Before reporting progress, I was commenting on what I thought was the one big omission in the scheme outlined by the Minister, namely, the fact that his proposals do not cater at all for the neediest sections of our community. It has been a feature of State grants and State aid all through the years that, at the bottom of the income scale, there have always been people and families who, because of lack of financial means, cannot avail of such aids and grants as are offered. It is a pity that this should also apply in the field of education and that education should still be denied to the needier sections of our community and the greatest of all inequalities, inequality of opportunity, should still persist so far as these people are concerned. The Minister readily admits that this injustice exists and I appeal to him now to cater for our most needy brethren in what is an otherwise reasonably good scheme.
The Minister proposes to provide free post-primary education for all but the fact is he will not be making post-primary education freely available to all, and that is very desirable at the present time. The ideal would be, of course, that no family would be forced to take advantage of this State aid by way of maintenance grants. Family incomes should be of a sufficiently high level to enable people to avail of education but the cold hard fact is that the position outlined by the Minister will not be the position as from 1st September, 1967, and that is one big defect in the Minister's scheme, one defect I hope he will see his way to rectifying before next September.
The Minister announced today that books will be provided free to those who need them and he estimated that 25 per cent of the pupils will need free books. The cost of providing free books for 25 per cent of the children is estimated at £100,000. From that it is easy to calculate that the total cost of providing free books for all would be £400,000 and, for the sake of £300,000, I do not think it is worth introducing this means test in this particular instance. Because of our limited resources, there are cases in which there must be a means test, but I do not think such a test is called for where school books are concerned. For the sake of £300,000, I do not think it is worth introducing a means test and, if it is introduced, it will impose a certain amount of hardship on children in the same school, three-quarters of whom will pay for the books and one-quarter of whom will have the books doled out to them by the headmaster, or whoever is in charge, who will, in fact, decide whether or not they are needy. That is something best avoided.
The main weakness in the scheme outlined by the Minister is the fact that he does not yet know what schools will opt for the scheme and what schools will not. He told us he estimates the general run of schools will accept the scheme and make post-primary education available without fees. But he has no proof of this and, having announced the scheme, the onus is on him to prove that it will, in fact, work. Has he consulted the schools? Perhaps he has. He has not told us that he has consulted them. I should like him to tell us if he has consulted the schools and if he is satisfied that the number of schools he estimates will opt for the scheme will, in fact, do so.
He referred in his speech to the desirability of providing comprehensive facilities in as many centres as possible and he told us that his predecessor circularised vocational and secondary schools and the response was very good. I should like more detailed information with regard to the response the Minister got from post-primary schools generally, both secondary and vocational, because, as far as I am aware, there is a good deal of confusion with regard to the common utilisation of facilities between vocational schools, largely financed from public funds, and private schools, as to who would pay the cost of various items, who should be the ultimate authority, and so on. Many questions have been raised. Perhaps the Minister would tell us if these have been satisfactorily resolved. I hope they have.
We have talked about the desirability of avoiding and eliminating the compartmentalisation that has existed between the various divisions in our educational system. We have talked, too, about the desirability of utilising our teaching force, primary, secondary and vocational, to the fullest extent and to facilitate free transfer between the various levels and types of education. It is very desirable to utilise our teaching force to the full. Therefore I would appeal, along with those who have already appealed — Deputy Lindsay today and others in the past when the opportunity presented itself —to the Minister to remove the impediments which exist to teachers transferring easily, in the first instance, from other countries to this country— in the case of those wishing to return home to engage in the teaching service here—and, in the second instance, to transferring between various departments in our own country. We have a tremendous shortage—this has been acknowledged—of, principally, science and mathematics teachers. I am quite sure there are a number of teachers, with qualifications for teaching these subjects, teaching outside this country today. We should make it very easy for these people to return to their own country and give service to their own children, without lack of increment.
National teachers, holding a Higher Diploma in Education may wish to transfer to either secondary or vocational schools. I think they should be facilitated in doing so, if they feel their particular calling is in that line. At present, they are not so facilitated. A national teacher who wishes to take up secondary teaching has to forego income; a national teacher wishing to take up vocational teaching has, though he has already been trained, to undergo another training and a further test. If such impediments could be removed, or at least some recompense made to teachers—if they must undergo these courses before transfer—this should be done.
Everything possible should be done to facilitate them in easy transfer from one form of teaching to the other and so ensure there will be no scarcity of teachers in any sphere. In the vocational sphere, there is a shortage, and we know that CEOs have put forward, for their inability to expand the force, the reason that the teachers cannot be got. We should facilitate in every way those who want to transfer to vocational teaching.
There is, of course, the whole question of adult education, and the Minister has not referred to that at all today. We know, and the NIEC report again tells us, that, in spite of any improvements there might be in education from now on, it will take, possibly, 13 years before the full benefits of that improved system is felt in our labour force. The average age in the labour force they gave us, at that time, was 42 years. These are the people who were the products of the educational system provided 30 years ago. Therefore, if we are to increase our competitiveness with other countries, if we are to prepare ourselves for free trade, it will not be enough—now that we are 30 years too late—to concentrate alone on our school children. We must concentrate on adult education and on the whole question of retraining. Here again, career guidance is very vital, to ensure that the adult who felt he might become redundant in his post in the near future, or who felt he might wish to avail of better opportunities now than he was enabled to do so during his school years, would have, first of all, guidance and, in the second instance, the facilities for so doing. This is economically sound and is also social justice.
Finally, I would say to the Minister that while there are faults and omissions in the system, all in all, it is a very positive step in the right direction. We wish him every luck and we hope that his highest hopes for his scheme will be realised in September, 1967.
