Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1961

Vol. 189 No. 11

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).

When I finished speaking last week, I was dealing with the amount of money voted to the National Library. I said that I did not want anybody to say that I am making an attack on the Irish language movement. If anybody does I shall reply to him. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the Grant-in-Aid for the purchase of books by the National Library. The grant is £5,000, which is inadequate when we look at the increase in the cost of books and the increase in books of the type that a library like the National Library should buy. I want the Minister to note that we are in an age of great scientific advances and research and this scientific research has resulted in the publication of a great number of standard scientific works. The amount of money we are giving to the National Library would never give the National Library a chance to lay up a stock of the books. Another point is that the National Library should be able to buy practically every type of book published in the country because there are a lot of books published for which at first there is no demand but as time goes on people discover they are good books and start to look for them. I want to point out to the Minister how small and parsimonious £5,000 is when our fellow countrymen in Belfast get £20,000 for the same purpose, if I remember rightly.

Under subhead (b) (1) in the Votes, the grants towards the publications of books in Irish by independent publishers is £10,000 and the grant to periodicals if published in Irish, and newspapers publishing current news in Irish, is £18,000, making a total of £28,000. I had amongst my papers a list of publications published in Irish by An Gúm but unfortunately I have not got it with me now. It was a formidable list running into hundreds of thousands of copies. The only customers that could be found were the paper mills to pulp them. I made inquiries about the publications. I thought that many people who seem to be foremost in the Irish language movement would be customers for this type of book, but they were not. I asked was any reduction ever made in the price, and I discovered that many of them were reduced to nearly a penny each. The apostles of the language movement would not even give a penny each for them. Yet, we still vote this money. On Radio Éireann, we are broadcasting some programmes the people do not want to listen to, and now we are printing books and periodicals no one wants to read. People will not buy them even when they are offered at a fraction of the cost.

The Minister should look to the National Library. I read a speech made by a prominent member of the Oireachtas at a congress within the past few days, and the old cliché about our national heritage was trotted out. We should look to our heritage in the National Library. We should add to it and make it a worthwhile heritage for the generations to come. One of the difficulties in the National Library is that the reading room is overcrowded. I went in there again to-day and it was overcrowded. The Minister should see to it that immediate accommodation is provided in the National Library, the National Gallery and the National Museum. There is overcrowding in the reading room of the National Library; there is overcrowding in the store rooms in the National Gallery; and there is overcrowding in the store rooms of the National Museum.

On several Votes in this House I said that matter should be taken up with the various educational institutions and that where there are museum pieces of value, of interest or of sentimental value to an area—if there is something of sentimental value to Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Waterford, or Galway—it should be exhibited there instead of being stored in the cellars in Dublin. I am sure there are an enormous number of museum pieces relating to the '98 Rebellion which would be of interest to Wexford.

As I say, that is what we do about buying books or helping the National Library to buy books. We are treating the National Gallery in the same manner, throwing them money that can only be classed as pennies. George Bernard Shaw remembered the National Gallery in his will. I asked a Parliamentary Question three or four months ago and the Minister for Finance told me that the royalties, which George Bernard Shaw left to the National Gallery, from performances of My Fair Lady, ran to over £300,000. That has put the National Gallery in a position to buy the kind of picture which I am sure the Director and the Board would want to buy. They have them now and no thanks to the Government of this State—thanks to the man many people would not have any use for. He was always an Irishman, no matter what was said to him, and he was always proud to be Irish.

I have no doubt that the Director of the National Gallery has bought some pictures already. He, and the Governors of the Gallery, are the people who will buy pictures with this money. I have nothing to say about them. They are the best judges, but I will say that no pictures should be bought for this nation by any Government Department but the Department of Education, acting on the advice of the Director and the Governors. There is a great danger that a clever artist who wants to sell his pictures will try to paint not a work of art but the "man who".

Some time ago, I re-read a famous story by O. Henry entitled "Art and the Broncho" in which the equivalent of a Government or State Department in the United States was about to buy a picture. By an extraordinary coincidence, the name of the man mentioned by O. Henry was Senator Mullins. Senator Mullins went to his counterpart, another Senator, and said to him: "We are buying this picture." The other Senator looked at it and said: "I would not give six bits for it without the frame." Senator Mullins said: "You do not know who painted this picture." The other Senator asked: "Who painted it?" and the reply was: "It was painted by the son of the man who." The second Senator said: "Why did you not say that before. Of course we have to buy the picture." There is always a danger of that happening in this country. There is always the danger of an artist who may be "man whoing", painting the "man who", and we will find ourselves with a spate of these pictures on our hands. I saw one lately and I only hope and pray that it will not be bought by this nation.

