I move in sub-section (1) to delete in lines 36-37 the words "in the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork." This section provides that for the purposes of the Act, technical education "includes education in science and art (including, in the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork, music)." These words "in the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork, music" were inserted as an amendment in the Dáil, having regard to the representations made affecting the present curriculum of the schools there which are interested in music. But it seems to me to be an unwise limitation in definition to confine music as one of the subjects that may be brought within the scheme of the two county boroughs of Dublin and Cork. If music should be part of the scheme or if it should be allowed to be part of the scheme of technical education, I think the privilege should not be confined to county boroughs. I therefore move to delete these limiting words.
Public Business. - Vocational Education Bill, 1930—Committee Stage.
Perhaps I might throw some light on the history of the inclusion of these words in the section. They were introduced in the Dáil on the motion of Deputy Anthony. They would not have been introduced had there not been in existence two schools of music in Dublin and Cork. I might point out that, so far as continuation education is concerned, no limitation has been put in. But when considering the question as to whether you should have music not merely as a subject contained under this Bill, but as a technical subject, as a subject of professional school music, we thought it was on the whole wiser to exclude it from the definition of technical education. We considered there would be a wastage of effort if it were allowed to stand in the definition of technical education. I think that musical education under this Bill would be sufficiently catered for under Section 3, which deals with continuation education. The undesirability of scattering our resources and scattering our efforts was apparent to us. I should say that, were it not for the actual existence of these two schools in Dublin and Cork as distinct from the ordinary technical instruction schools, this definition would not be put in Section 4 A even limiting it to Dublin and Cork.
Does the Minister take into account that there are quite a considerable number of people earning their living by the playing of musical instruments, and probably as many are interested in the technical side of their art in respect of music as would be in other branches of art? I have no great anxiety in the matter, but it does seem to me to be undesirable that if we are to include music in any definition of possible schemes that that should be confined to the two county boroughs. I dare say it is right to say that the schemes in respect of any particular area may require sanction, and if the Minister sees that it is not appropriate to any particular area he will withdraw his sanction in respect of that branch. I really am unable to understand that there is any justice in saying that Waterford or Limerick should not be allowed to teach music as an art while Cork and Dublin may.
Professor O'Sullivan
They can do so under Section 3. If they had schools of music in existence in Limerick or Waterford, I would be in favour of including them. If there was not a school in existence in Dublin and Cork, I would not be in favour of applying this provision in these cities.
Can a school of music be set up in either Waterford or Limerick under the Bill?
Professor O'Sullivan
No.
They can teach music, but they cannot set up a separate school?
Professor O'Sullivan
Yes.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
Section 8, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words, "This sub-section shall apply to the County Borough of Dublin, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 1930."
This amendment was put down to remedy what I thought and suggested in the earlier stages was a contradiction between this Bill and the Local Government (Dublin) Bill. I think it should be deferred, because the Minister has an amendment down covering the point. I therefore shall move it later.
Professor O'Sullivan
I think it would be well if the Senator withdrew the amendment as this matter is dealt with later in amendment No. 30.
I move:—
Section 21. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section, as follows:—
(4) Special sub-committees under this section shall be appointed by the county vocational education committees within whose areas they are situated for the districts at present administered by the North Wicklow Joint Technical Instruction Committee and the Tipperary Joint Rural and Urban Technical Instruction Committee.
The amendment proposes to continue the existence of two Technical Education Committees which occupied an exceptional position under the old system and which, as everybody admits, have done exceedingly good work, but which under this Bill would be wiped out of existence altogether. In contrast to the general run of such committees, these two committees—the Tipperary Joint Rural and Urban Technical Instruction Committee and the North Wicklow Joint Technical Instruction Committee, having its centre in Bray — operate in what one might call mixed areas. That is to say, they are in a position to operate not alone in the urban districts, but also in portion of the rural territory. It is a rather curious arrangement, but it is one which I have been told has worked exceedingly well. I believe there is a universal opinion that it would be a pity to upset the arrangement if it could be preserved in uniformity with the general scheme of the Bill. That really is the difficulty. Take Tipperary, the case about which I am best informed. There the people have worked this scheme with great enthusiasm and great success. All the leading people have interested themselves actively in it. In fact, it has been almost a point of honour with them to join the committee and to help and assist it in every way possible. Its successes educationally have been great, but now that the area will be merged in the whole county, the local school will come under the county vocational committee which will have its headquarters probably in Clonmel. That county vocational committee will consist of about 20 members and Tipperary will have only two representatives amongst that 20. Efficiency is almost bound to suffer, to a large extent local enthusiasm will be discouraged and there will be no longer that pride in the committee that has existed up to this. The same remarks apply to Bray.
As I have already said, the difficulty is really an administrative one, and when it was before the Dáil the Minister promised to consider any suggestions that might be made to him with a view to obviating it. The proposal I have put down may possibly afford some solution. Section 21 gives power to the county vocational committee to appoint sub-committees to discharge any duties which in its opinion can be better or more conveniently exercised by a sub-committee. It is not clear on what basis these sub-committees will be formed. I can visualise such sub-committees looking after a particular branch of the work. There may be a sub-committee perhaps to look after agricultural education or some administrative branch. It is also possible, it seems to me, under this section, as it is now, to appoint regional sub-committees. That would be in cases like Bray area that local committees could be formed to carry on the work in somewhat the same way as it has been carried on heretofore. A somewhat similar amendment has been put down in the names of Senator Cummins and Senator O'Connor. That is really analogous to mine, except that the amendment goes into more detail than mine. I would probably be in favour of greater detail, but my amendment has been put forward with a view to getting a decision on the general idea of the question, and if you find it acceptable, then the details mentioned in the amendment of Senator Cummins and Senator O'Connor can be dealt with.
I think the amendment is governed by the first sub-section of the section. Vocational committees have perfect liberty to appoint any sub-committees they wish. I should imagine that if these committees about which Senator Hooper has spoken have done such extraordinarily good work the vocational committee will naturally reappoint them.
Professor O'Sullivan
There are, as Senator Hooper has stated, three amendments dealing with this matter. I do not say that they are the same amendments by any means, but I agree with him that they deal with the same subject. It might be better to discuss them all at once, though I want to be quite clear that they are three distinct amendments.
The first portion of the other amendment is almost similar to mine.
Professor O'Sullivan
The first portion of it is, but it is the portion which is not similar to the Senator's amendment which makes all the difference. The amendments deal with two almost amphibious bodies inasmuch as these bodies cater for an urban and a rural area, and to a certain extent the same problem would appear to be presented. I am quite willing to admit that they have done good work, and that there is something to be said for the local enthusiasm that you might get behind the purely local scheme. The amendment in the name of Senator Cummins and Senator O'Connor in practice really amounts to this: that for the purposes of this Bill we should set up two separate county councils for the Tipperary urban and rural districts, and for North Wicklow. I do not know what precisely the relations would be between, say, the sub-committees they are supposed to set up and the committees. If it were a full vocational committee in hardly any sense of the word would it be a sub-committee, because it does practically the whole thing autonomously, except that it receives money from the rate-striking authority, but the rate-striking authority has nothing to say in the matter. The proposer of the amendment suggested that there was at least some outward similarity between the case of Tipperary and the case of Bray. I should say that any proposal to make North Wicklow a separate area as proposed in the amendment, or to make Tipperary, urban and rural, a separate area, would cut across the whole scheme of the Bill and practically require almost a new Bill, as it would involve so many changes. There is this distinction between the two cases, that the Bray situation is capable of being solved in a different way within the framework of the Bill. I am afraid the Tipperary case is not capable of being solved in the same way as the Bray case is, in the direction of the amendment which is down in the name of Senator Johnson, that is, that we schedule not North Wicklow but the Urban District of Bray. Bray is such an important element in the scheme that knocking off the rural area will not interfere with the success of the Bray scheme.
In Tipperary the balance is altogether different. If you knock off from the Tipperary scheme the town of Tipperary, you could not schedule it separately. If you did that, you would have to schedule separately twenty other districts in the country as well. Senator Guinness quite rightly pointed out that as these committees have done good work in the past it is not to be assumed that the vocational education committee will immediately knock them on the head. If the Seanad is desirous of it, I am quite willing to bring up on Report an amendment to provide that the Minister shall have power, if he thinks fit, to insist on the appointment of a sub-committee in any district for any particular purpose. The amendment would be on these lines:
Section 21. In page 12, before sub-section (2) to insert two new sub-sections as follows:—
(2) The Minister may from time to time by order require a vocational education committee to appoint a sub-committee to exercise and perform in relation to any part of the vocational education area of such committee such specified powers, duties and functions of such committee as in the opinion of the Minister can be better or more conveniently exercised or performed by a sub-committee and whenever any such order is made and in force it shall be the duty of such committee to comply with the requirements thereof.
