success or otherwise of this scheme. The stress must be laid on the spoken language if it is ever to become the spoken language of all our people in their ordinary daily avocations in every walk of life. That does not mean that I hold out this year, any more than I did last year, or any other year, that we shall become an exclusively Irish speaking country. I do not think we shall. I think time and circumstances are against it—our geographical position, our proximity to Great Britain, the extension of English even on the Continent of Europe and our daily closer and closer touch with the United States of America. That does not mean that the development of the Irish language as a spoken language should be discouraged. Far from it. It has a great deal to offer by way of culture, mental training and patriotism. But I think we are not moving with the times.
I am told that some years ago Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge embarked upon a scheme of translating modern hit tunes and hit songs in order to give a modern slant to Irish. I am also told that that scheme has been abandoned or put into abeyance. A young secondary school pupil said to me the other evening that unless there are things like these songs and tunes—"The Living Doll", "An Babóg Beó",—there was not a hope for Irish. Unless we get our Irish Tommy Steels and others, we shall not generate the necessary enthusiasm to get young people into the "swing" of it, as it were.
Everybody seems to welcome the advance of science. I am sure it is a good thing but I would not like to think that science and technology generally would progress at the expense of the Humanities. When you examine the world situation today, advantages and amenities apart, it is extremely doubtful if the peace of man's mind has been enhanced in any way and if the friendship between nations has been advanced in any way by this striking advance in technological pursuits and research. In the days when the Humanities flourished, war and the implementation of enmity, if I may describe declarations of war in that way, were all carried out on a gentlemanly scale. Armies went into the field and fought. The Athenians used to taunt their Spartan victors, from their chains, by asking them: "Were the dead on your side, gentlemen?" They were asking, in other words, had the Spartans a full-blown education in the Humanities and philosophies. Nowadays, with the advance of science and the uses to which those advances are put, nobody has any opportunity of asking: "Are the dead on your side, gentlemen?" and, if things progress along the way in which they seem to be progressing, there will be nothing but dead on both sides.
The Council of Education has yet to report on secondary education. When it does, we shall look forward to examining it. I am sure that worthwhile changes will be suggested. I do not know whether the University Commission has been constituted as yet. There is a Commission to study the revival of the Irish language; that has not reported yet. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.
The advance in technological education is striking. So is the desire of parents and pupils to avail of that education. I notice in advertisements by State, semi-State and private companies seeking employees that stress is laid on Leaving Certificate. That is noticeable in areas where there is an absence of secondary schools but where there are technical schools and where the vast number of young people, male and female, have got their final qualification certificates from these schools. The stress in these areas should not be laid upon the necessity for Leaving Certificate but rather upon the technical qualifications. They should at least be given equal status in the case of possible competitors for the vacancies advertised.
I should like to hear a little more from the Minister as to what goes on in such places as the Institute for Advanced Studies and the National Gallery. It is not enough—I think the Minister will agree—to tell the House that the increased Vote is merely to meet increased salaries. We should like to know what these people do, what their output is, what research they carry out, what translation or original composition is achieved and, generally speaking, what contribution they make to the educational life of the country, because, after all, we all like to see a return for our money.
Deputy Corish spoke of the niggardly manner in which public bodies make scholarships available. I do not agree with him in that. I think they do their best in every county, having regard to their resources. It is possible that in wealthier counties more scholarship can be given, but, by and large, county councils and corporations have gone a long way to meet the demand of those who are not fortunately placed financially in regard to education. I think, however—and I agree with Deputy Corish in this—that our factories could give scholarships according to their means. If their means were large, they could give University scholarships, but if their means were not so good, they could give scholarships to secondary and vocational schools, perhaps to families of their employees. The only people who have made any worthwhile contribution in that regard are the firm of Messrs. Arthur Guinness in Dublin and a firm named Hygeia in Galway, which have instituted a scholarship at U.C.G. It is a small advance, but, nevertheless, a welcome one and one that might well be followed.
Deputy O'Donnell said the Universities of this country were a curse. Since we all agree that education is not a controversial matter, I hasten to add that it does not mean there is any essential difference of policy within my Party if I disagree with him in that regard. He bases his argument that Universities are a curse on the fact that the vast majority of our graduates are potential emigrants to England, America, or any other country in which they can find suitable remuneration for the services they have to offer. If we are to have emigration—and goodness knows we have enough of it—is it not better that those who go out should have a University education, that they should go out as educated Irishmen ready to play their part in the country in which they choose to work and live, to play their part in building up a great fund of prestige and goodwill for their homeland and by the excellence of their work, exalt this country and its attainments in the eyes of the people of the countries to which they go?
Deputy O'Donnell talked, too, about the lack of instruction in the rules of the road in the schools. I can remember from my earliest days in school when I used a copy book on the back of which was printed the rules of the road. They were very simple, but reading those and taking into account one's natural instinct for safety, I think the matter of road traffic rules is well known to every child. There will be the moments of carelessness in which tragedy will result but they are not due to any default on the part of teachers or parents. There may be a certain amount of carelessness but I do not think it is so great as to demand a general outcry against or denunciation of it.