Another matter to which I should have referred is the shortage of teachers. The Minister mentioned in Clery's Restaurant some time ago that there were tens of thousands of national school children who had never laid eyes on a trained teacher, and that 25 per cent. of the national teachers were untrained. I drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that that was the fault of his own Party and of his predecessor, the Leader of his Party at the time, and now the President, who was Minister for Education at one time. He came to the conclusion that the fewer teachers we had the better and he lopped off the de la Salle College in Waterford. That is why we were short of teachers. We were short of teachers because of the treatment meted out to them by the Minister's predecessors in that period. We were short of teachers—many teachers who were loyal supporters of this Government would like to forget it—because the Fianna Fáil Government batoned them in the streets of Dublin. That was one of the reasons we were short of teachers. There was no future for teachers. When the teachers came out on strike, they were not treated as the members of other unions were treated. They got the big stick from the Fianna Fáil Government.

I believe one of the Minister's predecessors went to a congress in Clare in the thirties and he was shocked and surprised at what he learned there. He did not know until then that the primary teachers were compelled to put all the children in their schools in for the primary examination, irrespective of whether or not they were mentally fit. He admitted that was a frightful state of affairs and he assured the teachers then that he would see to it that the position was remedied. It has not been remedied.

I mention the incident of the National Flag. That was not just a nine days' wonder. The flag is still there; it has been there for years. That action was due to an enlightened teacher who, with the aid of his manager, and the support of the parents of the children, erected a flagstaff; the National Flag is hoisted there with ceremony and it is taken down at the proper time. I draw the Minister's attention to it, though I do not think it should really be a matter for the Department of Education. But the Minister might make some suggestion to managers and teachers generally.

Deputy Declan Costello is here and I will leave it to him to deal with the problem of mentally retarded children, in whom I have some interest myself. I belong to an organisation in my constituency which is doing excellent work for these children. I do not say that I do any great work. It is an organisation of dedicated men and women. They are doing splendid work with, I will admit, some assistance from the State. The problem of mentally retarded children calls for attention. On a purely localised basis, the numbers may be small; there may be only one or two in an area. The Minister should examine the feasibility of having these children collected from the different areas and brought to a central school for training, returning home in the evening to their parents and the other members of the family.

I know the Minister is one of the fairer-minded Ministers in Fianna Fáil and I know that, when he is replying, he will pay me the courtesy of answering the points I have put to him. I should be greatful if he would reply to the point I made about the National Library, its reading room and any policy it may have with regard to the acquisition in the future of near-by properties. I should also like to hear from him with regard to the National Gallery and the storage space available there and I should like to be told what the policy is with regard to the National Museum.

I should also like to hear from him on the suggestion that the Vote for the National Library be increased and what he thinks of the suggestion that some of our national treasures should be sent on exhibition to various centres throughout the country for the education of our youth in particular.

The Minister and his Department are to be congratulated on the very fine school-building programme carried out by the Government. It is very heartening now to see the splendid new primary and vocational schools throughout the country. Other schools are being enlarged, repaired, or renovated. Because of the pace set in the Department, we can look forward in the near future towards the complete disappearance of old and insanitary schools. That is profoundly to be wished.

I have one criticism to make. The schools built in the past ten years, or so, are already proving too small. In may constituency, three recently constructed vocational schools have had to be enlarged. Enlargements are an expensive business and I think it would be better to build the schools in one compact unit at the outset, even though all the space may not be needed immediately. It would be less expensive than putting on additions from time to time. I suggest a more liberal attitude in regard to the size of these schools. As far as I know, the general plan is to increase educational facilities.

I congratulate the Minister on his policy of providing grants for the painting of primary schools. Many rural schools have been neglected—I do not blame the managers for it— because of the high cost of painting. I trust those responsible will now be encouraged to undertake the work of renovation and painting. Perhaps the Minister will in time be able to extend this very welcome concession to vocational schools also.

In his speech on the Estimate last year, the Minister said there was some idea of linking up vocational, secondary and university education. Has any progress been made along those lines? Perhaps the Council of Education is studying the matter. I should like to hear if any progress has been made.

I am a member of a vocational education committee and we have one very big problem with regard to the employment of rural science teachers or instructors. I am sure the problem is general in rural areas. When we are lucky enough to get a rural science instructor, we find that the moment there is a vacancy for an instructor under the county committee of agriculture, our instructor promptly leaves us and goes to the county committee. Of course, one can hardly blame him. Our disadvantage lies in the fact that there is a serious discrepancy in the salaries paid by the respective committees.

So far as I am aware, the rural science teacher and the agricultural instructor have exactly the same qualifications. They take the same degree. It does not seem reasonable then that one should be paid less than the other just because one happens to teach in the vocational school and the other does field work under the county committee of agriculture. The rural science teacher in the vocational school is most important and he should be held there at all costs. I appeal to the Minister to give him parity with his colleague working under the county committee of agriculture. If that is done, I am quite sure he will be only too glad to stay in the vocational school.

Both sides of this House are well stocked with primary teachers and I should not care to trespass on their bailiwick, but some of the remarks made by some Deputies require comment. Deputy Lynch advocated the return of the cane to the school. In theory, I suppose that is all right but teachers, like the rest of us, are human and just as liable as we are to lose their tempers. In my school days, I saw a good deal of brutality carried out with the cane and I could not agree with the Deputy that it should be reintroduced.

