The emphasis placed by the last speaker on Irish history teaching is well placed. History is so often the story of the victor. In our case much of our history is the story of the vanquished. It must be, indeed, difficult to get objective history but a history that is too biased is highly reprehensible. It is particularly difficult in our case because we have in this country a large emigrant population and, from my own experience of Irish emigrants, they find it difficult to adapt to what they regard as an alien environment. I dealt with this thing on previous occasions and I emphasised that undue preoccupation with our past wrongs and grievances, political and religious, is psychologically wrong. Under a different environment very often two different results arise. First, we have the development—and this is particularly noticeable amongst our emigrants—of an introverted anti-social maladjusted, inward looking emigrant society, a body of people with a chip on their shoulders. On the other hand, we have the development in the same environments amongst certain sections of that society of a complete rejection of all earlier values and standards and an often quite illogical anti-Irish attitude.
I have asked somebody recently, an educationalist from England, a lady, did she think that history as taught in England was biased and she said, "Yes". She said she thought that history in most countries had a slant giving a colourful appeal to the country about which it was written by the people who wrote it. That may well be true but I believe that in our particular circumstances there has been an undue emphasis upon one aspect of our history. I doubt if it has been examined and presented in a proper, objective fashion.
I can recall a story told to me some years ago by a medical man who had brought his family back from England and he told me the story with some amusement—at least, it was amusing to him. This was a Catholic family. Presumably the children had been attending a convent school in England and they were attending a convent school here. His daughter came to him and said, "Daddy, can you tell me, how is it that Elizabeth I was Good Queen Bess in England and the wicked Queen Elizabeth in Ireland?" He told me that he did not know how to answer her. I am sure there is a long involved answer but to carry it to the youthful mind would be another matter.
I have skimmed through the Minister's speech. I was disappointed to find that there was no reference here to our higher university education and what integration, functional or otherwise, had taken place at that level.
In speaking on education here about eight years ago I dealt with this matter and—Official Report 27th May, 1964, volume 210, column 266—I had this to say:
I have often wondered why no Minister appears to have examined the question of two universities in this city. In each of the cities of London, Oxford, Cambridge, Cardiff, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, there is one university. Yet we have two universities in Dublin. I do not know of any other city of comparable size which has two universities. Surely economies could be effected and greater efficiency achieved if there were closer liaison or integration between the two establishments in this city?
I recognise that the existence of two universities here is a historical hangover, a hangover largely based upon religious and political problems of days gone by. The same political and religious differences which have caused a partition in our university educational system in Dublin have caused the geographical partition of our country. The religious differences are none of my business. They are matters for the ecclesiastical authorities to resolve in the spirit of the Ecumenical Council initiated by the late Pope John.
In the secular field, some efforts, in the interests of efficiency and economy, should be made to secure a closer integration of the two great universities in this city. I believe there will be difficulties in regard to vested interests which have grown up there, just as they have grown up around the Border. However, if we in the secular field have so far, in good measure, failed to break down the education partition in our capital city, what hope have we of breaking-down the Partition between the Six and the Twenty-Six Counties. This is a problem to which the Minister and the Government might address themselves and let the world see that we can secure in our capital city and at university level a degree of federation, integration, call it what you will. If we are able to do that at university level, it will be a good omen for the future in regard to what we may be able to do ultimately in the field of Partition.
That was in 1964 and it was subsequent to that that the late Deputy O'Malley, as Minister for Education, announced the merger of the two universities here. There has been a strange silence about this problem since then and in the meantime there has been considerable structural expansion of UCD at Belfield and now there is a proposal to extend Trinity College. I should like to hear from the Minister whether this matter is still a viable project, whether integration is still Government policy. I believe his predecessor not so long ago said it was still Government policy. It was a strange hiatus in his speech here that he should pass over this subject without mention. In replying, perhaps he would tell us if the matter has been referred to some committee: that is the usual procedure when faced with a difficult problem—refer it to some board or interdepartmental committee or Dáil sub-committee.
This project was first mentioned by me in 1964. I do not know how long after that it was undertaken in a formal way by the late Deputy O'Malley, but surely by now we should have clarified our ideas on the problem and should at least be able to signpost the particular difficulties. Have the vested interests proved too difficult for the Minister? When I mentioned this it was perhaps a matter of greater importance than it is now in that at that time there was a religious objection to the public entering Trinity College. This objection, as far as I know, has since been removed and in effect that probably did secure a degree of enrolment integration at least. I should like to know if a formal fusion of the two universities is still policy. If not, what has been done to secure a functional integration with greater effciency and economies as a result?