By and large, I must by conviction recommend the Minister's speech and pay tribute to him and to his staff, of whom I had some short experience. Perhaps they were pleased at the shortness of it. Nevertheless, they are hardworking people, people who give great consideration to the matters with which they are entrusted; and the education of our people at any level is a very serious matter indeed and one in which we should all take the keenest possible interest.
Great strides are being made and I do not think any particular Minister or Government can take credit for the whole of it. It has been a systematic movement. The only regret we can have is that when materials were cheaper and more readily obtainable, we did not build more, because the cost of school building at the moment, the cost of maintenance and indeed costs generally are almost prohibitive. Nevertheless, very good strides have been made.
Apart from the general necessity for the teaching of civics, any teaching on this subject should take the form of asking our people to cooperate with the State in keeping our schools in good condition, thereby showing appreciation of what has been done for these schools. The public should assist in maintaining them and making contributions when called upon. In my experience, the State is very generous in dealing with schools in the more outlying and less well-off areas. A certain minimum contribution is laid down for the parish in which the school is to be built. From experience, however, I know that on negotiation—and many such negotiations are going on—the manager usually succeeds in getting the whole of the grant in some cases and very nearly all of it in the majority of cases.
I hope that that system will continue—I am sure it will—and that the people in power, from whatever side of the House they come, will recognise the difficulties of the people in the poorer areas. That has always been the case and I hope it will continue to be the case. I wish all concerned in the promotion of our educational system at any level the very best of luck and I hope that their efforts will be rewarded and the results obtained fully recognised.
At the outset, I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of what, I think, is his first annual Estimate. I shall not wish him many happy returns but I would extend to him my good wishes for the effective discharge of his duties during his term of office.
I cannot congratulate the Minister on the much-vaunted excellence of our educational system. I see that only during last week-end the Minister was, so to speak, slapping himself on the back in regard to our system of secondary education. I think there is a basic structural defect in our educational system, on which Deputy Corish put his finger in his concluding remarks here this morning: the position whereby our educational system is riddled with class distinction. Only, I think, 25 per cent of those leaving our primary schools proceed to secondary education. We have, therefore, an elite not of ability or of brains but an élite of privilege and of wealth to whom we entrust whatever positions of power and responsibility are available in this country. We have the old system of two nations existing, of the privileged who have been educated and the underprivileged who have been denied what I think is every man's birthright: an education, so that he can bestow his talents to the best of his ability.
Surely every child who is mentally fit is entitled to secondary education but that is a state of affairs which does not prevail at the present time. Again, I feel that there is a deplorable system of distinction between national schools and other schools. I know that in rural areas every child attends a national school but that is not the case in Dublin. Happily, that state of affairs is changing slowly. It is now becoming more respectable than it used to be to send one's children to national schools and I should like to see that distinction in the field of primary education disappear altogether. I think every child under the age of 14 years should attend the same type of school, and those secondary schools at present giving primary education to children under 14 years should, so to speak, be incorporated into the over-all framework so that we would see the disappearance of this system of class distinction.
Much has been said here this morning about compulsory Irish and, at the outset, I want to make it quite clear that I am completely opposed to compulsory Irish. Indeed, I must say frankly that I have very little heart for the revival movement in any form because I have been so sickened by the humbug and hypocrisy which we have come to associate with the teaching of Irish in our schools. The revival of the language has not succeeded. It has been a chronic failure and a most costly failure. It was doomed to failure right from the start because it was based purely on an emotional appeal and I remember Edmund Burke's definition of emotion as the seducer of reason.
To attempt to revive a dead language is completely irrational. It cannot be defended on rational grounds, though, no doubt, 40 or 50 years ago, in the heyday of the Gaelic League, the language had a tremendous emotional significance. It was in fact a symbol of nationalism. However, it is not the only symbol of nationalism and I do not think it is an essential symbol of it. The concept of "Tir gan teanga, tir gan anam" is something I do not understand. I think it is a shibboleth. It is a falsehood belied by many nations in the modern world, the United States, Belgium, Switzerland and other countries, but primarily I think it has failed because it is irrational.
I think the language movement has developed into an instrument of terror, of coercion, and indeed of jobbery. Deputy Dillon mentioned cases which came to his notice when he was a Minister in the Government of people with inferior technical qualifications being appointed to official positions because of their knowledge of the Irish language. That is a shocking, deplorable state of affairs and I want to say that I believe the idealism of the founders of the Irish movement has been exploited for an evil purpose.
I want to quote here the writing of a very eminent authority, the Senior Professor of Celtic Studies in the Institute for Advanced Studies, Professor Myles Dillon, who, in the Irish Times of 7th December, 1958, had the following to say:
The language is only one of many symbols and is valid only for those who choose it. But unhappily it is rapidly ceasing to have any symbolic value at all, because it has been turned into an instrument of discipline. This wicked policy was launched in 1925, and it was inspired, I have long suspected, by a really evil purpose in the minds of a few people who pressed for it, namely, to use the language as a means of transferring power—or rather authority.
