andMr. D. Costello asked the Minister for Education if he considers that the preparation of a research document such as Investment in Education in the Republic of Ireland which was recently prepared by the Federation of Irish Secondary Schools would normally constitute a breach of the conditions attached to the official recognition of the Federation by his Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Federation of Irish Secondary Schools: Research Document.
43.
The insinuation is that action was taken against an association because it prepared a particular document. This is without foundation. The association which represents about one tenth of our secondary schools (about one twentieth in student numbers) arrogated to itself the new title "Federation of Irish Secondary Schools." There could be no question of giving it official recognition under this new, misleading title.
44.
andMr. D. Costello asked the Minister for Education whether the document Investment in Education in the Republic of Ireland, which was prepared by the Federation of Irish Secondary Schools and issued to members of the Dáil and Seanad in May, 1962, came up for consideration at the Third Conference of Education Ministers which was held under the auspices of the Council of Europe in Rome in October, 1962, and attended by him; whether he or his officials objected to the consideration of this document by the Council of Education Ministers; and, if so, what were the grounds for such objections.
The association which prepared this document has no standing whatsoever in relation to the Council of Europe. There could, therefore, never have been any question of the document coming up for consideration by the Conference of Ministers of Education.
Furthermore, it contains so many errors of commission and omission, false deductions and assumptions, and misrepresentations that its circulation internationally can be construed only as an irresponsible attempt to harm this country.
Would the Minister say what were the errors of commission and omission?
The whole aim of the booklet was to show up this country in a bad light.
Not at all. It was to show up the inertia of the Department.
I do not see how you can claim inertia on the part of the Department. In relation to what it purported to do, we have a committee at the moment on which there is Mr. Paddy Lynch, an economist of international repute, along with a statistician from the United Nations and other people. They are setting out to do this very thing. They are the competent people to do it and not people studying it in their spare time in order to get more money for their schools.
Would the Minister say when this Commission will report?
The committee dealing with this matter of investment in education will take two years to complete its work but not two years to report to me.
This committee was set up subsequent to this report?
It was set up under the aegis of OECD, who never heard of this man.
The Minister is being particularly abusive.
I do not think the Deputy realises what he is supporting.
45.
andMr. D. Costello asked the Minister for Education if he will state in respect of the document Investment in Education in the Republic of Ireland whether any inaccuracies in this document or in its statistics have been noted by the officers of his Department since the date of its publication; whether the Federation of Irish Secondary Schools forwarded a copy of this document to him and to his Department on the 10th May, expressing their willingness to consider any suggestions for emendations and corrections which his Department might wish to make regarding the accuracy of the statistics quoted in the document; and whether his Department made any such suggestions to the Federation.
There could be no question of amending or correcting this document. To bear any relation to its title it would have to be substantially rewritten.
Is it not a fact that the statistics quoted in the report are based on unimpeachable international sources, reports of the Minister for Education and publications of the Council of Europe and the United Nations?
It is not a fact. There are many ways in which the figures were used to misrepresent and discredit this country. My real worry about this organisation was when they started writing—without authority and without letting anyone know—to European and American organisations showing up this country in a bad light. While I am Minister, they will know I am here.
Surely we are now embarking on a very dangerous principle? If recognition is to be withdrawn from a hitherto recognised association because it says, writes or publishes something of which the Minister disapproves, surely we are going much further than this House approves? I do not know whether the Federation or the Minister is right, but surely it is a bad principle to say that, because they wrote something of which the Minister's Department disapproves, it is a good ground for withdrawing recognition?
With your permission, Sir, I will go back to my reply to Question 43, which is:
The insinuation is that action was taken against an association because it prepared a particular document. This is without foundation. The association which represents about one-tenth of our secondary schools (about one-twentieth in student numbers) arrogated to itself the new title "Federation of Irish Secondary Schools". There could be no question of giving it official recognition under this new, misleading title.
That is why they lost their recognition. That was said here about five minutes ago.
That is the answer prepared for the Minister by a discreet and prudent civil servant for him to read out.
That was written by me last night.
It seems to me that what emerged from the Minister's answers to the subsequent questions was the fact that he withdrew recognition of the pamphlet they had written, which he said misconstrued the true situation of this country in the eyes of the world.
If the Deputy would only read the Questions. The first Question was on the withdrawal of recognition; the other Questions were in regard to the document. If you had let me answer one yesterday and the others today, in case you were confused, that would be all right. The answer I gave as to why recognition was not given under the new title is quite clear. The other answers are in relation to the document and the use of the document.
It is to the Minister's supplementary answers I listened with the greatest attention.
I described the Question as an insinuation and, having answered it as an insinuation, the Leader of the Opposition comes along and makes the same insinuation. It is impossible to make anything clear if people do not accept it.
I am accepting what the Minister is saying too literally.
You might expect it from that side always.
Ah, little Helpful Harry is here.