I should like to draw attention to the sports grant. The Parliamentary Secretary dealt at length with school transport and the question of the development of sports and the expenditure of the sports grant. The matter has particular interest for me not so much in the field of sport which has been dealt with at length by both the Minister and other speakers but in regard to finance. This is one of our grant-in-aid expenditures. The magic figure of £100,000 was given to the Minister not only as a grant-in-aid but an open-ended grant-in-aid where the recipients were not named. Grants-in-aid in general are not a matter for debate now but I mention in passing that of our total voted expenditure, 14 per cent is in the form of grants-in-aid. In respect of the civil voted expenditure in the UK the proportion is 3.3 per cent. There is an emphasis here that should be examined and questioned in the light of the high proportion of expenditure on grants-in-aid.
I mention this because I am not aware whether any detailed return has been made as to how this grant-in-aid was spent. For example, has the Minister placed in the Library of the House a list of the recipients of this grants-in-aid and the amount given to each body? The recipients are unnamed and I presume there is no obligation on the Minister to give details of the expenditure but in the interests of good public relations he might deem it advisable to do so, just as Bord Fáilte did recently. In the present atmosphere this might be desirable. I do not expect the Minister to give a long list in his speech to the House but if he made the information available to Deputies by placing it on the Table of the House so that Members could see it in the Library I think he would meet in substance the wishes of the majority of the Members.
I might also mention the question of the movement of the Department of Education to Athlone. The matter of decentralisation of Departments has been again at the talking stage for a considerable period. By way of letter to the Public Accounts Committee on 21st May, 1970, one accounting officer gave information, as published in the last Public Accounts report, to the effect that development sketch plans for new offices both at Castlebar and Athlone were proceeding and that it was expected that documents for tendering would be available within 12 to 18 months, assuming that no changes in planning were necessary. Those 18 months have now passed and parliamentary questions on this matter have been tabled on different occasions and, as usual, the replies to them have not been very informative. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if the Government intend pursuing this policy of decentralisation and what steps are being taken to implement it; also, how soon the transfers will take place. I do not expect the Minister to answer for the Department of Lands but he should be able to tell us what is the position regarding his own Department—how far planning has progressed, what percentage of the Department it is intended to transfer and what modicum, if any, of higher officials it is intended to retain in Dublin. There is a general suspicion that all this is airy-fairy and, like the draining of the Shannon, is something put forward at election time to bring solace to the people of the West and then to be forgotten as soon as the Minister and his entourage return to town.
Personally, I could not care one way or the other but I would like to see the Minister upholding promises that have been made and letting us know what is Government thinking on this whole matter.
I must deal now with the very vexed question of community schools, a matter that has been dealt with extensively during the debate and which also has been the subject of much public comment. In so far as this policy affects my own constituency to a fairly substantial degree, I consider it my duty to refer to it here. Let me say at the outset that the concept of post-primary community education is a very sound one. In a country where educational and financial resources must be of necessity be limited it is only logical to try to devise some rationalisation of our educational system so as to secure the greatest benefit for the greatest number of our children.
Having said that I take the Minister to task for the ham-handed way in which he dealt with this matter. I am not in a position to give a chronological summary of the day-to-day proceedings such as Deputy FitzGerald attempted to give—indeed, nobody knows exactly the full details of this entire business—but I understand that initially discussions were opened between the Minister's Department and the Catholic bishops. Apparently, these discussions were not of a very open nature. There was nothing wrong with that. One must accept without reservation the interest which the Catholic Hierarchy rightly have and should have in education here at all levels. However, it was not for some considerable time later that the Protestant bishops became aware of these discussions. I do not know whether there were any leakages as to what was in the pipeline but it did appear that the Protestant bishops were presented with a fait accompli.
The plan arrived at was the amalgamation of local post-primary schools, vocational and religious, in certain areas to form community schools the ownership of which was to be given over to the Catholic bishops. The rights of religious bodies to their property was ignored. The authority of the bishops was regarded, presumably, as sufficient to supersede this. The rights of local authorities and vocational bodies in respect of vocational schools was ignored also. Again, the Minister, presumably, regarded his personal wish and authority as sufficient to supersede this right. The local community rights or interests in both types of property was ignored, presumably, the Government position was regarded as sufficient to supersede this. The rights of parents in respect of the teaching of their children was ignored to a great extent. The State, presumably, regarded itself as superseding this. Finally, the rights of teachers were ignored because, for the most part, they were not consulted.