"(3) The Minister may, as and when he thinks fit, revoke an Order made by him under the foregoing sub-section and thereupon such Order shall cease to be in force."
If the Seanad wishes to adopt that amendment, I have no particular objection to it. In practice, I think it meets the case made by Senator Hooper. I am quite willing to accept the scheduling of Bray as an urban area. I met a deputation from Bray and they are satisfied with that.
Cathaoirleach
I would like to know from Senator Hooper if he would be prepared to move the amendment suggested by the Minister and withdraw his own.
Before asking the House for leave to withdraw my amendment, I wish to thank the Minister for the way in which he has met the case. I see now more clearly than before that there are serious administrative difficulties in the way. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has approached the matter and for the great consideration that he has given to it.
In view of the statement just made by the Minister I ask leave to withdraw the amendment in my name. The matter, as I understand it, will be dealt with on the Report Stage.
Before we leave this matter, will the Minister say whether, under his suggested amendment, there would be any new relationship between the Tipperary Committee and the County Committee in respect to the latter part of the amendment—that dealing with finance? There is the suggestion down in the amendment in the names of Senators Comyn and O'Connor that the moneys derived from the rates in the particular area will be applied to that area. I do not know whether there is very much involved in that, but I expect there is.
Professor O'Sullivan
I presume that when the scheme for the county comes up there will be general powers to see that the finances are fairly dealt with.
And that past experience will be taken into account?
Professor O'Sullivan
Yes.
I move amendment 5:—
Section 26, sub-section (1). To delete in line 29, and also in line 30, the figures and word "70 and 71" and to substitute therefor the word and figures "and 70" in both cases.
I referred to this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that all the members of the House know precisely what is meant by the amendment. Section 71 of the Local Government Act of 1925 involves what is nothing more or less than a political test or declaration. We feel that whatever justification there may have been for this section —and as I said when speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill we did not admit that there was any justification for it—the period that we are living in now makes it desirable that this imposition of what was and is a political test on prospective teachers should be eliminated entirely from the scope of the Bill. We know that men of the highest character will not sign when the political test imposed cuts directly across their political convictions. We should surely understand enough of the mentality of the people of this country to realise that political tests of this type do not serve any useful purpose. The mean type, the cowardly type, will sign, but the decent type, the man of character, will not sign.
I do not wish to argue the matter to any great extent. The arguments for the deletion of the section are all well known. I would remind the House that the Technical Congress, in session, decided that this section was reacting against technical education throughout the country for the simple reason that very desirable types of people, men of outstanding character, were liable to be debarred from teaching on the grounds that they would not sign. I think that is so, and that it is likely to continue so. We know that in the case of some of the technical schools some of their very ablest teachers, men of outstanding ability and character, have refused to sign. I suggest to the Seanad that the time has come when this absurd section should be removed, and I move accordingly.
Would the Senator tell us what declarations are required to be signed? Some of us do not know what they are.
Section 71 of the Local Government Act, 1925, provides: "I, the said .................. —then follows the name of the applicant or the person to be appointed—do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution as by law established, and that, in the event of such appointment being confirmed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I will, to the best of my judgment and ability, duly and faithfully perform the duties of the said office."
The objection to the declaration is that at the time it was imposed there were, and still are, people who will not sign a declaration of allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution. That was the position then, and it is so still. That political test which was demanded was deliberately aimed at people of a certain political outlook. To put the matter quite frankly, it was aimed at debarring republicans, or people with a republican outlook, from acting as technical instructors. It succeeded, and to some extent it still succeeds. I claim that the very best types of teachers were those who had character and honesty enough to refuse to sign this political test. Political tests belong to an age that we should have long since left. I do not know whether we have left it yet or not, but at all events I would like to think that we have. The argument is that the meaner and the poorer type of character will sign and that the better type will not sign. As I have said, this is debarring people with a republican outlook from acting as technical instructors throughout the country at the present time.
I rise to oppose the amendment. I think, if the Senator who proposed it wanted to have it passed, that he would have adopted a somewhat different attitude when putting it before the House. He read the declaration which he says is a political test. I say it is nothing of the kind. It says: "I.A.B., do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution as by law established." The Senator said that the mean and cowardly type would sign, and that the decent type would refuse to sign. I venture to think there are men of as high character in the service of the State as any of the high-brow dilettante politicians who refuse to sign it. This is not a political test. It is a necessary step to secure that the servants of the State, which exists with the sanction of the majority of its citizens, shall be faithful and loyal to the State. Senator Connolly said that the time had gone past for political tests. I say that the time has long gone past for raising these false issues. Either the members of this Assembly are here by virtue of their acceptance of this State and their desire to render service to uphold it, or they are using their positions within this Assembly, set up by the State, for the purpose of undermining and destroying the State.
Members of this Assembly have taken an even more drastic declaration than what we are now discussing. Surveying the party with which the proposer of this amendment is associated, I cannot see that the declaration which members of it are obliged to take has inflicted the slightest hardship on them. They do not seem to be suffering from any remorse of conscience because they have had to take that declaration. Therefore, I submit that we are entitled to secure that servants of the State shall, when they enter its service, bear not less loyal allegiance to it than the members of Seanad Eireann. I say this is not a political test. There is a certain outlook which cannot distinguish between the basic existence of the State and the particular interests of a political party. I take it that it is recognised that this State—Saorstát Eireann—is worthy of the support of the members of this Assembly—that it is the basis upon which the future of Ireland is to be built—and therefore that we are entitled to secure that those in the service of the State shall, in their work as servants of the State, do nothing that will endanger the continuance, stability or progress of the State. This declaration secures that, as far as it is possible for any statutory device to do so. To remove it now would open up possibilities that at the moment we do not desire to contemplate. Within the past few years, though this seems to have passed from the memory of some, we had painful experience of what occurred when safeguards against hidden attacks on the State were withdrawn. I do not think the time has come when we can leave ourselves open as a State to hidden attacks. For my part, in any case, I believe that the State is worthy of support. I believe it is not only desirable that those who enter into its service should be loyal and should be faithful to it, but it is essential that this Assembly and the Oireachtas in all its enactments, so far as they have any bearing upon this matter, should do all that in them lie to secure that such loyal service will be rendered to the State.
I support this amendment. When the Act in which this declaration was incorporated was passed enmities were very much more bitter than they are now. It certainly had the effect then of precluding men of strong and sterling conviction from taking service in this State. It was regarded, and is regarded, as a practical adherence to, and acceptance of, a political creed in the State which they do not hold. Senator Milroy stated that the State was representative of the majority of the people. Certainly, at the time when that declaration was passed, it was not representative of the majority of the people, and it would be well if Senator Milroy looked at the figures. We had two general elections in this country, and if the number of first preference votes cast for both the big political parties were added together they would not constitute half the electors——
Do they not constitute the majority of the recorded votes?
The statement was, and that is why I spoke upon it, that they constituted the majority of the people in the State. They did not— even both the big political parties put together. So it is as much a reflection upon one as upon the other, but they did not constitute a majority of the State at that time. Coming a little further down, we find that Senator Milroy was so disgruntled with the action of the Government that he resigned his seat as a Deputy——
I never deserted the State.
Men of strong and sterling conviction do hold the view that it is a political test. The circumstances are totally different now, and if we are out to secure the best teachers no political restrictions should be put upon them. If, in the discharge of a man's duty, he is found to be abusing his position for political purposes, let him be dealt with, but no general rule should be laid down for appointments which would rule out men of any political line of thought who were otherwise the best qualified.
I would like to say that I agree with what Senator Milroy has said. From my experience in the country I believe this test is still necessary. I should also like to say as a Peace Commissioner in the country that a number of teachers have made this declaration before me and I am certain that none of these men and women were of a mean or cowardly type. I know they were all very successful as teachers.
I have opposed this test from the very beginning and shall continue to oppose it. I oppose it because I think it is absurd and ridiculous to make a test as to political views for people who are teachers. If there were tests for people in the Army or people in the police it would be quite a different matter. But to have a test as to whether a particularly good teacher agrees with a certain Constitution is perfectly ridiculous. To start with, this Constitution has been changed. Which Constitution are they pledged to agree with? The old Constitution or the new one, or the one that is to succeed it in a little time?
The Constitution by law established.
Supposing another party comes in and tears up this Constitution and forces everybody who does not agree with them to clear out or to vote for this change, what is to happen? If they will not sign the document then in force are they to be dismissed? If they are bound by their pledges and oaths I suppose they would all resign, but if not, I suppose they will not care very much what they sign. The fact is that we do not realise in this country that pledges are perfectly useless. People who take pledges one day break them in a little time after. And they break them very often because they have to break them, because circumstances have changed. Practically every few years matters change. I could name twenty such in which people have broken their pledges, and rightly broken them because the circumstances were totally altered, and they were honest men and good patriots. They had either to do something bad for the country or break their pledges. They found it better to break their pledges than injure their country. That has happened in the last hundred years several times, and will again, because the people are foolish enough to take political pledges and oaths in this way.
