Who reported progress?
Committee On Finance. - Vota 30—Oifig an Aire Oideachais (Atógáil).
Debate resumed on the motion: "Go gcuirfí an Meastachán siar chun a athbhreithnithe"— (Risteárd Ua Maolchatha).
Deputy Palmer. Is Deputy Lindsay offering?
Yes. On this Vote for Education, embracing as it does all aspects of our educational life and system, it is necessary that a reasonable amount of time, thought and consideration be given to the various headings by the different members of the House who have contributions to make relating to their particular interests.
In this modern world with conditions unsettled and in some parts almost chaotic, to make plans, particularly educational plans, is not an easy task. In view of the great number of new States that have come into being, in view of the increased opportunities on an international basis and in view of the likelihood of very free and full movement of people throughout the world in a very short time, the whole question of education is far more important than it was when it had to be considered within the narrow confines of nationalism, nationalism based on a particular conflict from without.
We have had a rather extraordinary, a chequered but still a brilliant, experience in education and in contributions towards educational systems made by our people not alone at home but abroad down the years. It is in the light of that historical background that we must consider the future plans for education and future system, that may be adopted, having due regard to whether these plans or systems can be fitted in as an integral part in a permanent way or whether there should be transitory plans, so to speak, in regard to education.
As the Estimate shows in its various sub-divisions, education here is divided into various sections of the Department itself under the headings of primary, secondary, technical and university education. The other branches under the headings of Science and Art, Reformatory and Industrial Schools and the Institute for Advanced Studies, while very necessary in themselves, cannot be regarded as anything more than subsections of the relevant section of the Department.
Some people would argue that our educational system is static and that our educational system is wrong but it is my opinion that we have not really got anything like the static framework of a system at all. There is a great deal of well-intentioned and well-meaning groping and probing into the possibilities of achieving something in the various fields of education. The people responsible for the planning and development of the particular system or systems which we might have in the various fields are operating in an ever-changing world. I do not for one moment, speaking generally on this matter, subscribe to the view that other aspects of education, the linguistic and philosophic, the classical side of education generally, should be thrown to the winds in the interests of science and that every boy and, possibly, girl in every school should have his or her mind directed towards becoming an astronaut. There is still great value to be had from the liberal education which is associated with the humanities. While science in the world as we see it today must be given its proper place, it must not be given that place to the exclusion of something that makes the mind liberal and susceptible to the various humane activities in a civilised world. A mind can become too scientific and ruthless and forget entirely the proper relationships that should exist between man and man and between nation and nation.
In the field of primary education there is very much that could be said and perhaps an equal amount that could, with advantage, be left unsaid. Recently the primary teachers failed to achieve a right which they claimed to be theirs and, in my view, justly claimed, namely, the right of parity with other branches of the teaching profession, that is, those engaged in vocational or technical education and in secondary education. Speaking as one who has had some experience of the various activities associated with the different grades of teacher, the different kinds of training necessary for those grades and the demands made upon the very nature of the person so engaged, I think it is coercive upon anybody who examines the whole question to come to the conclusion that the primary teacher is and must be regarded as a person in the very first ranks of the educational fight, so to speak.
There are primary teachers on both sides of this House and they know, as everybody else in the House knows, the difficulties that confront the primary teacher of this or any other country when the young mind is first entrusted to him. I do not mean any disrespect when I compare the duties of primary teachers with those of persons who become capable of lecturing in the secondary teaching world—because it is a sort of quasi-lecturing; they are delivering a series of lectures and engaging in discussions on text books— to a mind already trained or that should be trained; nor do I mean any disrespect when I compare the duties of primary teachers with those of people in vocational schools who have developed, through training, a very high degree of proficiency in their arts and crafts and can mould various kinds of articles and finish them from wood, iron or from any other metals at their disposal. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the men and women in the primary teaching world who have to mould the young mind of the child from the age of six onwards must be regarded as pioneers and must be accepted as, at the very least, worth parity with people whose positions have been considerably eased for them by virtue of the excellent work that has been done in the primary school before children reach the vocational or secondary school.