At that time, as many of you will remember, all the cultural institutions of the country, except the National University, were in the hands of Protestants: the Royal Irish Academy, the National Library, the National Gallery, the Royal Irish Academy of Music, the Royal Dublin Society, the Museum, the College of Science, even the Society of Antiquaries.
All of that must be changed, and the language was one of the means used. Lyster, John Eglinton, Praeger, Best, George Coffey, Armstrong, Westropp, none of these men could have passed the test. None of them would stand a chance of appointment now. I shall not dwell upon that painful subject; but I believe that, far from helping the language movement, this turning of the screw has destroyed its value as a focus of allegiance.
I believe that the pretence that Gaelic is the natural and native language of the majority of the people is an absolute fraud. Gaelic was never the natural and native language of this city of Dublin. Never did any of my forebears, all of whom were Dublin jackeens on both sides for many generations, speak Gaelic. The same, I think, is true of most of our cities, with the possible exception of Galway. It is many centuries since Gaelic was the vernacular of the people. The humbug and hypocrisy which my generation have come to associate with the Gaelic revival is the most sickening feature of it. How many members of this House know Irish? How many of the Minister's colleagues in the Government know Irish? Surely that is the acid test of their sincerity?
Gach aon duine acu. Tá Gaelic ag gach duine acu.
What about the Taoiseach?
Tá Gaelic aige fosta.
Mr. Ryan
Mise le meas.
There is no point in fooling ourselves about it. There is not ten per cent. of the members of this House who have a competent knowledge of Irish.
Ní fior é sin.
It grieves me to have to speak as I am speaking here today, particularly because I am conscious of the fact that very sincere idealists on all sides of the House and throughout the country, people like the President, Mr. de Valera, and like General Mulcahy and many others on this side, have their hearts set on the revival of Irish, and it saddens me that their hearts' desire has not been achieved. That is not to say that I would like to see it achieved. I do not think it is either necessary or desirable and, as I say, I do not like to have to speak in these terms which perhaps are offensive to some of my listeners, but one is goaded into making a stand on this issue.
We have the example of seeing the Minister for Defence going to Mallow and speaking of the Fifth Columnists, those who are always the enemies of nationalism, now coming out in force and strength. We have something similar in productions such as Rosc. Here is Connradh na Gaeilge which suggests in a recent issue that anyone who opposes compulsory Irish is guilty of treason. The bitterness and venom of these people frightens me.
The Minister, of course, is not responsible for what appeared in Rosc.
He is not. Sir, but I am referring to the spirit which has been engendered by our educational policy, and I take it that I am entitled to refer to the revival of Irish as being one of the main objectives of national policy, and to advance reasons why I think that is a bad policy and one which should be ended. That policy is being implemented by the Minister through the schools.
To give an example of that bitterness and venom which is so undesirable, one has only to read these productions I have quoted here. There is something akin to the concept of the herrenvolk in the approch to this matter. As I say, it frightens me very much.
It is worthy of note that the majority of our national leaders in the past 300 years had little or no interest in the Gaelic language, even as a symbol. O'Connell had no interest in it; Henry Grattan had no interest in it; Dean Swift had no interest in it; Wolfe Tone could not speak it, and the same could be said of Robert Emmet and even of Davitt, to whom our small farmers owe so much.
Again, the practice in our schools has been condemned by many eminent educationists. I have yet to hear official spokesmen address themselves to the criticisms of the educational system led by such people as the Reverend Professor O'Doherty. Again, of course, he is one of those who, because of their criticisms, are damned as West Britons, as being guilty of treason. It is time we grew up.
The language revival has been a failure and a very costly failure, costly in terms of £ s.d.—I suppose it would be impossible to say what it has cost in financial terms-many, many millions; costly in terms of frustration and disillusionment, disillusionment which, I am confident, is driving many of our ablest people to leave this country in despair because they have had enough of the humbug and hypocrisy. I believe that the real price of this failure can be measured primarily in terms of the lack of progress which we have made in real education in the best sense of the term, advancement in the social virtues, the turning out of mature people from the schools.
Many Deputies have asked whether or not we are turning out people with a mature outlook on life. We have heard something about the teaching of civics. There should be no need to teach civics as such in our schools if we were inculcating in our young people a proper sense of values, some respect for the social virtues and for the rule of law. Take, for example, the shocking, scandalous outbreak of lawlessness in county Kerry recently. Those unfortunates who are throwing dynamite around the place had their bellyful of compulsory Irish and small good it has done them.
The tragedy of it is that our people are capable of such great things. We possess real talent and imagination which is not surpassed in any European country or indeed anywhere. We have an undoubted flair for leadership. Our people are capable of great things but are not being given a chance to develop their qualities or innate gifts. Instead, we have been concentrating in the schools on this folly. The Department's folly has had the effect principally of turning out, not leaders of society, but first-class domestic servants and navvies for Britain.