Deputy Kitt made a very fine suggestion which I would recommend the Minister to adopt, that is, in primary schools, particularly in rural areas, to have a first-aid kit. Many of the younger teachers are qualified in first-aid and such equipment would be very useful.

I am glad that the financial provisions have been increased under most heads. Education cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence.

Forty years ago in this State, a political revolution occurred when part of this country, at least, obtained its freedom. It is time now that a social revolution occurred in this State. Our society is stratified into very rigid classes, mainly as a result of our educational system, and it is time we had in this country what can only be called a revolution in our educational system.

No person should be denied the education which his talents require because of lack of means. Unfortunately, in our system at the present time there are not sufficient services available and not a proper system in operation which would mean that secondary and university education would be made available to those who in the normal way would not be able to afford it. We have in this country at the present time a system whereby it is largely true that the child of poor parents finds it extremely difficult to get adequate education.

That system must change. It has changed in nearly all the countries of the world from different ends of the political spectrum, from the extreme socialist country of Russia to the extreme capitalist country of America. It can be said that in most advanced countries now, wealth is not a criterion for the education which a child is to receive. It is time this occurred also in our country and we must be prepared to make whatever financial sacrifices are necessary to provide the educational services to bring this system about.

As a start, it is time that the Minister introduced a greatly expanded system of scholarships. The number of scholarships available at the present time is pitifully inadequate. It is time also that the number of places in our secondary school system should be extended. Places in the secondary schools and places in our universities should be made available to a much greater extent than they are and as soon as possible for those children of ability who can benefit from the training they will receive there.

It is not every child who is suitable for a complete course of secondary education or a course of university education and for children who are not suitable for that type of education, facilities should be made available in vocational schools so that they can develop the talents they have been given.

I want to refer briefly to the subject of the Irish language. I say "briefly" because it has been the subject of considerable debate in this House from time to time and I think it is unnecessary to rehearse again the arguments which have been thrashed out over so many years. One thing I think I can say is that there are more and more people coming to the realisation that the continuance of our present system of teaching Irish in our national schools is a disgrace. I think it is a national disgrace that the present system of teaching Irish in our national schools is continued, that that is becoming more and more accepted and that public opinion will force the Department to change its policy.

It is unfair to children coming from poor homes, whose length of time in school will be so short in most cases, that they should be required to learn a language which they will never use again and for which, at the end of their school period, they have little love. It is wrong and I think it has been proved to be of psychological harm to them that children of tender years should be forced to learn a second language which is not their home language.

This view has been expressed in public by a very responsible psychologist. It has never been denied, or effectively denied, by any person who wishes to maintain the present system. Until it is denied and established on adequate proof that it is incorrect, there is at present evidence which, to my mind, is coercive to establish that it does psychological harm to young children to be required to learn a second language. Of course, it retards them in their ordinary educational work.

The children in the city of Dublin for the most part get education up to the age of 14 years and for those few years at school they are dependent on getting what education they can to prepare them for the struggle of life. It is wrong that they should be required to learn the Irish language for such length of time during that period. If it could be said that the present system, which has operated since this State was founded, was a success and that the result has been that we are now speaking the Irish language, then you could justify it on the grounds of those who support the revival of the language, but, on any ground, on any test that is applied, it is clear that the present system has been a lamentable failure.

It is time also for those who are in favour of reviving the language as a spoken language in this country no longer to accept what was regarded as a principle and raised to a dogma that the Irish language can be revived only through the medium of our schools. If the Irish language is to be revived, it will be revived because the people want to do it, because they like it, because they want it, because they believe in it. That is the only way the Irish language can be revived. It will not be revived by forcing it down the throats of our children in the national school, when they never use it once they leave school.

Another matter about which public opinion has become more considerably agitated in recent years is the problem of mentally handicapped children, a problem which up to very recently has been largely ignored in this country, one of those problems which have been a social disgrace in this country for so many years. It is a problem to which the public conscience is now becoming alive and steps are now being taken to try to do something about it. It is an immense problem. It is an extraordinary fact, one of those facts that are ignored, kept hidden, pushed under the table, so that if possible it may be forgotten, that we have in this country literally thousands of children who do not get the specialised training necessary for them because they have been born with some defect, because they are retarded or because of some psychological malaise in their make-up.

There are thousands of such children. Any Deputy who has any experience of the national schools or who talks to teachers will know the problem of the child who is put at the back of the class and who everybody knows should be getting special care and treatment. Everybody who has come in contact with the kind of child who is below that intelligence quotient, who has not even been able to go to school but stays at home with his mother, a mother who has generally got the tremendous task of bringing up a family as well as looking after the mentally retarded child, appreciates the difficulties of the situation. There is nowhere for them to go. There are thousands of mentally retarded children who cannot be got into our hospitals because there are no places for them.