Senator Milroy complains that Senator Connolly said that people who were dishonest would sign the pledge—Senator Connolly did not mean that people who believed in the Constitution and believed in the pledge would be unworthy because they signed it; he meant some of those people who objected, but yet being soft would agree to sign what they did not think was right. That is what I think was meant. He meant that amongst those people there were certain stout, determined people who would not sign a pledge they did not believe in, whether it was useful to them or not. Anyway the time has passed for these pledges; they are ridiculous. To make a person sign a political pledge because he is going to get an appointment as a teacher is a ludicrous absurdity. We used to complain of tyranny when the British were here, but they never went so far as that. It is only this Government which says it represents the Irish people that brings in these tests. It is an example of their sense of justice and fair play. They drive out honest men because they will not put their names to certain pledges.
I would have expected that the Minister, with his gradh mo chroidhe so characteristic of our Province of Munster, would have accepted the amendment, and said: “Well, in the matter of technical education, what have politics to do with it? Why should there be any tests? I will accept the amendment, as retaining the test would be likely to interfere with technical education. In no circumstances is a political test a good thing, and I will agree with Senator Connolly.” That is what I would expect from the Minister, who comes from Minister, where we regard those political tests with the most supreme contempt. I am in favour of this amendment, because I am opposed to all political tests and oaths. When warriors go to battle they fight. When the fight is over no true warrior ever attempts to humiliate the man whom, for the moment, he has defeated. No true warrior will accept any declaration that implies defeat. There are other people who are not warriors, except with their tongues. There are a lot of gentlemen who had a lot to say when the fight was over, but very little to say when the fight was on. I am more ready to hold out my hand to the man who stood against us than I am to the hero who talked when the fight was over. I say in regard to this declaration that I support Senator Connolly's amendment, because I think it is wise at the present moment to put an end to all these political tests which have the tendency to cause division and dissension amongst Irishmen. I saw the other day what was advertised to be a joke. It was this:—There was a little boy with a drum, and he was hitting the drum as no Orangeman ever hit one. He said to another little boy, “I think your uncle does not like me hitting this drum.”“Why so?” asked the other little boy. “Well,” said he, for this reason; he gave me a knife and he asked me to find out what was inside the drum.” That is the spirit that I would like to see adopted in the Seanad. Take the head out of the drum, and let there be no more walloping of the drum, no more political tests of any kind in the future. Undoubtedly this measure is intended for the benefit of the people of Ireland. If it is to be of the utmost benefit to the people let every teacher who has ability be allowed to follow his occupation without any political test of any kind. What Senator Connolly said was wise and statesmanlike. I think that what he said was misrepresented by my friend Senator Milroy. What Senator Connolly said was that there were some people who would willingly make a declaration, that there are others who would not willingly make a declaration, and that of those who would not willingly make it some of them would be mean enough to make it for the sake of a job, while there would be others, decent fellows, who would not make it for the sake of a job. I believe that Senator Milroy has misunderstood what Senator Connolly said. I was very glad to hear Senator Milroy's refutation here to-day. On one occasion, he resigned from public life, at a great sacrifice to himself, and at a great loss to the country, on a question of this kind.
I challenge that. The Senator said I resigned from public life on a principle like this. I did nothing of the kind.
I am sorry that we are likely to enter into another discussion which might be as long or much longer than the discussion now going on. If I said anything with which Senator Milroy disagrees, of course, he has greater information on the subject than I have. All I say is that I like to have good feeling in this Assembly, and I wish the members to consider first of all the good of the country. I submit that it is not for the good of the country that any competent person should be excluded from any office because of any political test of any description, whether oath or declaration.
As one who belongs to no party, and whose political opinions are fairly well known, I would like to say that I cannot see why any political test should be put into this or into any Bill. I was very much struck by what Senator Connolly said, and I will vote for the amendment.
Senators in the Labour Party were opposed to this test from the beginning, and have consistently opposed it on every occasion that an opportunity has arisen. We are opposed to it principally on the ground that there is no utility either moral or material attached, to it. It could be argued that it is not a political test, to the extent that it merely declares allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution as by law established, but one can do that irrespective of political affiliation. The latter part which might be considered of utility, says: "I will to the best of my judgment and ability duly and faithfully perform the duties of the said office, and will observe and obey such orders and directions in relation to such duties as shall lawfully be given to me." Was there ever such an absurdity as to make any workman or employee make a solemn declaration that he would perform his duties to the best of his ability? Is any man going to be made a better employee by making a declaration of that kind? Is it not the first principle of work, and of the relationship between man and man, that an employee shall perform all the duties of the post to which he is appointed? If he does not do that he can get the sack just as a person can get it under this Bill. I do not know what was the object in putting in that particular part in the declaration. I think it is really a scream to have this declaration upon the statute book at all.
Some of the absurdities of it will be gleaned from the fact that a person who was in the employment before this provision came into operation is not asked to make the declaration, but if he was due an increase of salary since then, he has to make it. Is not that an absurdity in itself? I do not know what the international consequences would be, but I wonder what the position would be if some returned person, who had become a citizen of the United States, wanted a job as a school teacher. He would have to make a declaration solemnly and sincerely declaring that he would bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution as by law established. He would have to take that if he were a joiner, a carpenter, a stone mason or in any occupation of that kind provided he was employed by the State. Under these circumstances, I think no good purpose could be served by retaining such a section.
As has been said, people who want to act contrary to the spirit of it will, I regret to say, in the majority of cases, act in that way in any case. We have seen people glorified for having broken more solemn oaths than this, because it was said they broke them for patriotic purposes, and there is no difficulty at all in people persuading themselves, even under present conditions, that the object for which they broke them was particularly patriotic and that thereby they were justified in breaking them. This provision has not even the saving grace of preventing people from doing something they might otherwise do, or of making them do something they would not do. It will have no binding effect, and, as a consequence, it is not going to make employees do their work any better. It is an absurdity and has been so from the beginning, and I appeal to the Minister to say that the time has arrived when make-believe of this kind is not necessary to maintain the dignity of the State or of its Constitution. A State which can only be maintained by declarations of this kind is not established on sound principles. I believe that the State is sufficiently established to stand up to all its enemies, whether internal or external, without being bolstered up by such a rickety construction as is contained in the declaration.
Professor O'Sullivan
It is quite clear from what was said about political tests that Senator Dowdall and Senator Comyn misunderstood Senator Milroy. Apparently they consider their loyalty or allegiance to the State is loyalty to one particular party in it. That is the only way in which a reference to Senator Milroy in resigning some years ago had any relevancy to this particular debate. Whatever justification there was for it at one time there is none now.
Reference was then made to the enmities there were at one time. It is not a question of enmities of one kind or another. Whatever justification there was for this declaration, if there was justification for it three or four years ago when it was first inserted in the Local Government Act of 1925, if there is also a foundation for many of the speeches that were made here to-day, and that are made through the country, there is still more justification for this declaration at present. We ought to be clear on the fact that the people of this country ought not to be slow in professing their allegiance to the State, of which this House and the other House are part, and to which they owe allegiance. Reference was made by Senator Milroy to Senator Connolly's statement that men of high character would not make the declaration. I do not know if I am using Senator Connolly's exact words, that mean and poor-spirited men would make it. It was pointed out by Senator Comyn that that was really a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Milroy. That would really imply that only a particular type amongst the republicans would make it.
There are no such ones.
Professor O'Sullivan
If that is the argument does not the description apply a fortiori to those who made a much stronger declaration? However, that is a matter I will not go into further. I think that is a wrong way to deal with the matter. This, or a similar declaration, is exacted from all civil servants, and it is also exacted in the case of local officials. In the case of those who draw State pay, whether they are directly or indirectly in the employment of the State, it is only reasonable that they should be ready to express their allegiance to the State. Why we should take this particular class of employees and make an exception of them as against any other class of employees who have to make that declaration, I cannot see. I ask the Seanad to reject the amendment.
I would like to reply to some of the criticisms of the amendment. The Minister in his reply apparently overlooks the very distinct line of cleavage that took place in this country on the question of the Constitution. I am not going to rake up the whole history of the question of pro-Treaty and anti-Treaty. I have an æsthetic opposition to post-mortems of that kind. We all, or at least some of us, know that it is quite reasonable to understand that the Minister in the old days was not so fully conversant with national sentiment and opinion as some of us who were involved in the movement, but he does at least know that the line of cleavage was very acute and that certain things developed in this country as a result of a Constitution being imposed on this country, not by the dictation of our Constitutional Committee, but by the Constitution being planted on this country at the dictation of an external enemy.