I have mentioned some Irish national leaders and their approach to this question. I know it is fashionable nowadays to denigrate O'Connell, probably because of his approach to the language. I should like to quote from something I was reading recently, where O'Connell addressed himself to this problem. His remarks are as true today as they were in 1835, when he delivered them. He was asked whether the use of Irish was diminishing amongst the country people in Kerry. He said:
Yes, and I am sufficiently utilitarian not to regret its gradual abandonment. A diversity of tongues is no benefit; it was first imposed on mankind as a curse at the building of Babel. It would be of vast advantage to mankind if all the inhabitants of the earth spoke the same language. Therefore, although the Irish language is connected with many recollections that twine around the hearts of Irishmen, yet the superior utility of the English tongue as the medium of all modern communications is so great that I can witness without a sigh the gradual disuse of the Irish.
I have said all I wish to say about the Irish revival. There are a few other points in the Minister's opening statement about which I should like to hear more.
I am wondering why the grants under the Primary Schools Vote for the heating and cleaning of schools has been reduced by £5,000. I have always understood that the grant was not nearly enough and that many school managers were dissatisfied with the amounts they were receiving from the Department. The Minister is now decreasing the grants. I do not think that can be desirable.
I have a particular interest in the subhead for free school books for necessitous children. The sum of £5,000 is being provided this year, as last year. I know of at least one large national school in my constituency of North-East Dublin which received £6 to be distributed amongst many hundreds of children for school books. Of course, it is farcsically inadequate. The price of school books is daily increasing. There are many children of poverty-stricken families in the school I am speaking of and I know for a fact that the grant is not enough and that in some cases the teachers have to put their hands into their own pockets to provide school books for necessitous children.
The Minister has reported on the extension of science teaching in the schools, which, of course, is a very good thing. The extension is not sufficient. I would hope to see science taught on a far wider scale because there is no doubt that this is a technological age and whilst those with the old approach to education might like to see a more liberal education in the Humanities being imparted in the schools, I am convinced that the future of this country is bound up with the extension of technological education.
I wonder is there any chance of expanding the teaching of living foreign languages in the schools. It is a shocking thing that only about 10 per cent of those leaving secondary schools are capable of understanding a foreign language.
Irish is foreign in the city of Dublin, according to the Deputy.
It is indeed. The whole trend of our policy is to withdraw in on ourselves, to develop this terribly narrow outlook. Deputy Dillon referred to the teaching of history in the schools. I am convinced that the fomenting of hatred in our schools or in the educational system generally is a very considerable contributory factor in the present trouble which has developed on the Border.
I hesitate to touch on the University Vote. At this stage all I want to do is to ask the Minister to tell us something more about a matter he mentioned when introducing the Vote for the Belfield project some weeks ago. I think he said that the question of the architectural competition for that project was a matter on which he had not yet made up his mind and which he was considering further. I should like to know if he has reached a decision and if he can now tell us whether or not there will be an open architectural competition for that building.
All is not well in U.C.D. The Minister knows that only too well. It is reported in this morning's papers that the Convocation of N.U.I. has passed a vote of censure on the administration on the College, and I trust that the Minister will take note of that.
To revert very briefly to a matter about which I spoke a few moments ago, I want to repeat that it saddens me that what I have to say about the Irish revival is offensive to some, but it would be futile to ignore the fact that the idealism of the founders of the Gaelic League has been exploited for an evil end.
Mr. Ryan
On a point of order, I seek leave to raise on the Adjournment a matter that has just come to notice. I wish to raise on the Adjournment the failure of the Attorney General to take all proper steps to return for trial to the appropriate court Dr. Paul Singer, who was before the court——
The Deputy may not raise the matter at this stage. The Chair should have received notice of the Deputy's intention, and I understand there is already a Question on the Adjournment.
Mr. Ryan
I gave notice of the matter as soon as it came to my knowledge. I have been in the House all day and as soon as it came to my knowledge, I sought leave to raise it.
On a matter of urgency and expediency such as this, a matter of satisfying the public that all necessary steps are taken to bring people to trial—I do not wish to use a stronger expression—would it not be in order for the Deputy to raise it on the Adjournment?
The position of the Chair is that two Deputies have given notice that they intend to raise Questions on the Adjournment. The Deputy should have given notice at that time.
Mr. Ryan
With respect, I have already explained that I gave notice as soon as the matter came to my attention. I could have done it only during Deputy Byrne's speech and I should have had to interrupt him. I think the Chair has discretion to put in the balance the public importance of all matters to be raised and, where a matter is particularly urgent, I respectfully submit it should take precedence of less urgent matters.
The matter will, I presume, be considered by the Chair.