Steps have been taken and a commission has been set up. I sincerely hope the Minister will not allow, as so frequently happens in these matters, the establishment of a commission to be an excuse for doing nothing and for shelving the problem for a couple of years until the commission has reported. You are dealing with human lives and if, even in the space of the next couple of years, some special training is made available for even 100 children who otherwise would not have got the service, something good will have been done.

I am also aware that the Minister has recently established a special six months' course for training national teachers who would be prepared to take up this work. I do not know what the outcome of that has been. I would be very much surprised if he did not get a great number of applications for this course. My only regret is that it seems to be limited to a small number and limited in time. This is not one of these insoluble problems. It is not one of these problems that merely involve lack of resources. This is a problem with which we can deal if we go the right way about it. We can deal with it within our resources because it would not need a fantastic amount of money to bring about a proper system for looking after our mentally handicapped children.

One further aspect of the matter of education to which I wish to refer very briefly is the question of punishment in schools. Everybody appreciates the difficulty under which teachers very frequently have to labour. Everybody appreciates the problem of overpopulated classes, the difficulties facing the teachers sometimes in very unsatisfactory conditions, ill-heated establishments, and so on. Everybody can understand if sometimes human frailty gets the better of their judgement. However, it does happen that no matter what the regulations say, children are unjustly punished and assaults perhaps of a serious nature take place which should never take place. It is not sufficient for the matter to be referred to the Department, for the Minister to say he has investigated it and has taken proper steps or some steps to remedy it. It is not sufficient to say he has brought it to the notice of managers and to teachers that the regulations provide that such-and-such steps should be taken. There is the old saying that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

The parent who has had his child unlawfully assaulted, who sees the teacher continuing in the same school, apparently without anything having happened, is a discontented person. There should be some system of complaint which would lead to an impartial investigation of an assault. This complaint should go before some impartial tribunal whose findings would be published. The matter should not be dealt with behind closed doors as at present. That is wrong. There is a volume of evidence to show that unjustifiable assaults do take place and the public is naturally concerned and troubled about it. It is a matter in which a balance has to be maintained. There is no doubt that the teachers have a difficult task but it does happen sometimes that they go too far, that things are too lax, and they are allowed to continue in certain instances where injustices are done. That situation should not be permitted to continue.

I want to refer very briefly to the National Gallery. The country is very fortunate that the Shaw Bequest has enabled the Trustees of the National Gallery to expand greatly their purchases for the National Gallery. We have an excellent body of Trustees in the National Gallery and they can be relied upon by the public to purchase pictures for the nation which will be suitable and will adorn our Gallery. However, the Minister and the Government, and particularly perhaps the Department of Finance, should not regard the money from the Shaw Bequest as a means by which grants from the Government can be cut down. The money from the Shaw Bequest should be used for the purchase of pictures. If there are desirable items of expenditure—and I am certain there are —the Trustees of the Gallery should not be informed that the money is available in the Shaw Bequest for this purpose.

One item on which much more money should be spent is on advertising the treasures in our Galleries. There are very fine pictures in the National Gallery and in the Municipal Gallery but there are very few tourist brochures I have seen in which any reference is made to either of the Galleries. It is a matter that the Minister should take up with his colleagues. I wonder have any of my colleagues in this House travelled back from London, as I have done, and been given a booklet or pamphlet in the plane showing the sights to be seen in Dublin. They are all rather uninteresting commercial places. I am not going to mention them. Deputies probably know all of them. It is generally true to say that in our tourist literature very little is said about the National Gallery or the Municipal Gallery.

Most other capital cities that have national galleries advertise them in the streets. It is not done here. It would be a matter of very slight expenditure and one in which the Department should interest itself so as to bring the treasures in our Galleries to the notice not only of our own public but of our visitors. They are something of which we can be justly proud. They add something to our national life and in this instance we are certainly hiding our light under a bushel.

All of us here are pleased to hear the Minister tell us in his opening speech of the increase that has been given to teachers and the extra money being spent on school building and maintenance. Deputy Johnston congratulated the Minister on the increase in school building and seemed to think that the building of schools was the be-all and the end-all of education. If Deputy Hillery were the Minister for Local Government he could still build schools. The important thing is education itself. I trust when his record is examined when he leaves the Department of Education he will have attributed to him an improvement in the educational system rather than the building of so many schools and that alone.

The efforts to make classes smaller are very welcome. They tend to improve educational facilities in this country. We also welcome the announcement of the course to train teachers who, in turn, will train mentally subnormal children. That also is an advance.

It has become traditional in this House over a number of years to talk in an airy-fairy way about our high standards of education and, after making these few references, to go on to talk about the Irish language and to make either a virulent attack on it or else a strong defence of it. I do not propose this year to talk at any great length about the Irish language because if the Minister for Education, the Taoiseach and the members of the Government have not an idea as to what Deputies think about the teaching of the Irish language and the revival of the Irish language, then they know nothing.