This whole question of parity should not be abandoned at this stage. The question of parity involves a great deal more than a mere question of status, salary or allowances of any kind. It involves not only status but morale and the whole question of the type of people who are going to be drawn into the teaching profession. I have made this point in this House and outside it certainly on more than one occasion and I have never yet heard anybody challenge its validity. The point is that teaching—and this is particularly true of primary teaching—must be based more than anything else on the vocation for teaching rather than on the attainment of a profession which carries with it a salary and security. Admittedly a salary and the security that follows from it are very desirable things in the establishment and maintenance of the family unit but the best results, particularly in the field of primary teaching, are to be gained from the true exercise of a vocation in that field.
Many people enter teaching and many leave it when they find it does not suit them or for some other reason. The real reason always is that they find they lack that vocation which is begotten of the pioneering instinct to instruct and to mould the most delicate of God's creations, the human mind. To be entrusted with such a task is something that must be considered also, and the person so entrusted must be held in the highest possible esteem. I am pleased to note that the system with regard to recruitment through Preparatory Colleges was abandoned last year. I look forward with interest to seeing the results of the new system. It is as yet much too soon to assess the value of it or the beneficial results likely to accrue from it. It is bound to have this excellent result that a person is not called upon at the age of 13 to 15 to decide on his or her future career and can now wait until the secondary school programme at least has been concluded before finally deciding, by which time he or she can have the benefit of his or her experience up to then to assist in making such a decision.
I want to make two observations in relation to primary education. The first concerns the amount of time on the school programme for English and the second concerns corporal punishment in the schools. I think it will be sufficient to say that not enough time is being given on the daily programme of the ordinary primary school in this country for English. When I say that I do not want, nor do I want to be interpreted as wanting, to oust from the programme the amount of time already given to the Irish language. Some time must be made for English in some other way. I do not want to anticipate the ousting of the language in any way from its present compulsory status as envisaged in the future five year plan of the Fianna Fáil Party printed in the Evening Mail yesterday. However, be that inspired or otherwise, it is a matter to which we can refer only in passing.
It is an Evening Mail plan.
The Minister for Education is extremely naive.
He is going to a more important posts, according to the Evening Mail.
While I would not wish the Minister for Education to be retarded in any way on the road to promotion I think that possibly he occupies the most important and the most dignified post in any Government, the post of Minister for Education, carrying with it heavy responsibilities and always the opportunity for innovation resulting from research.
So much for the amount of time for English. I come now to the question of corporal punishment in the schools. Considerable publicity attaches from time to time to some court case or other where, according to the newspaper accounts, damages have been awarded by the court against a teacher who is sued by some infant or other through its parents or next friends for inflicting corporal punishment more than was necessary and where there are allegations of cruelty and allegations generally of a very shocking nature.
The practice in the courts, where insurance companies are involved, is that the insurance company tries to settle at the lowest possible price irrespective very often of the wishes of the person involved as defendant. How many times do people feel outraged as defendants, say in running-down actions in the law of negligence, when they find that their insurance company agrees to the payment of considerable sums to an intending plaintiff while the defendant regards himself as blameless and firmly believes, often rightly, that if the case went to court the plaintiff would not succeed? We must consider settlements against that background. Sometimes these things are rather loosely reported—"Damages were awarded"—when in fact there was no award but merely a ruling that was made a consent of court.
There is in the ordinary process of legal action a document called a statement of claim. Whether it is in a Civil Bill in the Circuit Court or the High Court, there is a statement of claim. In the statement of claim the case for the plaintiff is made out. I am sure it would come as a surprise to anybody to learn that the case is always made out to the full. If you have about nine or ten allegations to make, make them and, if you have one or two of them, fair enough, you are doing all right. What the newspapers then get is a copy of the statement of claim, when these settlements come about, and every allegation contained in the statement of claim is taken by the newspaper as proved, as it were, and written in that such an amount was awarded by Judge so and so to A.B. in his action against C.D., a national teacher, for beating him cruelly about the head. All of the other gruesome details are included there and it appears as if the teacher in fact did that.
In a great many respects the whole question of corporal punishment must be considered from the point of view of the case of the teacher. From 9.30 a.m. to 3 p.m., or whatever the time may be, the teacher is in loco parentis. Speaking on the Estimate I think for the Department of Justice I ventured to point out that in the modern world juvenile delinquency or what we call juvenile delinquency is on the increase not because the children are any worse than they were at any other time or their tendencies towards evil are any greater but because there has been a substantial increase in lack of acceptance of responsibilities of parenthood and because there has been adult delinquency.