We know that this Constitution having been thus imposed, and realising as we must the political and national position then existing, that Constitution was used as a political test in 1925, and from what the Minister says, it is still going to be used as such. Senator Milroy has spoken of the Free State Constitution as being the basis of the future Ireland. That is as it may be. None of us knows what the basis of future Ireland is to be—politically, economically or otherwise.
The Constitution has been considerably amended since it was brought in, and may be considerably amended in the near future, and we sincerely hope so, so that to talk of the basis of a future Ireland is, to my mind, to evade the whole point. I do not know what he was referring to when he spoke of hidden attacks on the State. Probably Senator Milroy knows more about that than I do, but there is one point that I want to make: when any of us employ men, as Senator O'Farrell said, to do a job, it is our business to see that they do the job. If we are going to pay them, it is up to us to see that, and similarly it is for those who are responsible for the State employees to see that they do the work of the State. I suggest it would be equally fair to apply a religious test to an individual working for the State as to apply a political one. These are matters of conscience. Different people have different reactions to problems of this kind. I suggest that nothing has been said here which reduces my argument, or minimises it in any way, that is that people of sterling character and conscience have been debarred from employment in teaching in this country because of this political test. I think that is not desirable. We do not want to insinuate for a moment that there were not people who signed this test and who believed heartily in it, men of ability, character and integrity, but we do say there were others who would not sign, that there were others who did not believe in the imposition of this test, and did sign owing to the force of economic circumstances, and all sorts of reasons, but we do say that it is not effective, and does not serve its purpose.
With regard to Senator O'Farrell's point, I think he realises, as I and most of us do, that the latter part of the declaration with regard to the fulfilling of duties is merely trimming added to gild the test in the first section of the Act of 1925. I say again that there is no reason for the maintenance of this provision, and, as I said before, the time is past when such tests are either desirable or effective. I confidently recommend the amendment as one that should be passed by this House. The Minister may argue that this is picking out one particular branch of the service. My reply is, it is the only branch we have at the moment to deal with. As other Bills come before us we will try and see that such sections as this will be eliminated from the public services altogether. That is the most we can do in the circumstances, unless the Minister or some other member of the Executive is prepared to come here and have an amending Bill which will alter this phase of the Constitution, as in a similar way other alterations have been already effected.
Tá
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- William Cummins.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Michael Duffy.
- Thomas Farren.
- Thomas Foran.
- Major-General Sir William Hickie.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- Colonel Moore.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Séumas Robinson.
Níl
- Sir Edward Bellingham.
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- R.A. Butler.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Michael Fanning.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- P.J. Hooper.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
- James MacKean.
- John MacLoughlin.
- Seán Milroy.
- James Moran.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- M.F. O'Hanlon.
- Dr. William O'Sullivan.
- James J. Parkinson.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
In view of the vote that has been taken, and as my next amendment, No. 26, is consequential, I beg by leave of the House to withdraw it.
I move:—Section 111, sub-section (2), after the word "teachers" in line 27 to insert the words "or officers." It seems to me there is an omission in the sub-section for it is hardly likely, I think, that the Minister would take power to remove an officer only on condition that an inquiry had been held, and yet would remove another servant without inquiry.
Professor O'Sullivan
I have no objection to the amendment if the Seanad will accept it.
I move:—Section 31. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) In the event of no such scheme being submitted or in the event of such scheme as may be submitted not meeting with his approval, the Minister may cause to be prepared schemes for continuation education and vocational education and it shall be the duty of the vocational education committee to have such schemes carried out in their area.
This amendment was put down to enable the Minister to act where, first, no satisfactory scheme is submitted to him; and, secondly, where a scheme that is not satisfactory is submitted to his Department. Section 31 states that:
"Every vocational education committee may, and if so required by the Minister shall, from time to time prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme setting forth the general policy of such committee in relation to continuation education and technical education respectively and showing the mode in which it proposes, in pursuance of such policy, to exercise and perform its powers and duties under this Act."
If it is quite obvious from this section that the Minister is to sanction a scheme, it does not seem to me to provide for the position that might arise if no such scheme were submitted; and, secondly, it does not, as it stands at the moment, give the Minister's Department the privilege or the right to submit the various schemes or any scheme which might be suitable for the area. The main purpose behind this is that the Minister's Department might be insured at all times of having a direct line of action in guiding the schemes that will be approved for a particular area. As I said on the Second Stage of this Bill, I am not satisfied that the county council committee are likely to prepare schemes, sufficiently thought-out schemes, that will aim at anything but the purely materialistic schemes of the area. It is for that reason that I think the Department should have power to formulate alternative schemes suitable for the various areas. It might be argued that this Bill is more cultural than technical. I would argue that we would stand a better chance of getting decent educational schemes provided by the Education Department than by the committees provided for in the Bill. This amendment provides where no scheme is submitted, or where such scheme as may be submitted does not meet with his approval, that the Minister may cause to be prepared schemes for continuation education.
I would ask the House to hesitate before it accepts the attitude and the outlook which this amendment suggests. This amendment is not one that meets the needs of the people, and it is entirely contrary to the true democratic spirit. If you elect these people to do a job, why is there this sort of inferiority behind it? There is that suggestion of inferiority in the case of people elected by the local bodies. Why does not that suggestion of inferiority apply to the central body? This House has not been directly elected, but the principle applies. Why is there this suggestion of inferiority? Why should not the same thing apply to the central body because it is perfectly logical? I say the whole basis of this is local representation. I do hope that the House is not going to apply the principle of high falutin to this matter. The only proper progress is by evolution. Let them go slowly and evolve. Let them go through evolution, and not through a sort of spurious condition by coercion.
My experience of local government makes me agree with almost every word that Senator Connolly has said on this amendment. I do think that unless the Minister has taken the powers indicated in Senator Connolly's amendment somewhere else in the Bill he would be very wise to accept the amendment. Quite easily, for reasons which I need not elaborate at the moment, circumstances may arise when a county council may refuse to carry out the terms of this Bill, and it is then that the powers given in this amendment would be useful.
I was very glad indeed to hear Senator Sir John Keane expressing his conversion to the spirit of true democracy. In fact, I did expect for a long time that he would eventually turn to the true democratic spirit, but in regard to this amendment the Senator is probably not quite right. I will explain my reason. I think that the amendment down in the name of Senator Connolly will make this Bill a more perfect machine. If you read the section you will see that it deals only with certain cases there—with annual schemes.
Professor O'Sullivan
This section has got nothing to do with annual schemes. It does not deal with the working of the schemes.
Is not Section 31 a section dealing with the working of the schemes—with the general scheme?
Professor O'Sullivan
I will explain that in a moment. This really is an effort to find out what the policy of the committee is. That is the object of this section. There is no good in my pointing out what the policy of the committee is, and telling them what their policy is. I want the general development policy of the committee for a number of years. It is no use for me to say: "That is a wrong policy." So far as the working of the scheme is concerned, Senators will find in Section 44 that the Minister may interfere there. I think that this is really what I want in the scheme—a declaration, not my declaration, but a declaration from the county committee as to what is their general outlook over a number of years. A great deal of what Senator Connolly aimed at is provided for in Section 44 which deals with the working of the scheme. There is no question of my disapproving of these general schemes.
Does the Minister, under Section 44, take the power to formulate a scheme himself in case the committee refuses to formulate a scheme?
Professor O'Sullivan
The Minister may, in respect of every scheme submitted, either approve or disapprove of a scheme, or approve of a scheme with such modifications as he shall think fit.
But that does not give the Minister power himself to formulate a scheme. I want to submit to the House what is in my mind in this matter. The Minister is entitled, as far as he can, to find out what the policy of the various committees is in respect of technical education, but there may be cases where the Minister may come up against a snag, and he may come up against a committee that will point blank refuse to formulate any scheme.
Professor O'Sullivan
In such cases the Minister has power to abolish the committee.
When does this point arise, or is it possible that in the meantime there will be no technical education in the area?
Professor O'Sullivan
Not at all.
I am suggesting to the Minister a much better way of dealing with a situation of that kind and that is on the lines suggested in the amendment proposed by Senator Connolly.
Might I intervene to inquire whether the Minister has under any other section of the Bill power which would entitle him to impose a scheme upon an area where the committee fails to submit a scheme?
Professor O'Sullivan
I have power to abolish the committee.
That is very negative power.
Professor O'Sullivan
There is also power to see that the work is carried on. Other people may be appointed to carry out a scheme. If the committee refuses to do the primary work for which it was appointed there is an end of it and it is abolished. What else is left but to abolish them?
What is the line afterwards? What is going to take the committee's place? How does the Minister propose to act in the case of a refusal by the committee to prepare and work a scheme? I have searched the Bill carefully and I cannot find, up to the present, any section in it under which the Minister could impose a scheme himself.