I am sure the Minister knows my view and the view of Deputy Esmonde and the views of others who have spoken on this Estimate year after year and have given these views consistently. Deputy D. Costello's reference to the Irish language and his speech is an indication of the frustration of a number of people because of the methods by which successive Governments have sought to revive the Irish language. If the Minister could make any sort of change in that respect, still keeping in mind the revival of the language, his name would go down in history. There is dissatisfaction every place about it and I am sure even in the Minister's Party. I can appreciate the reluctance to say so.

I am sure the Minister will not tell us there has been any eminent success, so far as the revival is concerned, not since he came into office, but in the past 25 or 30 years. There has been a diminishing Gaeltacht and no seeming improvement in the speaking of the language in Dublin or Kiltimagh or any other place. However, I may be falling into the bad habit I complained of, when opening my speech. I do not intend now to say what I said before about speaking the Irish language.

The Minister has an important Ministry. Ordinary though it may seem to many people, it is very important. His officials and the teachers are there to equip the youth of this country to make a way in life and to make a living for themselves. There is no need, therefore, to stress the importance of primary education. In the first place, it is primary education but, more important still, it is the only type of education the majority of the boys and girls in this country receive. For that reason, the highest importance should be attached to it.

Has the Minister ever considered the method by which our teachers are trained? I do not talk about the actual training but the atmosphere in which they are trained. I do not want to appear to criticise the training colleges but the Minister ought to consider loosening the atmosphere in these colleges and not have it so rigid. Consider the freedom university students have. Some of them, I suppose it might be said, have too much freedom. However, a certain amount of strict control is exercised in these places where teachers are trained.

It has often been said—and let me whisper it—that teachers are sometimes regarded as boys among men and men among boys. The students ought to be allowed to get more experience of the world. There are strict rules as to when they may go out and when they should come back. I am speaking now of young men up to their early twenties. They are treated like young schoolboys in a preparatory or secondary school. The Minister should look into that aspect. They ought to have a little more experience of life and of the world. They should be allowed to come and go in a freer way than I am led to believe is the case at present. I am not saying anything against the teaching they receive.

I do not know what the Minister thinks about the primary school programme. He must see some significance in the fact that the primary school programme was drafted in, I think, 1926 and modified to some extent in 1934. Has it changed much since? Has there been any radical change in the programme for primary education since 1934? Surely we have had many changes in education since 1934? We certainly have had changes in the world and in this country but we are still operating under the same programme as modified in 1934. Education should consist of something more than a sort of machine process. The parents should enter much more into primary education. The only contact there seems to be between the parents of the children of this country and the teachers is when there is some sort of row or when they believe their children have been wrongfully punished—in short, when they have a row with the teacher.

Nobody ever seems to encourage the parents to take an interest in the education of their young boys and girls. I want to repeat what I said on the last few Estimates. Nobody in this country seems to be concerned about vocational guidance. Pupils are turned out with their Primary Certificate, their Intermediate Certificate or their Leaving Certificate at 17 or 18. They have a certificate in their hands, a certificate that means very little at present. Vocational guidance has been advocated by some people in the country who seem to realise its importance.

Vocational guidance is practised to a very large extent in many countries in Europe—in France, Britain, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, and so on. All these countries are concerned about the occupations their young boys and girls will engage in. There is consultation between the parents and the teachers, with the Department of Education in these various countries entering into it, to try to ensure that these young boys and girls will not be sent into blind-alley jobs. Going through the primary school, they have no idea, at that age, of what they will be. The tragedy is that all they seem to be required to do in the secondary school is to get a bit of paper to show they have a Leaving Certificate. Most of them become clerks who are badly paid. Most of them have not the opportunity of going to the university and therefore end up in a blind-alley job.

If, about 14 years of age, our pupils were guided into some avenue of education, and trained for a job for which they would be equipped, they would be of use to themselves, to their homes and to the country. I believe that in the vocational section of education there seems to be an attempt to guide children. It does not seem to me any attempt is made in educational establishments here to advise boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 as to what subjects they should study or what occupation they should take up when they leave school. The Minister must take the initiative in this.

I had occasion recently to have a talk with about 15 young boys doing their Leaving Certificate. Subsequently, they got very good marks. But I asked them, as a matter of interest, what they were going to be. Not one of them had an idea of what he he was going to be. Nobody had suggested to him that he might pursue particular subjects, with a view to having a scientific career or taking up some clerical or administrative position. That is the usual pattern throughout the country. Unless they get into the University after the Leaving Certificate, they do not know what they are going to be. Otherwise, because they have the Leaving Certificate and a good standard of education, they are taken up by members of a profession I shall not name to act as clerks for 30/- a week. They endure it for a couple of years, because 30/- is a big sum compared with the 5/- pocket money they used to get, but after that they go to England.

The Minister should make an effort to ensure, with the co-operation of educational authorities and parents, that there will be some system of vocational guidance. In case anybody should misunderstand what I mean, I should say I do not want a system of direction. What I want is vocational guidance rather than vocational direction. This body I hope will be established would advise young persons what subjects they should take up if they wished to become, say, engineers or tradesmen. It does not necessarily mean that they must follow that advice but at least it will help them to make up their minds. They will be told that this body, representative of the Department, the teachers and the parents, believes they are best suited for a particular job and they will be told what the prospects are.