The Minister had statutory machinery available to him in dealing with vocational schools. Financial sanctions were to hand so far as he was concerned in respect of the religious communities. Against this background and with the trump card in his hand of whatever consultations he had with the Cardinal, he proceded to give out the plan. The plan was a simple one. The campaign was launched by the despatch of a couple of well-briefed officers from his Department to five or six different centres throughout the country.
This plan, and the decision to put it into operation, was essentially political. The decision was taken by the political head of the Department and the kiteflying was entrusted to the unfortunate civil servants. Had there been in this exercise the promise of a triumphal tour no doubt the Minister would himself have headed the procession; Fianna Fáil have never been slow in posturing and presenting themselves for the plaudits of the populace. Had it appeared that the exercise would be even moderately successful, no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary would have been entrusted with this task. In the event, even poor Deputy Joe Dowling was not asked to go.
The campaign was a fiasco. As a public relations operation, if by any stretch of the imagination it could be either regarded as such or described as such, it was both precipitate and illtimed. Politically, in terms of North/ South relations and in terms of Irish unity it was disastrous, perhaps intentionally so. I have for long regarded the intentions of Fianna Fáil in respect of Irish unity as Machiavellian. The irony of the whole situation is that the concept itself was basically sound. The minority population in Southern Ireland were grieviously affronted. The Protestant religious leaders, who would be expected to have, and who did have, an interest in post-primary education were not properly consulted. At least, they did not receive a consultation invitation at the outset, as they were entitled to do.
The Protestant minority can never be described as a factious people. They are good citizens, hard working, industrious, honest. In this instance, however, there was both pastoral and lay objection from that community, and very properly so. The way the Minister handled this whole situation cannot be too highly condemned. "Cherish all the children of the nation equally" how-are-you! Letters from protesting citizens filled our newspapers and have done so for months past. I shall quote now a report in The Irish Times of 29th February, of a meeting in St. Patrick's College the night before:
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS— THE CRUX
Dr. Roy Johnston, speaking "as a scientist and a minority parent," told a meeting on community schools in St. Patrick's College last night that the political problems of the ownership and control of the new system were not insoluble, but that the main obstacle was the insistence by the Department on dealing with the Hierarchy.
He added, according to a supplied script:
"The way in which the community schools are structured is of crucial importance to the religious minorities outside the cities. This is their opportunity to really join and participate in the community as Irishmen and women.
"Protestants who look for boarding grants or transport subsidies are seeking to build a ghetto for themselves. They should instead stand up and insist on their right to participate in the community school structure.
"No one has asked the rural Protestants what they really want, nor explained the options to them. It is simply not true to say that they want segregated education, in the abstract. Governing boards of élite fee-paying schools are asserting this without evidence.
"Those who assert that denomininational education is desirable should explain how the luxury is to be paid for. Are the Roman Catholics who favour denominational education prepared to pay for their Protestant neighbours to go to boarding-school? Are the Protestants who demand segregated education on a free basis not asking their Roman Catholic neighbours to subsidise them?
"The main subjective obstacle to full Protestant community participation is the Ne Temere decree. Is it too much to ask that this be waived, forgotten, or quickly overlooked, and a gentleman's agreement worked out in the interests of equality and mutual respect? Could not the fact that it has no standing in State law be extended, by a few tolerant words from the Church authorities, to the domain of social custom?"
The first part of that excerpt deals with the difficulty the attitude of the Minister has created. There have been dozens and dozens of letters in similar vein in The Irish Times and the other newspapers, all expressing the reaction against the Minister, this Minister who, in clumsy, dictatorial fashion, has shown his incompetence and his total lack of even the fundamentals of public relations.
It is difficult to find out how many friends the Minister made as a result of this exercise. Perhaps he made some. He certainly made many enemies. The religious orders, the teachers, both lay and clerical, the parents and the Opposition here have all tried to make the Minister see sense. The threat of phasing out was held over certain schools. The threat of "No amalgamation, no money," was hurled at the religious orders. Alleged recalcitrance was used by the Minister as a pretext for withholding money, money which, if the truth were told, he did not possess, money which a crumbling economy resulting from Government mismanagement the Minister could not provide. Teachers and parents were, and still are, in a state of turmoil because the Minister, by his conduct, has brought about educational chaos.