There are people here who went to the national school a longer time ago than I did. However, even in my time if we got punishment we recognised it was deserved in some way. Consequently, on reaching home, we never dared to make a point of it because we knew the result would be a fresh application of punishment. Now, it would appear, in this world of modern darlings who are the equivalents of juvenile delinquents, that as soon as a teacher in the proper exercise of his authority administers punishment the darling has to rush home that evening or probably rushes from the school, absolutely flouting authority, during school hours and, while so doing, hurls abuse at the teacher, shouting: "What my father will not do to a so and so like you will be nobody's business."
Fair enough. The child is right because, psychologically, he has assessed his adult delinquent correctly. The adult delinquent arrives hot foot at the school, waving either an ashplant or his fists, or whatever form of threat he thinks will be most effective. Another battle royal ensues—a battle of words only of course—right in front of the whole school. I believe that a parent who behaves after that fashion should be prosecuted for conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and have no more fool acting about it.
Then the parents try to shift the children to another school. The thing becomes a vicious circle around the usurpation of the teacher's proper authority and the corruption of discipline. In my own personal experience in the courts I was engaged in only two cases in which I acted on behalf of pupils. I succeeded, and I thought properly so at the time, but the actions did not lie so much in the excessive corporal punishment that had been inflicted as in the fact that the persons who inflicted the punishment should never have been teachers at all. That is where the distinction must be drawn between the vocation of teaching and professionalism carrying with it a salary and a certain status.
I hope I have made it perfectly clear that there is too much mollycoddling of these children who, for some reason or another, choose to challenge the teacher's authority within the school. The teacher's job is difficult enough without his having to deal with challenges to his authority, for purely truculent purposes, and having that piece of juvenile truculence subsequently backed up by the adult, a worse delinquent, coming to the school to kick up a row.
The national teachers of this country deserve the best the country can give them. They deserve the support of parents in the exercise of their proper authority within their schools. I do not like congratulating Ministers from these benches since, were positions reversed, I should be slightly suspect of congratulations I might receive from this side of the House. I do, however, want to congratulate the Minister on his handling in this House and with the public of matters relating to corporal punishment. I do not agree with the infliction of so much corporal punishment as does injury. Very often, where injury is inflicted, it is not intentional and it is not deliberate. Where injury does result the probability is that there was some inherent weakness of which the teacher could not reasonably be expected to be aware.
There must be give and take on both sides. It is time the parents took less notice of the cranks, administered punishment in their own homes and applauded teachers for doing the same in the reasonable exercise of the discretion afforded to them. Let us have no more of this nonsense about the great liberal approach, with children running around as freely and as undisciplined as animals. Let there be an end to these circulars—issued at whose expense, I do not know—asking public men for their views on this, that, and the other, when the views of the people who issue the circulars are already well known. I know I shall bring a hurricane of abuse down on top of me, but I am speaking sincerely here. This is an election year and perhaps that may deter certain people hurling abuse.
On former Estimates I have appealed here—I made the same appeal to Deputy Mulcahy when he was Minister for Education—for the mechanics of teaching to be taught in the training colleges. In Dublin—in Limerick, too, when Deputy O'Malley gets his University there—teachers in training should be brought to the universities for certain courses so that they might have a more liberal training and the benefit of meeting and exchanging views with more and more people in different spheres in the different Faculties. The Church of Ireland does that. They send their student teachers to Trinity College. I see no reason why the students in Saint Patrick's in Drumcondra and Carysfort should not be afforded the same opportunities. It would, of course, begin in a small way until it could be properly developed.
A considerable advance has been made in secondary education and there has been a marked increase in the number of people seeking secondary education for their children. There has also been a concomitant increase in the number of schools. I have no fault to find with either the curriculum or the end result. Neither do I wish to quarrel with the curriculum in the vocational schools. An excellent job is being done all round. In the reformatory and industrial schools—I speak subject to correction now — there should, I think, be a great segregation. There are degrees of crime and there are degrees in the tendency towards crime. There are people who will never be reformed no matter what one does. There are others who have had one lapse. It is the first and the last. I believe there should be segregation as between these two types.