I would suggest a little patience on the part of the Minister. I have not finished yet. Take this case. The Minister requires the vocational education committee to formulate a scheme. If they refuse to formulate a scheme, the Minister says "We can dissolve it." In the case of their failing to formulate a scheme, would it not be more reasonable, instead of having a mandatory injunction against them, and would it not be better if the Minister himself had power to formulate a scheme, a scheme which they would be compelled to accept? If the committee does formulate a scheme it may formulate a wholly illusory scheme. In that respect the amendment proposed by Senator Connolly is a great improvement to the Bill.
Professor O'Sullivan
In section 108 the Minister has power to dissolve a vocational education committee when it fails to prepare and submit a scheme. The arguments in reply to what Senator Connolly has said apply to every section under this general scheme. The real working of the scheme is provided for in Section 44. Between that section and Section 108 I have all the power I want.
If the Minister can satisfy me that he has the power to draft a scheme and impose it, it will answer the purpose, but I do not know that under Section 44, as it stands, he has that power. We will have the Report Stage of this Bill to-morrow and the Minister may accept an amendment in the meantime to deal with this matter.
Professor O'Sullivan
I am not going to draft a scheme, but I may appoint the people who will draft a scheme.
Has the Minister power under the Act to impose a scheme himself or to approve of a scheme prepared by people other than the committee? I do not see that he has such power.
Professor O'Sullivan
I can appoint certain people instead of the committee. I have that power under this Bill.
When does the point arise at which the Minister does that? Suppose the committee did formulate a scheme which, in the opinion of the Minister, was unsatisfactory, could he then dissolve the committee?
I really think that the argument is in favour of this amendment. It does give the Minister additional powers. In my opinion it gives the powers that are necessary in spite of Senator Sir John Keane's democratic tendencies. While we are democratic and in favour of democracy we are at the same time realists. We realise that the people in this country in many cases have been deprived of the opportunity for development. Senator Sir John Keane would like to see gradual evolution. He would like to see the country going slowly. He would like to see the Irish people evolving slowly. Slow evolution is good, but we would like to speed up a little more than the rate at which we have been going for some time. It is interesting that Senator Sir John Keane has become democratic I do not know whether it is going to be the black shirt or the red shirt he is going to don, but at all events it is interesting.
May I suggest to Senator Connolly to withdraw his amendment until to-morrow? It would enable the Minister to look into the matter and to have an amendment drafted, if necessary.
That is precisely what I want.
We are all anxious that this Bill would work out as a useful Bill, but I want to put this point—supposing this vocational committee refused to carry out its duty, then the position, according to Senator Connolly, would be that the Minister would have power to force them to formulate a scheme——
To carry out a scheme.
But the committee has already refused to carry out its duties. It would be foolish to trust such people to carry out a scheme when, in the first instance, they had refused to prepare such a scheme. To my mind that is a very strong argument against this amendment.
I move on behalf of Senator O'Doherty:—
Section 31. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The Minister may for any particular area or sub-division of an area direct that the instructions in the vocational education classes shall be given through the medium of the Irish language.
I have just received a message from Senator O'Doherty asking me to move this amendment on his behalf. I regret that he has not been able to be here to-day himself. Senator O'Doherty dealt with this question on the Second Reading of the Bill. The idea is that the Minister should have power in any area or in any sub-division of an area to direct that the instruction in vocational education of classes shall be given through the medium of the Irish language. Senator O'Doherty argued, on the last day on which we were discussing this measure, that we have had primary education with compulsory Irish and secondary education with compulsory Irish. It is felt that for those vocational classes and for the continuation classes it will be necessary in many areas to have technical instruction taught through the medium of Irish. I am thinking mainly about classes in the Gaeltacht and on the border of the Gaeltacht. We think that that power should be in the hands of the Minister so that where practicable and where feasible he should see that technical education should be carried on through the medium of the Irish language. The Irish language is in fact the language of the people in many areas, and in respect of such areas as have shown progress in the Irish language I think such power as this should be granted to the Minister. I move the amendment.
I think that this is a very reasonable amendment. It has been pointed out that the Irish language is being taught in all the schools and even in the National University. The Seanad, I may say, has from the very beginning taken a very sensible view of this matter. Numbers of motions for the promotion of the Irish language have been brought in here and have been passed. I think it is absurd to say that we are going to teach Irish in the primary and secondary schools and that we shall not use it in districts where the people speak Irish only or speak partly Irish. I can see no reasonable objection to this amendment. There has been a good deal of talk recently about teaching subjects through the medium of Irish. When people know Irish and speak Irish what is the objection to it?
I would like to support this amendment. Senator O'Doherty comes from an Irish-speaking district, and must have very good reason for bringing forward this amendment. Possibly, in many of these areas classes can be taught through the medium of Irish. This amendment does not vest the Minister with any plenary powers to enforce the provision. It is only in cases where the committee asks that the classes be taught through the medium of Irish that this provision can be exercised. It is only reasonable that such an amendment should be accepted, and that the Minister should have the necessary powers.
We seem desperately anxious to give these autocratic powers to the Minister. This amendment does not say anything about any particular area. The amendment proposes that wherever the Minister thinks fit he may insist on vocational education being given through the medium of Irish. Supposing we got an Irish language enthusiast as a Minister, he might apply this provision to all sorts of areas with the object of pushing forward the Irish language, absolutely independent of its effect on the education given. He might insist that in every vocational education area, instructions should be through the medium of Irish. There might be some argument possibly for suggesting that there are areas where education should be given through the medium of Irish, but to give the Minister power to apply that to the whole of the Free State appears to be absolutely absurd.
I think the Minister should accept this amendment. I am sure that it would be in accordance with his own wishes. I cannot see any really vital political reason why he should not accept it. It must be remembered that it is not compulsory Irish. The amendment is to the effect that the Minister may, wherever he considers it reasonable, direct that the teaching under the vocational educational scheme should be given in Irish. This vocational education is not all literary education. It is purely technical and purely manual. I think it is perfectly right that in an area which is partly Irish-speaking, if an instructor wants a hammer or a saw at one of the classes, he should say to the students: "Tabhair dom an casúr.” It would be no harm if Senator Jameson himself were driving a nail, and knew the Irish for “hammer” or “saw” or things of that kind. I think that so far as the language itself is concerned, it would be extremely valuable if in these continuation classes Irish phrases were used, and that there was this regard for the language.
We are told that the children learn Irish in the primary schools, then get tired of it and speak no more Irish after that. If they are encouraged to speak Irish at the continuation, classes they will maintain their knowledge of Irish. Moreover they will use it not merely as a literary language but as the everyday tongue of the people, as the tongue in which trade and commerce will be carried on. For these reasons I think the Minister should take the powers which this amendment proposes to give him.
I am rather puzzled about this whole thing. If the committee wishes to teach through the medium of Irish they can do so. Is not that enough? Senator Cummins gave the whole case away when he said that this would not be imposed except by the wish of the committee. I am afraid that the motive is much more subtle and Minister than that. I go further and I say that unconsciously there is an element of direct cruelty about it. I see myself even to-day the beginnings of the creation of a great mental devastation. I have it from educational authorities that, in this attempt to teach through the medium of Irish, you are creating desert minds and handicapping young people in the whole of their future lives. I think that too great responsibility to thrust upon the Minister. Senator Connolly's amendment if carried would give unlimited power to the Minister. Suppose Senator Connolly were in his place, what would happen? His fiat would go forth and this spurious, artificial method of instruction would be forced on the people irrespective of whether they knew anything about Irish or not. That is the real danger that I foresee. Is it not enough when you have local committees, who wish to have instruction carried on through the medium of Irish, to have these powers exercised? Why give the Minister these plenary powers to override the members of the committee if they think that instruction should not be through the medium of Irish? There is a great responsibility upon us in this matter and I speak on behalf of a minority. Look at what teachers themselves say. I presume you have all followed the report of the proceedings at the annual congress of the teachers. Look at what many fearless people who claim to be as good nationalists as Senator Connolly himself are saying.
I do not claim to be a good nationalist.
I do not care what the Senator claims to be, whether it is a Separatist or an advanced Republican. It gives people furiously to think that by a proposal brought forward in this irresponsible fashion the future of our young people is being blighted.
Professor O'Sullivan
This is a subject which always leads people to think furiously. May I suggest to Senator Connolly that technical instruction, in Irish or English, is hardly limited to: "Give me a saw or a hammer"? Undoubtedly, if anybody suggested that either the pupils or teachers who were not capable of doing anything through Irish, should be taught through Irish, it might be limited to what Senator Comyn suggested. There were two interpretations in the course of the debate, one by Senator Cummins and one by Senator Jameson. There is no doubt that Senator Jameson's interpretation of the amendment is what it means, and it is for the Senators to make up their minds as to whether they will accept it or not. So far as the policy of the Department is concerned, our policy on the matter should be abundantly clear. I am not aware that the present Minister can be accused of being anxious to go too slowly in the matter of Irish. The policy is that where the teachers are available to teach the things that are essential then the teaching is through the medium of Irish in areas where the children can speak Irish. But it is much more difficult in technical. education than in other matters to carry this out. We take every measure, and there are large numbers of measures which we take in bringing pressure to bear on committees. Without this particular amendment we can bring pressure to bear on committees. That is carried out where the conditions are favourable. It is for the Senators to consider whether they will give the Minister this power. In practice, I might say that, so far as I am concerned, this amendment would not give me any more power than I have at present. It undoubtedly means that the amendment is to put plenary powers into the hands of the Minister.