If, in the ordinary way, the Dáil were meeting at 3 o'clock today—as would be the case but for the change of business—this matter having come to notice about 1 o'clock, it would have been in order to move a motion at Question Time that a matter of urgent public importance should be allowed to be discussed. Now, because of the fact that the Dáil is not meeting on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday until Tuesday, the House is put in an impossible position with regard to a matter that would perhaps require urgent discussion today—and, perhaps, urgent action today. Would it be possible to have a statement from the Minister for Justice or from the Taoiseach on the matter before the House rises at 5 p.m.?
The representations made will be considered and Deputy Ryan will be informed as soon as possible.
Mr. Ryan
Thank you.
Cuireann sé náire agus déistin ar dhuine an saghas cainte a thug an Teachta Ó Broinn uaidh a chloisint. Is dóigh liom nach bhfuil na barúla a thug sé ag aon Teachta eile sa Tig agus, dá bhrí sin, fágfaídh mé iad mar atá siad.
Ba mhaith liom a rá leis an Aire go bhfuil áthas ar gach éinne mar gheall ar an méid oibre atá déanta aige ó thóg sé cúram na Roinne air féin. Tá sé chomh ceanúil agus chomh imníoch san go gcuireann sé áthas orainn go bhfuil a chroí ins an obair atá idir lámha aige. Fé mar adubhairt sé, is áil leis lámh chúnta a thabhairt i ngach slí is féidir leis ar mhaithe le hoideachas agus, dá bhrí sin, guím rath Dé ar a gníomhatha, ar a chomhairle agus ar a aidhmeanna. Go dtergaidh Dia cabhair dó ins an obair sin.
I feel that not only the Dáil but the country in general appreciates very highly the amount of work that the Minister has done during his short term as Minister for Education. He is kind to everyone and appreciative of their views and opinions and he has made or proposed such changes as he thinks will be to the advantage of education. I regret very much and consider with shame the views expressed by Deputy Byrne, but I feel they are quite individual opinions that do not apply to anybody else on either side of the House and so I shall leave them.
I think we may all feel confident that the Irish language is making progress. Wherever we travel, whether to the Gaeltacht or the Breac-Ghaeltacht or into those parts of the country where Irish had ceased to be the spoken language, the rising generation are able to read, understand and converse in their native tongue. Last summer, it was my fortune to travel to the west of Ireland. People were home on holidays there not only from this country but from many other lands— adults, people in business in various walks of life and it was certainly cheering to note that, in their entertainments and their conversation, they were able readily to turn from English to Irish and speak either language with the same facility
In the various festivals where the youth of the country assemble, let it be in Dublin of the Pale or in the remote parts of our country, the children there assembled all converse freely in their own language. That was not possible 30 or 40 years ago. We all regret the depopulation which is taking place in some of the Gaeltacht areas but in many cases those people are coming into our cities and bringing with them the language of their forebears, the language of our country, one of the principal symbols of our national heritage and for the restoration of which the men of 1916 gave their time, their treasure and their lives.
Some people are inclined to think that the teaching of the language is a drawback for some of the students in the schools. If we go to An Mainistir Thuaidh in Cork or to any of the other schools throughout the country where the education is given through the medium of our language, we shall see that in examinations or in any walk of life the pupils there are more than able to hold their own against any competition. Those who take a different view are entitled to their opinion but, to my mind, they fail to see the facts or to understand the basic sympathies of our people or the traditions they have inherited.
We should turn away from all the hopes of the past were we now, at this stage, not to put Irish in the forefront of our national education. Is there any country in the world with a language of its own that does not cherish it, teach it in its schools and whose people do not speak it among themselves at home and abroad? It is a distinctive symbol of their nationality. As Pádraig Pearse said, nationality is an ancient spiritual tradition. That tradition permeates our race so long as we keep to those traditions which make us a distinctive nation.
If we cast aside those distinctive symbols of our nationality, as Archbishop Croke said, we would abjure our nationality and become absorbed in a civilisation that is not ours. It has been noted down through the years that the Irish people attracted those who came amongst them. Some of them in the past became more Irish than the Irish themselves. I hope that the spirit that animated those on all sides of the House who participated in the national struggle, and who had at that time the ideal of the restoration of our language and our other cultural attributes, will continue. I trust they will preserve these ideals, embody them in our schemes of education and promote them in every possible way.
We should not have to speak on these lines. Irish nationality should be accepted as a fact. Our cultural heritage should be embodied not only in our educational programmes but in our way of life. It is regrettable when sometimes we hear these aims disparaged and put aside as if they were of no value. Such is not and has not been the idea of any Minister for Education since we attained freedom for 26 of our counties. It is the aim and ideal of the Irish people through the whole 32 counties to preserve their national traditions. The place where that ideal is first inculcated is in the home and, after that, in the school. By teaching the Irish language in the school, the rising generation have a chance which those of earlier generations, to whom Deputy P. Byrne referred could not attain.