As far as primary and secondary education are concerned, the Minister should endeavour to establish the teaching of civics in the schools. I do not think it would upset the school programme. I do not suggest it should be taught every day, every week or even every month. Our children do not seem to have much idea of a civic spirit at present. Whether it is in Ennis, Wexford, Dublin or Gorey, they still mutilate trees and damage public property. Every Sunday, when they seem to have more pocket money, or, perhaps, every Friday when they get their pay, the streets of our towns and cities are littered with the wrappings from lollypops and everything else. One is ashamed of the condition of our streets. We are aspiring to be a major tourist country, but if a foreigner saw the condition of our streets, he would get a very poor impression. In every town where the city fathers plant ornamental trees and shrubs, these plants are mutilated within a week. The electric light bulbs in the E.S.B. standards are broken. I probably did the same when I was a boy and probably the Minister was no different from anybody else and behaved in the same way, but it is a fair comment to say we did not know any better because nobody told us any better.

The retort may be that this is a job for the parents. That is true to some extent, but these things could be put in a much clearer way in the schools. It need not be done by the teachers alone. Is there anything to prevent a local government official giving a talk to these children and telling them that every time they multilate trees or do any damage to public property, the town in which they live has to pay for it. They should be told that that means their parents will have to pay a little more in their rates. These children have no idea of what rates mean. If the Minister could induce somebody to give such a talk to a class even once a year, I believe it would do tremendous good. I believe he should consider the idea.

I pass now to secondary education. Primary education is important, as I have said, because the vast majority of our people do not go beyond the primary school. Too few of our children get a secondary education. In the majority of cases, they cannot afford it; or they may be able to afford it, but their people cannot afford not to have them at work. That is the important thing. There has been a lot of talk in recent years about scholarships. I did not note in the Minister's speech any revolutionary change in respect of scholarships. I must confess I was somewhat disappointed that the Minister did not announce a tremendous scheme to develop secondary and university education here. I do not know how many secondary pupils we have. I suppose we have some tens of thousands.

There are 76,000 secondary pupils here. The number of scholarships awarded to secondary schools by county and county borough councils on the examinations of 1957, was a miserable 572. I think the State and the local councils could afford more. The Minister would do well if he accepted the introduction of some State schemes whereby many more scholarships could be given for secondary education because 572 in a country of our population seems to me to be pretty niggardly. In the local councils we are able to provide money to assist other sections of the community but the most we can afford for secondary scholarships all over the country is the funds necessary to provide 572 scholarships.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer and to which some other Deputies referred—the position of the teacher in the secondary schools. The Minister announced that he was going to supplement the salary of a secondary teacher in the first year of teaching to the extent of £200. As it is, the secondary teacher in his first year is not allowed to take up an incremental position and in most cases he is dependent on a salary of some £200 to £250 per annum. The Minister says now, if I understand it correctly, that he will supplement that to the tune of £200 per annum, making the salary £450. I wonder does the Minister mean that will be applied for the first year only and does he assume that every secondary teacher obtains an incremental post after his first year? I do not think it is the case generally. Perhaps the Minister when replying would say whether or not that £200 will continue until the teacher in question obtains an incremental post, because it is a well known fact that many of them do not obtain these posts for quite a long time. The Minister, bearing in mind the sort of world we live in, seems to be very pleased with the extra number of people taking science in secondary schools. I do not think he has any reason to be too enthusiastic about the number taking science in the secondary schools, or pursuing science in any of its particular branches up to, say, the Leaving Certificate.

We have not received much recent information on it but I gather that in 1958 3,668 boys did the Leaving Certificate and of those 854 did chemistry, 818 took science, 265 did general science, 242 agricultural science and 107 did botany. These do not seem to be spectacular figures and, as far as the secondary schools are concerned, we should not generalise so much in our courses. I assume the circumstances are the same as when I was going to school when, for the Leaving Certificate, and indeed for the Intermediate Certificate, there was a veritable host of subjects. You had the three branches of mathematics, Irish, English, history, geography, science and all these subjects. The Minister should encourage these pupils to specialise from the Intermediate Certificate up to Leaving Certificate. It is difficult to ask these boys and girls who do their Leaving Certificate to get honours in three subjects, from mathematics, Irish, English, history, geography, science, commerce, Latin or Greek and a few other subjects. They should be encouraged to aim at passing a lot of these subjects which are not going to do them any good. We could include a certain amount of history and geography in these subjects which are not going to benefit them in later life.

The Minister must have regard to the age in which we live. Everybody has decided we should pursue education in the scientific and engineering fields and let us concentrate on those subjects. I should like to see students specialising in them. I do not know what the system is in Britain but I know they are encouraged to specialise in subjects which would be of use to them in after life rather than to get honours in these academic subjects which may be all right for general education but which are not going to be much use to them in the occupations they will follow in later years. The result of our present system is that a boy having obtained his Leaving Certificate goes into a university with a good general education but as soon as he goes into the university he is expected to specialise immediately. His training for specialisation should be started after he has done his Intermediate Certificate. Whether it is science, commerce, or any of the languages, he should be specially equipped in regard to the particular subject so that he may pursue that specialisation expected of him when he goes to the university.