I want to correct a misapprehension about this amendment. I would like to remind Senator Sir John Keane that we do not want a technical class conducted in Irish where the pupils do not understand Irish. That would be quite a disaster. I do not like to say what, in my opinion, the mention of the word Irish means to Senator Sir John Keane. I would like to say that the question of using phrases as suggested by the amendment is not at all what is in Senator O'Doherty's mind. It is a question of giving the people who have been taught Irish, and who know Irish, technical instruction through the medium of Irish. We only want what is practicable. It is not a question of learning Irish through phrases. We do not want to speak about that. We want to apply this in a practical way. I think the Minister should have this power, and therefore I propose the amendment.
May I draw attention to Section 44, sub-section (2) of the Bill? It would seem to me that if the Minister desired to give approval to a scheme it should be in the direction of modifying what is sought for in the amendment proposed by Senator Connolly.
I can visualise, for instance, the Waterford County Council not being very enthusiastic about the teaching of Irish anywhere. I can imagine a sub-committee in a district, say, around Ring, desiring to have technical instruction given to the people there, to people who think and talk, and use the Irish language in their homes, and that while it would be desirable, in the view of the Minister, that the classes in that particular district should be conducted in Irish, the county council and perhaps the technical committee drawn from it would not be enthusiastic and would refuse to have the classes conducted in Irish. There, I think is a case where the Minister should have specific powers. I think it would be well that the Act itself should contain the view of the Oireachtas in this matter, notwithstanding that the Minister has the power under Section 44, to which I have referred. I think, if there is not specific power given to the Minister in respect of this Bill to deal with a recalcitrant technical committee covering a whole county it is desirable that such power should be given.
I must say that in some ways this has been a very disappointing discussion. Some twenty-five years ago, Irish was made compulsory in the National University. There was a great fight carried on at the time to have Irish made compulsory in the National University. All the things that have been said now by Senator Jameson and by Senator Sir John Keane appeared in the newspapers at the time for months and months. There were people writing to the newspapers at the time objecting to Irish being made compulsory anywhere. Now after all those years they are raising their voices again in this matter. I am not sure, but I think the Minister is a graduate of the National University, in which a knowledge of Irish was made compulsory. I am astonished that he should hesitate on this matter. It is very disappointing, indeed, that anyone should object to the use of Irish for practical purposes. We used to be told that it was only of use for scholars. Now we are told that it is of no use for the ordinary affairs of life.
If this amendment is not passed, does it follow that the Minister will not have the power to give such a direction as has been indicated in the case of an Irish-speaking district so that the teaching shall be through the medium of the Irish language? Are we to assume that the Minister would not have the power unless it was given to him specifically?
Professor O'Sullivan
I should say no. In the section that Senator Johnson quoted I have the power so far as the teachers are concerned. Under the two sections referred to, I think I have power to bring very considerable pressure to bear on a committee in an Irish-speaking district that indicated that it would not carry out what was its obvious duty. Senator Colonel Moore says that he is disappointed with me. I told the Seanad what the amendment means. I told the Seanad what power I had already and what my policy was, and because I enlightened the Seanad on these matters the Senator is disappointed.
Tá
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- William Cummins.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Michael Duffy.
- Thomas Foran.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Seán MacEllin.
- Colonel Moore.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Séumas Robinson.
Níl
- Sir Edward Bellingham.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Michael Fanning.
- Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Major-General Sir William Hickie.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
- James MacKean.
- John MacLoughlin.
- Seán Milroy.
- William John Molloy.
- James Moran.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- M. F. O'Hanlon.
- Dr. William O'Sullivan.
- James J. Parkinson.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
On this section I want to raise a question for the purpose of getting some information from the Minister. It is in regard to students attending continuation classes who may find it much more convenient to attend a school in an area other than their own. I would like to know if provision is made to meet the case of such students. I want to know whether it will be possible for students to attend school in an area outside their own county or vocational area, and whether, in regard to compulsory sections of the Bill, it will be possible to make provision for any adjustments as between the authorities in the case of a student who may be going one mile to a school outside his own area, while the charges in respect of him are raised in his own area. For instance, a person might be living on the borders of the County Dublin, and yet be five or six miles from the nearest technical or continuation school in the Counties of Wicklow or Meath. I raise the question because it has been put to me: What is the position of a school in regard to a student attending the ordinary classes, and particularly of schools in regard to students where compulsion is applied or may be applied? The point has been raised that in the case of the City of Dublin it may be much more convenient for a student to be sent to a school within the city though he may live outside the city boundary, because the nearest school to his residence in the county may be five, six or ten miles away. For the convenience of the carrying out of the general scheme, I wonder whether there is any provision made for the use of the nearest school by such a student.
Professor O'Sullivan
So far as provision is concerned of allowing a person to go outside his area, I think that sub-section (3) of the section partly meets the case. Then as regards the compulsory side of it, I think that is met by Section 63 (2), paragraph (c).
I move amendment 10:—
Section 38, sub-section (1), to delete the word "borough" in line 1.
This section makes provision for higher technical education; that is to say, day technical colleges may be established in special circumstances to deal with special classes of students. The Bill, however, confines that power to a borough vocational education area. We are dealing with a Bill which will govern this subject for quite a number of years. We are not able to say what developments may take place, and it seems to me an unnecessary restriction to say that this power shall only be used by a borough, and that a county area, or even an urban district area, must be prohibited in effect by the section. For the present I agree that it may not make any practical difference, but later on considerable developments may take place. If those developments make higher technical schools in a county area or an urban district desirable, it ought not to be necessary that we should have to get a new Act. I ask for the deletion of the word "borough" from the section, so as to make it possible for county and urban district technical committees to do this higher technical work if other circumstances make it desirable.
Professor O'Sullivan
I agree with the Senator that there is no practical difference between the Bill and the amendment. I am not, however, legislating for all time. The conditions that will prevail in ten or fifteen years' time may call for a recasting of some of the provisions in this Bill. This section really provides for the setting up of what one might call local minor colleges of science—not the type of ordinary day technical school. There is no use in having in the Bill a provision when you see no possibility of its being carried out. Outside the boroughs at the present time I do not see that there is even a remote possibility of such a thing as is contemplated by the Senator being required. If an unnecessary provision, such as suggested, were inserted in the Bill, it would possibly only lead to trouble between local committees and the Department afterwards. It is quite possible that a committee would put forward a scheme that would be quite unsuitable for an area and for the size of the place concerned. As I see no possibility of such a thing as the Senator contemplates coming into effect, I am not in favour of the amendment.
Acting Chairman
Do you desire the amendment to be put, Senator?
I am afraid the Minister has not put forward any argument against it. I think there is good sound sense in it.
I move amendment 11:—
To delete Section 43.
I move this amendment because I believe it ought to be the duty of the State and not the ratepayers to provide the cost of all kinds of education. This is the first time the ratepayers are called upon compulsorily to raise a rate for education Technical education, vocational education and continuation education mentioned in the Bill should be financed in the same manner as the national schools and the universities are, and made a national charge. The benefit that accrues from the Bill will be available to the entire community, and should be paid for out of a common fund. Hitherto the rating authorities had the option of raising rates for assisting technical education and in most cases they have taxed themselves for these purposes. I think they might be trusted in the future, without compulsion, to act fairly in this matter. This section which I propose to delete provides that the rate now given voluntarily should become a permanent burden on the ratepayers, and the more liberally and generously the councils were giving in the past the more they would be forced to contribute in the future. That is shown by the special provision made as regards Cork County, which will be called upon to pay twopence in the £ in comparison with 1¾d. in the £ in the other counties of the Saorstát. This amendment really asks the Seanad to decide whether the cost of this education should be borne by the State or the ratepayers. I would point out that most county councils that have considered this matter have been entirely against any compulsion being placed upon them to provide money under this scale. The local authorities will still be quite satisfied to raise in the future, as they did in the past, a voluntary rate of 2d. or 1¾d. in the pound. And that, with the sum to be supplied by moneys out of the Central Fund, ought to be sufficient to carry on the work.
I beg to support the amendment moved by Senator Linehan. He has so fully explained it that no further arguments are needed to recommend it.