In the whole field of education we can look forward to new advances. Either last year, or the year before, I said that, with the advent of the Common Market, the position of Irish, the effort to restore it, and preserve what there is of it, would become increasingly difficult. That situation obtains with equal force today. I am opposed to the idea of compulsion or anything that is described as essential with regard to any language. Education always operates at its best when there is a free choice. On the other hand, where there is compulsion against something, we in this country have always had a tremendous capacity for opposition. Our capacity to oppose is much greater. Certainly, it seems to be more of an incentive than our capacity to construct. That will be a matter that will cause a headache to the present Minister and any future Minister and his officials in the years to come.
There will be that necessity for modern European languages in use generally in commerce, trade and the ordinary intercourse of international relations. That is something that has to be watched and looked after. If the idea of compulsion no longer is attractive, possibly when the Common Market idea develops you might have people, who are now rather indifferent towards the whole idea, developing an interest in promoting the Irish language so as to be able to use it and to show that they can use it to the French, the Germans, the British and all the other peoples of the Common Market countries. That might be the kernel of real success in keeping, side by side with other languages, our own language.
One thing is certain. We will never keep our own language to the exclusion of others. We cannot. It would be idle to pretend in this changing world, with the regrouping of nations and peoples, that we can isolate ourselves behind a wall, merely speaking one language and not bothering about anything else that happens. I used to say I was an unrepentant bi-linguist. Now I have to alter that and say I am an unrepentant multi-linguist. There is no point in the world in our isolating ourselves. We are being unfair if we prevent the people of the Gaeltacht areas, when under the present scheme of things—and when I say "present scheme of things" I am not speaking politically at all—emigration seems to be the main attraction for them from being competitive in the language they speak. It is unfair to put them at a disadvantage when they go to England, America, New Zealand or any other country to which they have to emigrate.
That sentiment was expressed in the heart of the Gaeltacht at the end of Irish Week in Tourmakeady recently when a young man said in the presence of the Minister for the Gaeltacht that he thought we did not teach enough English in the Gaeltacht and that the people going away were at a disadvantage. Without going into any detail, it is very easy to understand how they could be at a disadvantage. Those of our people who suffered from such a disadvantage in the past made up for it by attending night schools, universities, law schools. That is particularly true in America and in England, too, although we do not hear so much about it. Some of them achieved remarkable success but it was only by their own endeavours and in spite of the impediment which had been placed in their way in their own country. The Minister has a tough assignment ahead of him. All we would ask him to do is to take full cognisance of the ever-changing world, particularly of the situation with which we are likely to be confronted if and when our terms are accepted and we go into the Common Market, and to consider the impact that will have on all aspects of our life, including education. If we do that and make adequate arrangements, I believe the machinery of State will continue to operate as smoothly as it has done before.
In conclusion, I want to say a word of appreciation of the officials of the Minister's Department. That does not mean I am leaving the Minister out. Possibly no other Minister has ever succeeded in getting away with so much by merely smiling at the fellow trying to trap him. Be that as it may, a pleasant approach has its own merits—a lot of merit indeed. I want to say to the people for whom he is responsible—the civil servants in their various branches with whom I have come in contact over the year— that I always found their approach was helpful and constructive and that if there was anything that could be done to ease any problem, it was always done and done properly.
First, I want to congratulate the Minister on the achievements during his period of office. It is generally recognised that in the present Minister we have one of the most outstanding, conscientious, fair minded and successful holders of that office that we have had for some considerable period. But you cannot please everyone.
There are certain aspects which the Minister might clarify when making his reply. One point that has created a deal of agitation was the report of the Commission with regard to the question of parity of the national teachers. There was a suggestion that the Minister, and through the Minister the Government, came to a decision with indecent haste. The suggestion in some of the daily papers is that the report was presented on a Monday and the Government implemented it on a Thursday, to the detriment of the national teachers. I do not think that was the case. I discussed the matter with a responsible member of the National Teachers' Organisation. I understand, and this is a most important point, that this report was not before the Government for only two or three days but that, in fact, it was studied for many months.
This question also arises. If a commission is set up, why should the Minister and the Government of the day not take the advice of that commission, even though it is against somebody? In other words, why set up a commission if you are going to pre-judge and come to certain conclusions without considering the opinions of the commission? When refusing parity, it should be brought home that the decision, with the exception of the representatives of the national teachers, was unanimous. I do not subscribe to the view of the commission that there should not be parity between the national teachers and the secondary and vocational teachers. It is entirely incorrect and I would go so far as to disagree with them.