With regard to our relations with our Northern fellow-Irishmen one can hardly imagine a worse or more illtimed performance. Deputy FitzGerald in this House last week described his meeting with a mixed audience in Northern Ireland. He described the general condemnation there by that audience of this particular affair and he mentioned that objections came from Catholic clergymen in that audience; these were men who had come face to face with sectarian bigotry and its catastrophic consequences. We can all recall the BBC programme on the community school affair.
I find it hard to reconcile this Minister's behaviour with the gentle words of peace, charity and goodwill coming from his leader, the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch. I find it also hard to reconcile the conduct of the entire Fianna Fáil Party with those words. I wish to quote a leading article entitled "Grasping Nettles" which appeared in Hibernia of February 18th last, in which these difficulties are outlined. The article quotes from the Taoiseach's Presidential Address at the 1971 Ard-Fheis:
I said in Dáil Éireann on 28th July, 1970, "In so far as there are Constitutional difficulties which are legitimately seen by people to be infringements of their civil rights, then their views are worthy of intensive examination and we should try to accommodate them in our Constitution and in our laws." I repeat that now. The Constitution of a united Ireland requires to be a document in which no element of sectarianism, even unconscious or unintended, should occur.
Those are lovely words. I find it hard to reconcile that paragraph from the Taoiseach's speech to the nation at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis in 1971 with the behaviour here of his Minister in respect of community schools. I find it equally hard to reconcile that speech with the behaviour of the Government in respect of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill which was tabled by Senators Robinson, Horgan and West in the Seanad and of which they were denied a First Reading. I also find it hard to reconcile it with a similar Bill introduced in the Dáil recently in the names of Deputies Dr. Browne and O'Connell which met with a similar fate.
We have the Minister for Education making his contribution to a united Ireland. United Ireland how are you! I believe that, in spite of all protests from parents, teachers, some members of religious orders, Protestant ecclesiastics and the public generally the Minister was determined to persist doggedly in his pernicious ambition to force this global scheme upon the community. I am pretty confident in my belief that his change of attitude in no small part arises from the opposition provided in this House, and I pay equal thanks to Fine Gael and Labour for providing that opposition. This House and the country owe a debt of gratitude to Deputy FitzGerald who almost caught this Minister by the scruff of his sectarian neck and hauled him forth into the full gaze of public opinion.
The vocational system was set up by Fine Gael. It is perhaps the only nondenominational system at post-primary level that we possess. For many years it was regarded as nothing more than the poor relation, the poor boy's secondary school. In recent years it has been upgraded and now it is being given full post-primary status, and the pupils of these schools can proceed to leaving certificate and higher education. This is a very desirable development, and here let me express my gratitude to the Minister for whatever contribution he may have made to that development.
Recently Cardinal Conway announced that he had no interest in the ownership of these vocational schools and that the bishops in general had no such interest. He has gone further and expressed his regret for not speaking out sooner on this matter. Some time after this announcement, indeed, very recently, the Minister announced a new deal, and it appears that under this new arrangement the control of these schools will lie largely with the Minister for Education. It is too early as yet to comment on this new deal. All we can hope is that the Minister will produce a new pack and deal a clean hand.
I wish to address myself to the same matter at local level. As I mentioned earlier, there have been repercussions in my constituency to the Minister's community escapade. This has happened in Cashel. Now an effort is being made by the Christian Brothers school and the convent school to go it alone. At present there is considerable agitation in respect of the Loreto Convent in Clonmel. My postbag is filled with letters from outraged parents from Clonmel. I could spend two or three hours here reading these letters, but I wish to spare the Minister's blushes and I do not want to be the cause of some civil action arising later on. I daresay we are at the peak of an emotional storm in this regard, but the parents certainly regard their rights as being infringed by the Minister and his Department. The story of Loreto Convent is again a story of bad public relations and gross mismanagement.
An agreement was arrived at in Clonmel that the convent would close its primary school and it was given ten years to develop its post-primary school to meet the departmental requirements and prove its viability in the secondary sector of education. I understand an arbitrary figure of 400 pupils was mentioned. Now the impression has been created that this agreement is not to be honoured and that the school there will be phased out. The parents feel their interests have not been properly considered and that they are being by-passed.
The sister in charge took a very reasonable attitude in this affair. Her attitude was that if the parents want her to continue her school and if a majority of them feel that she and her fellow teachers are providing a worthwhile service for them she will endeavour to provide that service. The parents were overwhelmingly in favour of the continuation of the school. If the Minister does not believe me he can arrange for a public opinion poll to be taken among the parents and he will find that they want the school to continue. The nun in charge recognises that the arguments put up by the Department have some force. She recognises that to provide a broad spectrum of education in a modern world one requires a basic school population. I understand the view of the Department is that they would like a minimum number of 400 and in a bigger centre they would like a larger number.