I also desire to support this amendment. It seems to be entirely wrong at a time when de-rating is in the air, and is altogether overdue, as an act of justice, that we should be adding to the burden of the ratepayers on the old basis. We are going away completely from the original idea of local government, which was permissive. Now there is a sort of diarchic system: "Heads I win, tails you lose. You must raise the rates, but you are not to be allowed to say how they are to be spent." Ministers come along with all sorts of schemes for the local bodies to deal with. When I protested, on the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister declared my ideas were revolutionary. That is hardly the way to answer an argument on broad principles. The whole question of the incidence of central and local finance wants to be investigated on a proper basis. It certainly is only adding to the burden to come on with Bills, piling up rates upon agriculture, already so heavily burdened, instead of taking steps to lighten that burden.
May I ask what would be the effects of the passing of this amendment? Does it not strike at the root and heart of the whole Bill?
Professor O'Sullivan
Absolutely.
What county council, knowing that the State is going to pay the bill, would strike any rate whatever? All contributions to higher education by counties would end if the Bill is passed with this amendment. If you are to alter the finances of the Bill to such an extent as this amendment would alter them, we had better set to work and get a new Bill altogether.
Is that so?
Professor O'Sullivan
Absolutely.
Why should not the finances in the future be permissive as well as in the past?
The argument that Senator Sir John Keane put forward in favour of the development of the local initiative in the administration of these things made one almost inclined to think that he was perfectly right. He put forward so sound an argument that I came to the conclusion that, at any rate on this particular motion, he would stand for local responsibility. Now I find he has completely changed over; he is in favour of all kinds of local powers in administration, but he would impose the cost of using all those powers on the central authority.
No. I am opposed to the principle of forcing local authorities to raise rates and of giving them no voice in the spending of them.
Professor O'Sullivan
As to the point raised by Senator Linehan, he stated that in reality the county councils would continue to pay. Some of them have not been very generous up to the present. As he pointed out in another part of his speech he was horrified because I asked County Cork to do what it obviously intended to do. In order that we would know where we were we had to make provision for that. The Senator objects to the compulsory powers in the counties. In this particular type of education we really want local opinion more strongly represented than in the other type. I cannot agree with Senator Sir John Keane that the powers are completely taken out of the hands of the local committees; very far from it. If you take into account the relative value of the contributions made locally and centrally, comparatively more power is given local committees than remains in the hands of the Minister. They have the initiative in most cases, and very often they are able to make that initiative effective. It really comes to this, whether or not we want this Bill. The logic of the amendment would be an entirely different Bill.
Senators have spoken of the incidence of taxation as far as education is concerned. On the Second Reading I pointed out that this country is in an exceptional position, because centrally we have done practically everything for education. Therefore, in a small measure like this it is condemned because it is against tradition. In places where there have been contributions locally for education we continue them. Pleas have been put forward again and again that a certain portion of the expenditure on primary education might be met locally. It is met in every other country whose educational system I am acquainted with. To a considerable extent we do not meet it here, and we are particularly lenient, so far as the rates are concerned. Senator Sir John Keane was quite right when he stated that the question of de-rating required investigation. When the whole question comes up the burdens put on will be taken into account. The general question of de-rating is one thing, but where the burden is to fall is another.
I move:—
Section 46, sub-section (1). After the word "annual" in line 5 to insert the word "local."
The expression "local contribution" occurs elsewhere in the section, and it is desirable that the same words should be used.
Professor O'Sullivan
I accept the amendment. As Senator Milroy pointed out, it is merely to bring the phraseology into harmony with the phraseology of the rest of the Bill.
I move:—
Section 48, sub-section (4). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) No payments shall be made out of the vocational education fund of a vocational education committee except by the treasurer of such committee on the direction in writing of such committee, and every payment so directed shall be made out of such fund by such treasurer and every such direction by such committee to such treasurer shall be a sufficient authority to such treasurer to make the payments thereby directed to be made to the person or persons mentioned therein."
This is really a matter of procedure. There is a gap in sub-section (4), because there is no connection between the authorisation of the committee and the banker who is to pay the amount. Under Section 47 a banking account is opened, but there is nothing in Section 48 (4) to say how the authorisation of payments is to he communicated to the treasurer. The amendment remedies the position, inasmuch as it carries the process right through, and authorises the treasurer to retain authority which will enable him to pay. If the amendment were not not passed, the treasurer would have to find out a good deal of information. I think the Minister has also considered the matter.
Professor O'Sullivan
I am agreeable to accept the amendment. I am afraid, as the sub-section stands, it would mean that any bank would be very slow to act as treasurer, as they would almost be compelled in every payment they made to act in the capacity of auditors, in order to see that everything was correctly done. The amendment follows the usual procedure, and if a bank is authorised by ordinary treasurer's note they will make the payments.
On Section 51 I would like to ask the Minister for some information. Section 49 provides that a vocational education committee may borrow, and this section makes provision regarding a grant by the rating authority. I do not know whether it is necessary or whether it is inherent in the power of the education committee, but it has been suggested to me that there should be provision made whereby the committee would be legally authorised to receive gifts of property.
Professor O'Sullivan
I think that is in the Bill.
I want to follow on what I said at an earlier stage, whether in the case of a committee receiving a gift of property, such as land for building a school or a college, provision could not be made for regulating the State grants, taking into account the value of the gift, just as though it had been money borrowed for the purpose. It seems to me that we ought to encourage local philanthropy of that kind, and that there should be power within the section to allow the Minister to take the value of such gift into account, as though it had been provided out of the rates rather than out of the private beneficence of a single citizen.
Professor O'Sullivan
That is the danger of meeting people half-way. This was not in the original Bill. It was put up in the Dáil that the Central Fund should make a grant on action by a local authority as distinct from the committee. As a result of representations made in the Dáil I inserted an amendment. The Senator now wants to go further. I think I have met the case reasonably.
I move:—
Section 53. To add at the end of the section the words: "In allocating any of such moneys the Minister shall have due regard to the amount contributed by the local authority, so that the total received by each vocational education area shall provide an equal sum per capita in each such area in Saorstát Eireann."
I put down this amendment really more to collect information than with the view to objecting seriously to the finances of the Bill. The amendment raises two principles, the first that every "young person," no matter where domiciled, is entitled to the same standard of education provided in the Bill, and the second, that where a public service is concerned, such as education, the funds available from local sources and others provided by the State should be pooled to the common advantage.
With regard to the first of these principles, the local county finance of the Bill outside the cities of Dublin, Cork, Waterford or Limerick is contained in Section 43 and in Part II of the Third Schedule. I do not propose to go further than the first year, but in 1931, as fixed originally for the counties, the rate to be levied is 1¾d., not less and not more. I will take one example from the figures I have circulated. In Mayo the rate produces £2,345, and in Westmeath £2,389. But while Mayo has practically the same sum there are three times the number of persons to be dealt with, as it would seem that a "young person" in Mayo cannot be as well catered for under the provisions in the Bill as a child in Westmeath. The entire control of State contributions is left in the hands of the Minister under the provisions of Section 53, and he has estimated the sum required as being £15,000 over and above the local contribution and in addition to the sums already contributed by the State for the purposes of education. I might quote what the Minister said: "If this scheme were in full operation in the country within the next five or six years we estimate that the total additional cost to the country would be about £300,000."
Professor O'Sullivan
May I interrupt the Senator? I must have slipped into an error. I meant to say fifteen or twenty years.
That makes it worse. The Minister also stated:—
"I have indicated that this is the cost in addition to the present cost of technical education. That would be borne partly by the State and partly by the rates."
I think he said fifty-fifty. I think it would be a great advantage to the Seanad if we had a clearer statement on a big financial question like this, showing in each county the sum now provided by the State approximately; the sum to be found under this Bill from the rates and the approximate allocation of the additional State contribution. In the figures given in column 4 of the statement the amount comes to over £66,000. If that is multiplied by six years it comes to £396,000, or practically £400,000. That is the local contribution. If the State gives fifty-fifty there is another £400,000. I am not talking of the additional amounts that are to be provided in the following years. In the second part of the Third Schedule the amount rises up to 4d. in the £. My figures may be entirely wrong, but I think if a statement such as I suggest were circulated it would put many people right on this question. When the country knows that it is going to be faced with the imposition of an additional £66,000 per annum in the counties for rates there will be a very serious difficulty, in spite of the effect that vocational education will bring about. I think the benefits are very great, but I think they should be explained, so that the amount to be paid by the different counties would be shown and that the advantages would be equal to the benefits.
As regards the second principle, it was raised by the Commission on the Relief of the Sick Poor with regard to the agricultural grant and the estate duty grant. I only raise it now because I would like the House to examine the figures given in column 9 of the statement that was circulated, because the counties shouldering this educational rate now are in many cases already handicapped by the inequality of the grants. In fact, it will be seen that the lowest rateable value per acre generally carries a low grant as well per acre. I think I am making a reasonable assumption that the valuation per head is in a very great measure one index of the ability to bear the burden of taxation. I put down the amendment to get information and to assure myself that the burden of the Bill throughout the State will be more or less the same.