The day must come, if the dignity of the National Teachers' Organisation is to be preserved, when they will be granted parity and I do not think that day is far off. No member on any side of the House could but agree that everything national down the years has had members of the I.N.T.O. at the forefront, particularly in the days when it was not popular to be associated with such matters of national progress. I hope that the Minister will in time grant parity and do away with what in my opinion is a grave injustice. I have already pointed out that there has been misrepresentation with regard to the recommendations of the commission. For the record those should be put right and it should be formally established in the minds of the 13,000 or 14,000 of the members of the I.N.T.O. that the matter did receive consideration. The extraordinary fact should also be brought home to the public that there were members —very outstanding and responsible members—on that commission who were school managers who signed the report recommending that parity should not be granted to the national teachers.
I am saying this to urge the Minister to go into a little more detail in his reply. It is not for political purposes that anyone would advocate parity for the teachers; it is common justice. Is it not a known fact that the majority of national teachers, all things being equal, have a much better education than some of the people in the secondary schools? It is a peculiar state of affairs that a person can come along qualified to teach in a secondary school with the minimum amount of education at a higher salary scale than a national teacher with better qualifications. This is one of the fundamental weaknesses in our educational system. Of course consideration has been given to the matter but I am not clear about the reasons and the members of the I.N.T.O. are not clear. Some of them, evidently, are clear, but for political purposes wish to attack the Minister and, through the Minister, the Government.
It must be remembered that quite a large body of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation was a political section, an anti-Fianna Fáil wing for quite a while. That is a fact. However, that is no reason why if there is a preponderance of anti-Government members in a national organisation it would entitle the Government of the day to use the argument: "We will have a crack at these fellows now." I would not agree with that logic and I do not believe that was the sentiment when this decision was arrived at.
I take it that if all the members here were to sit on this commission on this question of parity for national teachers, everybody would support it. There were people on that commission who, prior to their appointment, spoke at I.N.T.O. dinners and were quoted in the public Press as saying that the day was not too far off when the I.N.T.O. would be granted parity. Some of these people, recorded in the public Press as having those sentiments, signed the report refusing to recommend parity for the national teachers. Two who signed the report in favour of parity were the two members of the I.N.T.O. However, as I said, the Minister may throw further light on that.
The Minister under the heading of "Technical Instruction" referred to the question of improvements in the Gaeltacht area and said plans were drawn up for the enlargement and reconditioning of housing. Instruction in the installation of water supplies and sanitation was given, as was also basic instruction in the building trades. In other words, people in the Gaeltacht districts were encouraged to improve their dwellings to accommodate visitors. I feel that there should be some liaison between the Minister's Department and Bord Fáilte. At present a guest house, per se, in Ireland, apart from the Gaeltacht, does not qualify for any grant or loan from Bord Fáilte unless it is registered as an hotel. That is a serious defect particularly when one bears in mind that the highest percentage of people who leave Britain annually on holidays come to Ireland. It is calculated that 80 per cent. of those visitors coming to our shores would be classified as the working class population of England, Scotland and Wales. These are not the people who are going to stay in the luxury hotels, the Grade A hotels and the new hotels.
I might say that while Bord Fáilte are carrying out their responsibilities in regard to the provision of extra hotel accommodation they are not conscious of that fact that we are at a loss because the guest houses mentioned by the Minister do not qualify for these grants. Instead of the Minister's Department having, through the vocational teachers, to educate the people in the locality on how to do the work themselves, if that category qualified for the grants and loans of Bord Fáilte the Minister's difficulty would be solved. There is too much of an overlap and an exchange of views between the Minister's Department and Bord Fáilte might have satisfactory results.
There are quite a number of teachers in the House this morning, naturally, when we are dealing with this important Estimate. I should like to put forward a view which could be rather revolutionary in different aspects of our economy. Most of our schools close from mid-June to the middle of September—at least those which follow the Irish pattern, and do not ape the British with their Junior Oxford and schools which do not close until the summer is over, close for the summer period.