There are two ways to go about a community school: the ham-fisted way adopted by the Minister with his secret behind-closed-doors-negotiations, or the open method of approach in which the idea is properly presented to the people concerned and a degree of co-operation sought and secured. The Minister adopted a sectarian approach to the bishops at central level and a dictatorial approach to the parents, teachers and religious at local level. The Minister, in his entire handling of the situation, has made a joke of the pious pronouncements of 1971 from the bull ring at Ballsbridge. Are pupils and teachers so immobile that where a structural integration cannot be secured, or where there are financial or administrative difficulties, a degree of functional integration could not be secured in the first instance?
In Clonmel there are two convents, a Christian Brothers school and a vocational school. In a subject requiring special equipment and specialised teaching, such as the teaching of science, chemistry or physics, is it necessary to have all the pupils under one roof to get the advantages of functional integration? If one science laboratory was provided in Clonmel would there be any insurmountable difficulty whereby the pupils of the other schools could not attend at the classes given there? Could not this form of mobility of pupils and teachers be extended to other areas? As a first step towards community thinking in regard to pupils would this not be a good exercise in developing co-operation and understanding among the people in regard to what the Department are aiming at?
Deputy Treacy asked in this House yesterday if the Minister would meet the parents or representatives of the parents in respect of the school at Clonmel. Did the Minister say he would meet them? He did not. He said an official of his Department would meet them. Surely this is of sufficient importance to a Minister who has already made a hoax of this affair to appear in person and in some way explain the matter to the unfortunate parents who at present feel outraged? I suggest that he should re-arrange his thinking in this entire matter, that he should endeavour to approach this by open, revolutionary methods and not by the approach which he has adopted up to this. If he does that I believe he will have the full support of every Deputy on this side of the House. I believe he will have the full support of every rightthinking citizen if he can establish that he has clean hands and that he means to conduct this matter in an open and honourable fashion.
Before I conclude I wish to raise one matter. It deals with a scholarship application by the son of a small farmer in south Tipperary. It involved a higher education grant and I understand that the last day for securing this grant was 1st September. Representations have been made to the Minister about this. On 4th October he acknowledged representations from Deputy Treacy and on 11th October he communicated his refusal to Deputy Treacy who had asked him to vary the regulations governing this grant.
I understand that this student made application in the Tipperary (South Riding) County Council office on 1st September, the last day for the application. I have a notion that he was one day late, but I am not certain. All I know is that he was late. I agree there must be a deadline in these matters. Personally I should like to see a bit of leniency but I appreciate that in all such matters, if there is a final date and if you start breaking it you can never finalise it. On 15th October the Department informed the Tipperary South Riding County Council that the application for the grant had not been accepted and that that was the end of the matter as far as this person was concerned.
However, he received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Fahey. I will read this letter because this person—the Minister can have his name if he wants it—consulted Deputies Treacy and Fahey. He consulted Deputy Treacy after he had consulted Deputy Fahey. Personally I am on excellent relations with both Deputies and there is nothing personal, no animosity, in my raising it here. It is my duty to raise it because it gives a wrong slant to public administration. This letter from Deputy Fahey was issued from the Office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. It is as follows:
I have been making further inquiries about the grant. You will remember I got the matter more or less settled that day on the phone. However, I understand that when you left me another party intervened. The matter had then to be formally submitted to the Department for a decision and they ruled it had to be rejected on the grounds that it was late. I am sorry about this but I am sure you will appreciate that I did what I could and I feel that if things had been left as they were when you left me you would have been all right. Perhaps I can be of help in some other way in the near future.
The implication in this letter is that a citizen can go to a member of the Minister's party, make representations to that member and if he stays with that member he may get his problem resolved, but if he happens to make representations to another Deputy his position is vitiated.
I am giving the Minister an opportunity to say to the House that as far as he and his officials are concerned equal consideration will be given to all Deputies irrespective of whether they belong to the Government party or to the Opposition parties, whether they make representations in writing or on the telephone and whether the representations are likely to be a matter of public record or not. If such a letter with such a slant is written by a responsible Deputy then that Deputy can blame only himself if he brings contumely on his head. The Minister is now free to comment and he can leave himself open to the thought or even to the conclusion that he is part and parcel of this type of approach. I do not ask him to rebuke the Deputy concerned but he can repudiate the implication if he wishes. That is all I have to say.