I do not profess to know a lot about vocational education but I think the various local committees are to be complimented on the advances they have made in recent years with, one might say, the limited resources they have. Students should also be encouraged to specialise in the vocational schools. I do not know whether the Minister has ever considered it but vocational education has been described as the poor man's university.

I wonder should the Minister endeavour to go a little further and try to make it possible for students who attain a certain standard in vocational education to enter the university from the vocational schools? The Minister should consider that. It would not be unreasonable to allow them to specialise in particular branches of education in order to enter the university. I do not know if we still have the stupid rule in our system, which dates far back, that even if you get honours in Irish, English, mathematics, and other subjects, if you have not passed in Latin you do not get into the University. That is a stupid rule but whether it obtains now or not I do not know.

For medical students.

Not for medical students alone. As a matter of fact, to be a barrister in this country, you must have Latin as well. I certainly would like to support the idea of the provision of more scholarships for university education. I know there are cranks in this country who will ask: "Where will we get the money?" Others will ask: "What will we do with all our university students when they graduate?" My point is that in the vast majority of cases it is money which determines who goes to university. Therefore, no one can say there are equal opportunities for boys and girls to pursue a particular course, provided they have the intelligence to do so. What I ask for, therefore, is that more scholarships be provided in order that those who are deemed to be fit—if I may so describe them—may pursue university courses. That would ensure that those who are able for it will get the best education and will, we hope, give the best services to the country.

The latest report of the Department of Education is the 1957/58 Report, although we have not had a printers' strike for years. Some one said we were very generous with education, that we provide free primary education and give what can be described as generous capitation grants to secondary schools but it is a case of "thus far shall we go and no further." The system we have operated is such that we leave the provision of university scholarships to the local authorities. What do they do? They behave in much the same way as they do in the provision of home assistance for destitute people. It is the very last thing they will consider.

According to the report, 111 scholarships are awarded by county or county borough councils. I assume that is the correct figure. The ratepayers of this country can afford only 111 scholarships in one year. I think scholarships are a good investment, not only for the local authorities but for the State. I was amazed when I read that figure in the report. I am certain it has not improved since. I do not think Wexford County Council has become any more generous in the last four years. I think Wexford County Council still provided only four scholarships; Galway five; and Leitrim two; and so on. That is what we do for our youth who cannot afford to go any further than secondary school. We say: "There are the 111 scholarships and the boys can scramble for them."

Can the Minister do anything about it? The Government are providing this year, as I had occasion to say recently, about £5,500,000 to make cows healthy. I do not object to that. I appreciate that we would not have the money for education, or anything else, if we have not healthy cattle. But if we can expend that sort of money on the cattle industry, if we can give grants to people to establish industries, if we can give grants amounting to millions, without a means test, to hotel owners to build hotels, to enlarge, renovate or reconstruct hotels, surely we can do something to educate those who cannot afford to educate themselves and ensure they get the best education possible. We can spend money in every direction but, when it comes to university education, we can do nothing apart from what is given in the general Vote.

When one advocates that more university scholarships should be provided, it may be asked: "Why should the taxpayer send these fellows to university and pay for their education?" At present, so far as I am aware, 71 per cent. of the cost of educating pupils in the university—in one university at least—is paid by the State. What I want to ensure, therefore, is that those who are deemed to be fit can pursue a university course and have a reasonable chance of taking the course.

I think I heard the Minister say in a speech some time ago that he was introducing a scheme of grants for university education. I do not think I saw any reference to it in his speech on this Vote.

A Bill is being drafted at the moment. I shall be back with it later in the session.

It would have been a great help and would have prevented much talk from people like me if the Minister had given some indication in his speech as to what he proposes to do in respect of those grants.

Other matters were brought to my notice and perhaps I can dispose of them pretty quickly. I should like to support the plea made by Deputy P. Byrne on behalf of the secondary teachers. I am informed that secondary teachers who have been in employment in Britain and return to this country get no credit for their service in Britain whilst, on the other hand, Irish teachers who take incremental posts in Britain get credit for the years they have served in this country. There should be some sort of reciprocal arrangement. The Minister for Defence told us he co-operated to the extent of sending witnesses to the Six Counties to give evidence to the effect that certain Irish people were getting I.R.A. pensions and at the same time drawing national assistance. If the Minister for Defence can give that sort of co-operation to do harm to Irish people, then surely we could have some system of co-operation with Great Britain in an effort to do good to Irish people.

The Minister might also have another look at the capitation grants paid to secondary schools. The last adjustment, I am informed, was with regard to junior pupils in the secondary schools—I assume, up to the Intermediate Certificate standard. That adjustment was made in 1954 when the capitation grant was raised from £7, at which it was fixed in 1926, to £11. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that money values have changed and the expenditure in secondary schools is now much greater than it was in 1954. There must be a case for an increase in the capitation grants in the secondary schools. They must teach science, and all the subjects usually included under the heading of science. The Minister will appreciate the expense on the secondary schools of providing the equipment to ensure that pupils will get the best possible training in these subjects.

Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeachas a dhéanamh leis an Aire agus le hOifigigh na Roinne as ucht na dea-oibre a rinneadar i rith na bliana atá thart. Ba mhaith liom tréaslú leis an Aire freisin toisc gur thug sé óráid an mheastacháin i dteanga an Náisiúin. Is binn le mo chroí nár ghéill sé, agus ná raibh scáth ná eagla air rompu siúd a bhíonn de shíor ag tromaíocht ar an nGaeilge. Táimíd cineál tuirseach den seanphort seafóideach —"Compulsory Irish; cramming Irish down the children's throats, ramming Irish down the necks of the poor children" agus ladús den saghas sin. Tabharfad solaoid do lucht an ghliogair sin a léireodh dóibh nach ollphiast mar a tuairisc an t-arrachtach seo atá ag dó na geirbe iontu. Níl inti ach créatúirín bocht séimh ná dearna díobháil ar bith d'aon duine, óg ná aosta, a thug gean nó cion don Náisiún. Seo í an tsolaoid.

Tá trí scoil i mBaile Mór na hInse i gCo. an Chláir agus tá ceann eile i ngiorracht trí choiscéim dhreoilín den áras inar rugadh an tAire. Múintear gach ábhar trí Ghaeilge sna scoileanna sin, agus bliain i ndiaidh bliana gnóthaíonn daltaí na scoileanna atá i dtreis agam breis agus trian de na scoláireachtaí a dháiltear de thoradh na Meán-Teiste agus na hÁrd-Teiste. Cruthaíonn si nár chuir an "Ollphiast" dallamullóg ná mearbhall ar mheabhair na leanbh a oileadh sna scoileanna sin.

Nuair a bhí an Teachta Ua Coisdealbha ag caint anseo cúpla nóiméad ó shin dúirt sé go raibh fealsamh cáiliúil ann a dúirt go ndéanann teagasc dhá-theangach díobháil do leanaí óga. Trua liom nár luaigh sé ainm an fhealsaimh an-aithnid seo, ach, b'fhéidir gurbh fhearr leis é a cheilt. Ba mhaith liom a mheabhrú dó go raibh iliomad fealsamh ag Seán Buí a chruthnaigh a mhalairt. Tagadh sé siar liom thar bóithrín coirceach na staire—siar go Reacht Chill Chainnigh—agus uaidh sin aniar trí gach reacht is aindlí a choise ar Ghaela a dteanga féin a labhairt is chífidh sé toradh saothair fealsamh Sheáin Bhuí. Ríomh mé a ngíomhartha sa Tigh seo anuraidh, is ní rún liom aithris a dhéanamh ar an méid adúras an tráth úd. Ba mhaith liom, ámh, an ceathrú a dingeadh de rinn bhata isteach i gcluasa agus i meabhair leanaí a tógadh le Gaeilge a thabhairt dó. Seo é é:—

"I thank the goodness and the grace

That as my youth hath smiled

To make me in my early days

An happy English child."

Nuair a bhí an Teachta Ó Loingsigh ag caint do leig sé don nimhneachas atá aige d'iar-Aire áirithe é a dhalladh ar an bhfírinne. Dúirt sé gur dúnadh De La Salle d'aon ghnó chun rud éigin nach feasach dom a agairt ar Chumann na Múinteoirí. Ní hamhlaidh a bhí. A mhalairt ar fad a bhí ann. Oileadh an oiread san múinteoirí an tráth úd nach raibh ionad ná folúntas dóibh i scoil ar bith. Oileadh iad ar chostas an Stáit is ní dheachaigh cuid acu le múinteoireacht riamh cheal folúntas sna scoileanna.

Rinne sé tagairt do bhrat na hÉirestail agus chuir sé an milleán ar an Aire céanna. Fiafraím de cé ghearr an tuarastal agus cé rinne foghail ar Chiste na bPinsean?

Rinne sé tagairt do bhrat no hÉireann sna scoileanna is thuigeas óna chainnt go raibh sé ag iarraidh milleán a chur ar an Aire ina thaobh. Ní call dó ach strac-fhéachaint a thabhairt thar a ghualainn agus, mura bhfuil breall orm chífidh sé duine mór dá Pháirtí féin adúirt tráth amháin "nach sléachtfadh sé don tseanacheirt go deo."

Bhí daoine ag cur síos ar Chlár na mBun-Scoileanna anseo inniu agus is léir óna gcaint nach eol dóibh dada ina thaobh. Molaim an Clár is molaim ní hamháin an tAire ach gach Aire a ghabh roimhe, cé nach réitím le cuid acu i gcúrsaí polaitíochta. Bhíodar uilig dílis don Náisiún.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 8th June, 1961.
Barr
Roinn