At Old Boys' annual dinners—I do not think nuns have old girls' dinners —we hear the rector for the time being, or the President of the Old Boys' Association, like my colleague, Deputy Russell, annually regretting the fact that the contribution from the State is not sufficient, and pointing out how hard it is, nowadays, for boarding schools to make ends meet. I have heard people speak about the lack of hotel accommodation and Mr. Tim O'Driscoll, Director General of Bord Fáilte, has also spoken about the acute lack of accommodation for tourists. My suggestion is that these schools should be utilised for holiday accommodation as hotels or hostels. That would be an economic factor in the period between mid-June and mid-September.
The boarding schools have everything. People need not necessarily go down to Kildare, but there are some beautiful buildings within easy reach of the seaside. There is a school for sale in Donegal which cost a couple of hundred thousand pounds, and could be bought for about £30,000. There was a fine school in Threadneedle Road in Galway called St. Enda's. I think his Lordship the Bishop of Galway got it—how I do not know. This suggestion might have a very important reaction and effect on the economy of the schools themselves. They have kitchens, dormitory accommodation, and many of them have private rooms for the staff who would be on vacation. They have everything laid on. There would be the possibility of booking tours in advance to these places.
We are told by the Chairman of Bord Fáilte that there is a serious impasse which will take many years to put right. We are losing thousands and thousands of tourists every years, and here we have ready-made accommodation lying idle in the summer months every year, which could be utilised to the financial betterment of the establishments themselves, solving a crisis in the tourist industry and bringing a much-needed amount of prosperity to certain outlying rural areas. Is there any Deputy who does not know of outstanding buildings such as training colleges and boarding schools which, in the summer months, would be ideally suited to that purpose?
We will have a few extra rooms in Leinster House, too, soon.
That is so. We have had a few peculiar visitors here, and I brought a few myself from time to time, but I am afraid the Director General of Bord Fáilte would not be impressed by that type of clientele. With regard to the accommodation in Leinster House, I suppose there will be many new faces on both sides of the House before we will be able to have a discussion on this Estimate again.
There will be a few old ones.
Yes, and a few old ones. I should like to deal with another matter which has nothing to do with me. I refer to the dispute in Ballina which has hit the headlines recently. I have not the slightest intention of going into the merits or demerits of the case. I prophesy that when an impasse has been reached and both parties are making certain allegations, and the man in the street does not know which is true or what is the correct position, all fruit failing, an attempt will be made to make the Minister for Education the scapegoat. One of the parties will suggest it is the responsibility of the competent Minister to step in—he will be a foolish man if he does step in. I prophesy that will happen.
I want now to make another point and perhaps, when he is replying, the Minister will be good enough to refer to it. I do not know whether the one-day school is unique to Limerick city or whether it operates in other areas. The position is that there is a statutory obligation on employers of children of a certain age to send them to vocational schools for one day in the week. Many of these children contribute to the finances of their families, and also it does not suit certain employers to send them to school. If a boy has a job he may have to go to the technical school on a busy day and that will not suit the employer. In any event, he cannot learn very much in one day. The Minister should have another look at that position. Possibly he could make it a statutory obligation on the parents to send the child to the technical school for at least one night a week. That would take them off the streets. The position is quite impossible at present, and employers have made many representations on the subject to public representatives.
There is one last point I want to make. I was surprised that the Minister in his introductory speech did not make any reference to the University Commission. I suppose he could not say very much about it because it is established and I understand that they are carrying out that work in a very responsible manner. He could have told us, however, that they visited certain places in the North, in Britain and on the Continent. The public would like to know these things. That University Commission met the Minister in the usual way at the beginning, but, for all the man in the street knows, that Commission might never have met since, which is not a fact.
I do not want to try to influence this Commission in any way because they are having hearings in the different areas. I understand that they are coming to Limerick to take evidence. They were very impressed with the case put up by the body who are agitating for a university in Limerick. I understand that they propose coming to Limerick city, to sit there and take evidence from the interested parties and make recommendations to the Government with regard to the question of new universities, which is one of the points in their terms of reference.
A commission reported previously. I do not know what it was called but it reported with regard to university education a couple of years ago. In that report, the acute problem of the Agricultural College in Glasnevin was gone into in great detail. The President of University College, Dublin and the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture in University College, Dublin, pointed out that the situation not only of that college but of the entire Faculty of Agriculture in this area was in a critical condition. They could not acquire further land. They were a type of oasis out in the middle of a housing scheme. The accommodation was totally inadequate and an immediate decision was necessary. Commission or no commission, this has nothing to do with the setting up of a school of agriculture forthwith.