Deputy P. Byrne said there is a basic structural defect in our education whereby the privileged and élite can go on to secondary and higher education and what he called the “underprivileged” cannot. Our primary education is based on democratic lines. It is free. Everybody has the same opportunity. When it comes to higher education, when it comes to people getting some idea of the part they are to play in life, the time for selection comes. Some may go into the business of their fathers. Others may choose a different course. Different schemes of education are open to them. There are different fields of education at that stage. Not everybody can enter the secondary education scheme because people will go into different walks of life. It may not suit them to take that course. Others will go into the vocational field and continue their education there. Some must be content with the experience of life which comes their way and read and learn as best they can and fit themselves for their future.
The scheme with regard to the selection of teachers which the Minister has changed about is very important indeed. I think the change is a welcome one. Some people would be anxious to go back to the old monitor system, in which monitors were selected and had a chance to do some teaching at certain hours of the day when they were not studying. When the time came, it could be seen whether or not they were fitted for the teaching profession. What the Minister has done is a step in the right direction, and will be welcomed generally.
The giving of extra scholarships is, of course, a step in the right direction also. It is difficult at times, particularly for people in the remote areas, to pursue the course of education they have in mind, and these scholarships, together with those given by the local authorities, will be a great help. We have not half enough scholarships in this country, unfortunately, but as time goes on, there will possibly be an improvement.
The vocational scheme has made great advances in recent years and the winter farm schools, which are an extension of the vocational scheme, will be very advantageous. They will help the rising generation of farmers to apply themselves more scientifically to their work and they will help the productivity of our soil in consequence of the better knowledge of those who work it. I would ask the Minister, when these schemes from the various vocational and technical committees are before his Department, to study them in all their aspects and to study the conditions governing the admission of students to these schools. Difficulties may arise perhaps during the terms, or during the year, in the application or interpretation of some of those conditions, and it would be useful and advantageous if, at the start of the year, the programmes were studied carefully in the Department.
When we talk about our Irish language and our Irish culture, we must also consider our music and our songs. They do not get a sufficiently high place in the curricula, and there is a tendency to neglect them. The Department should bear that in mind when considering the programmes for the coming year. I do not wish to particularise or mention any school but from my experience I have no hesitation in making that suggestion to the Minister and the Department.
One member of the House said—I think it was Deputy Dillon—that in his young days the people in the Universities were so interested in the national language that they gathered around the bandstand in St. Stephen's Green for the purpose of speaking the language. That is not happening now. We are all aware that there are various Irish debating societies attached to the Universities which are doing wonderful work for the language, in keeping together those who are interested in its welfare. They try to keep a bias, at any rate, in favour of our native tongue. Gaeltacht scholarships are now given in great numbers by various societies and by the trade unions, the Gaelic Athletic Association and other national organisations, and they send hundreds of young students to the Gaeltacht, during the summer.
That is a feature of recent years which is bound to have very satisfactory results. Unfortunately, when they come back, they go to rather scattered localities and have no opportunity of keeping together and using the knowledge they have gained. At the same time, many of them become secretaries of Gaelic societies of various kinds, Feis committees and Gaeltacht clubs, and they are able to apply their knowledge in that way and communicate in their own tongue with the members of their organisations.
The spirit of this debate from all sides of the House, with very few exceptions, indicated a recognition, at any rate, of the facts of our situation. Year after year, of course, there is a recurrence of condemnation of what is called "compulsory Irish". There is no condemnation of compulsory English, arithmetic, writing, reading or the various other subjects. Irish is on the school programmes and is there to be promoted according to the knowledge of the teacher and the capacity of the pupils. That is, and has been, the policy of the Department of Education. The idea that there is any special driving or anything of that kind is not in accordance with the everyday scheme of our schools.
The standard of our education is at a good level. Christian Brothers and various other teachers who have taught in various countries in the world are quite satisfied that Irish boys and girls, educated in our schools, can hold their own with the children of any land. As well as that, they get a basic Irish training, a training in keeping with our ideals of Faith and Fatherland, which will stand them well in the years to come.
Before I pay any tribute to the Minister or the Department, I want to pay tribute to the Minister's two predecessors, Deputy Mulcahy and the late Deputy Moylan, for the manner in which they smoothed out the many difficult problems which confronted education in this country for a long number of years. I am satisfied the Minister will follow in their footsteps and do a good job of work.
This is a Vote which needs a very lengthy debate because it touches the homes and the lives of the people. The Minister is anxious to finish this Vote tonight, if at all possible, but if he has patience, the more he hears, and the different slants he gets, perhaps the better for him and the Department. I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of so far as our system of education is concerned. We are making reasonably good progress with the resources at the disposal of the State. There is very little illiteracy. Those who can remember 40 or 50 years ago will remember the vast numbers of people who could not read or write and who were steeped in ignorance. There is very little of that today, due to the work and the programme of education over the years.