Another important point is that we all know that University College, Dublin, have got permission to proceed with plans. An architectural competition is taking place for the design of the new university. It is very interesting to note that there is no provision whatsoever in the schedule of that accommodation for one building for the Faculty of Agriculture. You have all the other Faculties, engineering, medicine, architecture, commerce and these 101 other things, but there is not one provision out there—and rightly so, in my opinion—for the Faculty of Agriculture.
Yesterday the Taoiseach spoke at Mallow. The tenor of the speech of the managing director of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann was that agriculture was the backbone of our economy. We cannot turn out top-class key men if the Faculty, as has been said by the President of the University, is collapsing and if the Albert College buildings at Glasnevin are falling into disrepair and the accommodation entirely inadequate. Cork and Galway are no better off because, as we know, students have to come up from Galway and Cork to Dublin to do their final year for the Bachelor in Agricultural Science degree. The position is critical and demands immediate action.
It is all very well to criticise. I should be very pleased, naturally, to see a school of agriculture established not so much in the Limerick area necessarily but anywhere in the Golden Vale of Munster. There is one point made by the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture and the President of University College, Dublin, about Glasnevin. Even if they had the land up there, which they have not now as there are housing schemes there, they could not have pilot schemes on the land. The land out there is not typical of Irish farms. It is quite obvious that you could not have a pilot farm in the Glasnevin area of 50 or 150 acres. It is not suitable but you have that type of land in the neighbourhood of Limerick, Tipperary or the borders of Kerry. Apart from the U.C.D. buildings, this will have to be tackled.
Perhaps the Minister is of the opinion that this Commission are going to deal with recommendations in regard to the Faculty of Agriculture. There is no time limit, and rightly so, as to when this Commission should bring in its report. Would I be right— the Minister can only hazard a guess —in saying that it could take another two years? Would I be right that it could take another six years before this Commission reports? I may, perhaps, have a solution to the problem. I am sure that the Deputies with whom I discussed the matter will agree with me. Would it be in order for the Minister to request this University Commission to issue an interim report expressing an opinion as to the solution of the critical position of the teaching of agriculture in the universities and the provision of accommodation? That could all be done in three months. It is one of the prime tasks with which the Minister is confronted. If he leaves it until this Commission brings in its report, I respectfully submit that the Minister would be neglecting his duty and the officials advising him will be carrying a very serious responsibility.
A lot of criticism was levelled, and rightly so, in certain instances, at the junta running University College, Dublin. Be it to their credit, they have gone on the records of this House as well as on an official Government Commission's report as drawing the attention of the country to the serious plight of the Albert College in Glasnevin which is catering not only for Dublin and the huge contiguous area but to the final year students in the rest of Ireland —the areas served by the constituent colleges of Galway and Cork. The House and the country will be amazed to know that the agricultural industry in this country is being starved of graduates because there is a staggering of the final year students and in certain instances they have to take their lectures in converted outhouses.
We hear a lot of talk about the Common Market from bodies such as the National Farmers' Association and Macra na Feirme and about the possibility of our joining it. We hear a lot of talk from those organisations about agriculture being the backbone of our industry in this country. I say now that we are in a very serious plight unless this problem is tackled forthwith. There is only one way to do it, that is, to erect a new independent agricultural school. I do not care where it is put up. Let my area stand on its own merits. All I am interested in is that such a school is established quickly because if the Commission do report in favour of this new agricultural school, as they must, the existing Charter of the National University of Ireland would have to be changed possibly. Then there is the question of finding the money. I do not imagine there would be any great difficulty about the financial end of it but the question could run into time.
That is the sum total of my contribution. As I said at the outset, the Minister for Education has, on the whole, given entire satisfaction, with the exception of the points I have raised in my contribution to this debate. He has been most amenable to reason. He has been ready to hear all sides and though on all occasions we have not agreed with his decisions, at least he came to decisions unlike some of his predecessors on both sides of the House, some of whom never reached a decision on anything.