Before I go any further, I want to dissociate myself from what my colleague, Deputy Byrne, said on the question of the revival of the Irish language. I am one of those people who comes from the land of the Pale and from the holding on which I live, I can see the ruins of perhaps 10 or 12 houses and churches levelled by the Saxon, and I think that the revival of our Gaelic culture and language is essential. There was no need for the fight for freedom if we are to accept the Saxon yoke. But the Irish people are a people distinct within themselves and they believe in their own culture and in having their own outlook. They are entitled to that; our forbears fought and died for it and we, their successors, are proud to carry on the good work until it is completed. Deputy P. Byrne is entitled to say what he did say. This is a democratic State and it is grand to be able to say that we can sit and listen to other speakers and get up and repudiate them if we want to.
Primary education lays the foundation for the majority of the people in this country, that is, the three R's— reading, writing and arithmetic. The vast majority have to be content with that and that is their lot. We are sorry of course that we are in the position in which we are, that we are not a rich nation. We are young in our freedom and we have not got the money. However, if we are spending up to £17 million on education, we are doing fairly well.
I agree that the teachers of the present day have a pretty difficult task. In the past, before children came to school, they were properly educated in regard to conduct and how to carry on and were under proper control. Today the vast majority of them come to school almost out of control. They are almost like Red Indians and the teachers have the task of controlling those children. The primary duty of parents is to control their children before sending them to school. The lack of parental control is a problem but the teachers are making every effort to turn out the children in a satisfactory manner.
Another thing I should like to see is physical training being introduced in the schools where at all possible. There is nothing so ridiculous as the slouch which many boys and girls throughout the country areas have. If you stand in the city of Dublin you will recognise the country girl or boy by the hump on their backs.
That was caused by the plough.
I should like to see physical culture being introduced so that everyone would have a more manly stand and we would not be able to say: "That is a country gombeen." It should be part of the curriculum. With the trend of things today, I believe there should be more groundwork in Christian Doctrine. Vast numbers of our young people have to emigrate at the age of 14 or 15 and they are not fully equipped either in religious doctrine or education to cope with the difficulties they will encounter across the water. I believe the raising of the school age from 14 to 15 is essential. These are the formative years for the minds of young people, a time when they are able to receive instruction in a proper manner. If we could give them physical training and Christian Doctrine, both of which are necessary for the making of proper citizens, we would be doing good work.
I would ask the Minister to try to have the school-leaving age raised to 15. It is a sad state of affairs to see a boy the moment he reaches the age of 14 stepping out of school with nowhere to go and no work for him at home. He gets in touch with somebody across the water and then goes there. One can imagine a boy of 14 in a city like Birmingham or London, cities which are almost pagan in their outlook. We know we must have emigration when we are not able to absorb our people. at home, but at the same time, we should fit them for emigration. As I said, from the age of 14 to 16 is the most formative time in the life of a child. You can either make or break a child in that period. Another point is that they should be put into the F.C.A. or some such organisation where they can be given proper groundwork and at the same time their schooling can be carried on for a year or two. These are essential things.
In connection with secondary and vocational education, I am glad to say that they are going ahead by leaps and bounds and the people are beginning to realise how essential such education is in, the lives of the young. I should like to see more co-ordination between the different educational departments. You might describe them as being poles apart and I believe there should be one centre of education, with all of them dovetailed into one another. I should like the Minister and the Department to consider that. As far as I can see, vocational education is one thing that has come on rapidly in the past few years. I remember 10 or 15 years ago raising that matter in this House and at county council meetings. At that time, the vocational schools had only very few pupils. Where you had only six or eight pupils 20 years ago, now you have almost 60 or 100, and perhaps you would have 200 if there were room enough.
Certainly it is something to be proud of. It shows that people are reaching for better education and fitting themselves out for the battle of life. Today the battle of life is not like what it was 50 years ago. Fifty years ago, you could get through life without writing your name, but this is an age of technical knowledge and technical education. We have a big task in front of us and the more co-operation there is between the Department and the different branches of education, the teaching profession, and the managers, the better it will be. We need co-operation and co-ordination.
The winter farm schools are an innovation and a very good one and they are bringing young farmers and workers together. We are living in a mechanised age and it is only right that our people should get mechanised training. It is something new which is catching on. We are in the position that we can hardly find sufficient proper places to give this instruction. When we are building national schools, we should build them with an extra room. In my county, we have migrants coming in from other counties with fairly big families and some of the schools which were built five or six years ago are not big enough now.
To ease that position, we should build at least one decent-sized extra room when we are building new schools. In the country areas, we have few halls and little hope of building halls. While we might get a loan of some of the halls, we cannot get them frequently. Therefore, our only hope is to have a class room to facilitate our people, farmers and workers and so on. I would ask the Department to give that matter every encouragement to see what can be done about it. We could expand the winter farm schools rapidly throughout my county if we had places in which to hold them. Vocational education is going very well in my county and we are in the happy position that we have the parish priest as chairman of the committee and the Protestant minister as vice-chairman. Politics are kept out and we are doing our best to spend the money at our disposal in the best interests of the people The provision of itinerant manual instructors is an innovation and an essential one. We have two in county Meath set up at different centres but unfortunately they are unable to cover the whole county. They are doing an immense amount of work helping farmers, young and old, to build houses and cow byres and to provide other essential buildings such as sanitary accommodation. They also help them to fill up forms about which many people in the country know very little. If we had more of these instructors, people would be very much enlightened in a short time.