This Estimate is one which mainly interests teachers. It is shop to them as other Bills are shop to lawyers. I have not had the advantage of a higher education but I suppose I made up for that in some way in the hard field of experience. It is on that point I want to touch in opening my remarks in this debate. The Department caters largely for education of an academic nature. One can be educated in that way but still lack intelligence. I have met many people who had superior education but I could never understand them making a point and they could not understand a point themselves. They lacked discernment, their education being merely superior, without depth. The children in the higher grades of primary schools should therefore be encouraged to specialise in discussion as part of their curriculum. There should be such things as organised debating and discussion classes so as to sharpen their minds.
It is amazing the number of people, alleged to be educated, who cannot argue a point or make one clearly to see one. The Minister, I repeat, should get children to specialise in a type of education that would train their intelligence. I am interested in the type of education imparted in the primary schools because I believe the vast majority of children leave school between 14 and 15 years of age. Several children go on to secondary schools but a very small proportion of those follow through to the Leaving Certificate. The vast majority of them leave after a year or 18 months. Accordingly, most of the children who leave school do so with a primary education only.
This brings me to the question of too much Irish in the schools. I am not opposed to the language, but at the same time I ask of what utility will a knowledge of Irish be to most of the people in this country? I can look back over the past 12 months and in that period I have heard only two children talking in the Irish language since I spoke on this Estimate last year. What is the Minister's answer to that? He will, of course, say that people do speak Irish at all times in certain spheres of life. My reply to that is that I am referring to the ordinary people throughout the country. Many children leave the primary schools at school leaving age because of the compulsion to learn through the medium of Irish. Therefore, they have no education. I think the Minister should provide that Irish will be taught only as a subject in the primary schools. That could be improved on later in the case of children going on for higher education. As it is, the reason many children leave primary schools at the moment practically illiterate is this necessity to learn everything through Irish.
The whole trend nowadays is towards a common language. In the past 12 months, control of Radio Éireann has been handed over to a new authority whose main concern will be to make the business pay. Naturally, therefore, they will not be thinking so much in terms of Gaelic as in matters of finance. We have been told Common Market membership is near at hand and as travel and intercourse around the world become easier, the whole stress will be on a common language as distinct from separate languages. It would be a crime, therefore, if, through our educational system here, we lost a good working knowledge of the English language. Whether we like it or not, it is a language of great importance to this country because of our nearness to Britain and the fact that so many of our kin live in the United States.
I would again ask the Minister to stop turning out so many illiterates from our schools when he knows that the vast majority should be attending school still after 14 or 15 but are discouraged from doing so because of the necessity to do everything through the medium of the Irish language. As I said earlier, speaking from personal experience, I am amazed at the ignorance of children nowadays.
Last year, I drew attention to the fact that there was still a great scarcity of schools in the built-up areas, particularly in Dublin. While I agree great work has been done, nevertheless large numbers of Dublin parents still have to send their children to schools in the centre of the city and while I am aware there are school buses at cheap fares, a large number of children cannot avail of them because they do not go anywhere near the schools.
Then we come to the question of finances. The Minister should use his good offices with C.I.E. to see that children are not stopped from attending schools because they lack the few pence. I know that children fail to attend school sometimes because their parents have not got the couple of pence, particularly during the lean part of the week. In my opinion, the fact that the parents have not got the few necessary pence should not be allowed to stop children attending school. Children ought to be able to travel for a penny. During the year, I asked a supplementary question on the matter of corporal punishment in schools. The case I mentioned was of a girl of eight years of age, a quiet mannerly girl, who got a box on the jaw because when another girl's name was called in Irish by the teacher, she answered. There were no grounds whatsoever for boxing that little girl on the jaw. I can understand Deputy Lindsay's point that many children are bold and deserve to be punished but here and there you get a teacher who has a sadistic touch in his or her make-up and who likes to box people around. I hope the Minister will watch out for that sort of teacher.
That brings me to the point made by Deputy Lindsay, that some teachers are not in the business because of their love of it but because of the money. It is not their natural vocation. I agree that happens. I know teachers who are engaged in business to such an extent that they are more interested in business than in the vocation of teaching. Possibly that type of teacher would be irritable and too free with his hands. If he were naturally inclined towards the vocation of teaching, probably he would have understanding and would not inflict punishment except where it was desirable. In the particular case I mentioned, there was no justification.
All of us have bees in our bonnets about some matters affecting various Departments and this is the bee in my bonnet—the lack of physical training in our schools.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.