It is my belief that education in Ireland is progressing reasonably well and that anybody who makes little of it is only a shoneen. Any of us who are old enough can see the improvement which has taken place in the past 30 or 40 years. Almost everybody can read, write and spell correctly and if he cannot, it is his own fault. Any child who goes to school can acquire a reasonably good education but let us not think this country is full of brains. There are as many duds as brainy people and you cannot put brains where there are none. You will always find people who are backward through no fault of their own; they were not given the brains other people got. However, as a nation we can hold our heads high. Many of our people who left this country with only a primary education reached the top in other lands. Irish doctors, dentists and nurses are all over the world and we are proud of them. There is a great demand for Irish nurses, especially in England, Canada and Australia, because they are people with character, perseverance and tenacity who are prepared to work hard to reach the top.
We are also proud of our professional people at home, our teachers, doctors, dentists and nurses and other people who have availed of higher educational facilities. It is the very same as regards this House. A Deputy is appointed as Minister for Education; we do not know whether he will be good or bad, but for the past ten or 15 years every one of them has been a splendid man who has carried out his duties in an excellent manner.
There is no need for shoneenism or for despondency. People are marking time and are ready to advance again. A nation will always have a period of laxity and indifference after a difficult period such as the civil war period in Ireland. The memory of that period and the bitterness associated with it are dying away. I see new hope and new light and in the course of the next four or five years, this country will make a big advance. If there is co-operation among the people, we shall be able to stem the tide of emigration. If we are able to give our people a reasonably good education, they will be well equipped for the world. Therefore, vocational and secondary education is essential.
There is no use in saying there is class distinction in this country. I see many boys and girls, some of them with mothers or fathers on the dole, trekking into the vocational and secondary schools every day and there are as many labourers' sons and daughters receiving higher education as there are other classes. I would like if we had £17,000,000 more to allocate so that free education could be given to all but we must creep before we walk.
However, in the past 20 or 30 years, a good foundation has been laid by all Parties in this House. Each Party has contributed in its own way and eventually we can call on young Ireland rightfully to take over where we leave off. We are overcoming difficult periods which our people have had to go through not only during the two World Wars, but over a period of 700 years. We shall overcome all these things and the Irish language will be restored as the language of the people. Before many more years, it is not this House, the Minister or the Department who will be trying to revive the language: it is the people outside, organisations like Gael Linn, who have the spirit to revive the language. Do not let us be cowards or whiners. Ireland is ours for the making; let us make it.
There are only a few points I wish to raise on this Estimate because other Deputies have covered the field of education adequately. National teachers are paid twice monthly, on the 10th and on the 24th of the month. Income tax is deducted from their salaries quarterly, at the end of March, the end of June, the end of September and in December. The December deduction comes at the Christmas holiday period and payment is made to the teachers prior to the Christmas holidays. In practice, there are deductions by eight instalments from teachers' salaries. These instalments are deducted on 24th March, 10th April, 24th June, 10th July, 24th September, 10th October, 24th December and 10th January. Several teachers have a mere pittance to get prior to the Christmas holidays and I suggest to the Minister that he consult with the Minister for Finance with a view to having these deductions postponed to a more appropriate period than a festival time like Christmas.
I am in favour of Deputy Manley's suggestion that the school-leaving age should be raised to 16 years. In urban areas, particularly, young boys are not accepted to serve apprenticeship until they are approximately 16 years of age. Therefore, from 14 to 16 years, they are in the best position to serve apprenticeship to juvenile delinquency and it is in that age group that juvenile delinquents are most numerous.
The child coming home from a secondary school has sometimes to do four to six exercises and has a good deal of other mental work to do as well. I believe the young boy or girl attending a secondary school has too much homework and I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Corish on this matter.
I urge the Minister to look into the question of the deduction of income tax from the salaries of national school teachers.
Mr. Ryan
On a point of order, it has been communicated to me that the Government are not prepared to make a statement at this stage regarding the ruling of the Supreme Court today. Deputy Barry informed me that he was raising a matter on the adjournment but that the matter which he proposed to raise would not take longer than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour.
This is not a point of order.
Mr. Ryan
The matter which I raise is of such considerable public importance——
The Chairman has no knowledge of the position in respect of any decision of the Supreme Court. A purely ex parte statement of that kind cannot be accepted by the Chair.
It is public knowledge since half-past twelve—it appeared in the afternoon papers—that the Supreme Court has directed the release of a prisoner detained in their view not in accordance with law. I think the Taoiseach or some member of the Government has a very heavy immediate responsibility——
I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed on that line.
——to explain why this was allowed to happen through the negligence of their law officers.
Chair!
This is the kind of investigation——
Chair!