Professor O'Sullivan
The Senator has spoken of the finances of the Bill. I calculate that if the scheme is working in fifteen or twenty years, that is, if the vocational committees, or rather the estimate subcommittees thereof, strike the full rate they are allowed to strike in the Schedule the total cost per annum of vocational education to the State and the local authorities would be something in the nature of £500,000 or £520,000 per annum. That is the total cost, and as any increase in the minimum rate would be met fifty-fifty, the total State contribution will always exceed the local—the State would still be paying the major portion. The actual increase that the compulsory rates make on the rates struck would amount to about £21,000 additional; that is, with the 1¾d. in addition to what it is at present. I am speaking now for the counties.
I make it £66,000.
Professor O'Sullivan
I am speaking of the additional amount they contribute, and then the rate from year to year can increase only very slowly. I did not quite follow the Senator when he spoke of multiplying by six.
I counted the six years laid down in Part II of the Schedule.
Professor O'Sullivan
That will not give the annual increase.
I took the six years the Minister referred to in his speech.
Professor O'Sullivan
That does not give the annual cost. It would give the total in six years, but it does not give the annual increase. The annual, or any increase over 1¾d., will be at the option of the estimates committee. They are not bound to increase their local contribution beyond 1¾d. if the estimates committee, which consists solely of members of the county council, refuse to do so. If they want to increase facilities, if they think vocational education is worth it, they can do so, but they are not compelled to go beyond 1¾d. All that is compulsorily imposed on them in this Bill in the way of increased expenditure from rates, I am speaking of the counties, is something like £21,000. The Senator's amendment is in some respects, I confess, quite practical enough. I am sorry that I could not recommend its acceptance to the Seanad. There is the prima facie case that we seem to be giving something more to the rich counties than to the poor counties, but is the solution to be found in a phrase the Senator used when he referred to pooling? But whether he meant the pooling of State resources or all sources I do not know.
All sources.
Professor O'Sullivan
That is practically abolishing the counties. That is the logical conclusion. That is a bit too revolutionary to attempt by a side wind in this Bill. I admit there is a plausible case to be made for what the Senator said. One county strikes a 2d. rate which amounts only to say so much, and in another county, say Westmeath, they strike a 2d. rate which amounts to more. I could not remedy that. I do not understand what the Senator meant by per capita in the amendment.
For the whole Saorstát.
Professor O'Sullivan
I understood that in regard to the vocational committee I would have to take account of the heads in a county. That is one of the things I have to take into consideration. I am not sure whether the Senator means heads of the population or heads of those receiving education. Suppose he means the heads of the population. That does not seem a fair method of doing it, if facilities are not provided. Another and a fairer method would be according to the heads of those receiving education. That means payment by attendance, and that is one of the things condemned by the Commission as having worked out badly, and it will work out badly. In order to see what the amendment proposes to do, take two counties and they strike the same rate, as the Senator has pointed out. A man in a rich county has to pay more than another in a poor county, very often. Supposing they strike the same rate, are you not to give the county which strikes a 3d. rate the full benefit of that because another county which strikes the same rate is a poor one? As to what would happen, you may regard fifty-fifty as the maximum to be given to any county. I will not give them more additions than fifty-fifty. Supposing I were willing to go beyond fifty-fifty, are you not taking rates from one county and giving them to another? Are you not doing what the Senator said, pooling not merely the Central Fund but the whole rates of the country? That seems the great objection to the amendment. It is a local scheme. It is primarily financed locally and was always intended to be financed locally. There are many ways in which the State aid could be given. The simplest method is the rough and ready method of doing it, and what recommends itself to me is the method in this Bill. Other methods have been tried and have had unfortunate consequences. So far as the compulsory sections of the Bill are concerned they do not become operative the moment the Bill is passed. Nor do they become operative in different portions of the Saorstát at the same time. In one portion of a county it may be advisable to introduce compulsory clauses, but it might not be possible to do it in another. That would raise all sorts of difficulty in administration.
I think anyone listening to the Minister's speech would come to the conclusion that the whole Bill is patchwork, and the only logical thing would be to put all the cost on the State. To put it on a logical basis, that basis should be on the services rendered. The services rendered in Kerry, for instance, under this Bill must be altogether inadequate to the services rendered in a rich county. The Minister is not justified in waiving criticism aside by a general phrase about the scheme, and what is implicit in its finances, and generalities of that kind. Nobody can deny that the cost of it is about the same in the counties, and then the finance ought to adapt itself to those conditions. Where the rate is inadequate, the central authority should come along and make up the difference, and provide a proper standard. The Minister is involved in the meshes of a bad system. This Bill is a piece of patchwork from beginning to end, and it will not stand the acid test, and the test is: "Are you providing throughout the country the same standard of education?" Obviously, you are not. I cannot see the difficulty in accepting the amendment. The Minister has stated he saw no practical difficulty about that.
Professor O'Sullivan
I never said anything of the kind.
I am speaking from memory. I think the Minister said he was in sympathy with the amendment, and that it presented no great difficulty. If I am wrong in that I withdraw. We have got a measure of so many pages which anybody would reasonably believe did try to put this thing on a fair and proper basis, but then we have an admission that there is no regard whatever in the finances for the standard of education to be supplied. I never heard of anything so thoroughly undemocratic and unfair as this measure is and I hope if the Seanad passes it it will do so with its eyes open.
Professor O'Sullivan
I wonder if the Senator thinks it necessary that I should correct all these hopeless misunderstandings of what I said. I never said that there was to be bad education in one place, and good in another.
I said that.
Professor O'Sullivan
I know, but the Senator said it was acknowledged here. I certainly never acknowledged it.
I took that as a natural deduction—that if you have totally unequal finances you must have totally unequal standards. That is common sense.
Professor O'Sullivan
I explained on the Second Reading that the finance of this Bill was considered by considering the number of people in each county who required technical education, and then, taking into account that the greater part of it would be part-time, and that it would cost so much, I considered how much money would be necessary to do it; I considered that you could not properly or wisely do that at once, but that it should be done over a number of years. The Bill provides the same type of education in one place as in another.
The same money for it?
Professor O'Sullivan
No, certainly not. I have made it perfectly clear that the one logical conclusion of Senator The McGillycuddy's speech would be to wipe out local distinctions in all counties. I think the Senator will agree with me that that is the logical conclusion.
The difficulty with reference to this amendment is that if the receipts are pooled rates belonging to Dublin would be applied to Kerry, say, and nobody would stand for that. Therefore the amendment will have to be opposed. Is not that the logical conclusion? Does it not show the soundness of the arguments that were advanced on the Second Reading, that the general finances of the Bill should be provided by the State? We are frequently being told that in other countries the local authorities contribute to education, but the Minister did not say that in England, where they did contribute, the Government has wiped out the rates altogether. We hope that that state of affairs will ultimately prevail here, but in the meantime this must necessarily be a patchwork arrangement, as Senator Sir John Keane has described it. There will be less in the poor counties to spend, and if the Minister can get in the poorer counties cheaper men to carry out the scheme than the men who will be operating in Dublin we may be able to give the same standard of education. Otherwise I cannot see how it can be done, how he will be able to do in the poor counties with less money than there will be in the rich counties while giving the same standard of service.
I am opposed to this amendment; I will not permit my rates, if I am paying them, to be applied to the education of people in Kerry. I would not mind paying through taxation, but certainly not through rates, because we are unjustly dealt with in the matter of rates, and the incidence of local rating needs revision. The matter has been under discussion for a long time, and it will be settled eventually either by agitation or by action.
If Senator The McGillycuddy's amendment were to pass it certainly would not do what Senator Wilson has just stated. It definitely provides that the Minister shall apply the grants so as to supplement the amount contributed locally. Whether it was workable or not, it certainly does not suggest that the County Wicklow or the Dublin rates could be applicable to County Kerry. The Minister quite smartly caught a phrase in Senator The McGillycuddy's speech in which he more or less admitted that logically it would be better if the money were to be pooled, so that there would be one standard. But I take it that what is proposed in this amendment, and which is, I think, the only way in which we can go to some extent towards uniformity, is to adopt the principle in this amendment, to try to work the central grants so that they will supplement the amounts voted locally, and there we would get as nearly as possible an equal standard. It is not possible to get an absolutely equal standard, but I think all that Senator The McGillycuddy is asking for is to have in the Bill a guidance for the Minister, so that he would endeavour to use the grants to obtain the maximum amount of uniformity in the standard of education, that he should not consider himself necessarily bound by some promise of fifty-fifty or forty-sixty, or whatever it may have been. I do not think that there is anything in the amendment that would go contrary to what has been stated by Senator Wilson. I am quite sure that Senator Wilson is right in saying that rates raised in one county should not be used in another.
The only difficulty that I see in the amendment is the suggestion that it should be on a per capita basis. I could see that working out very inequitably in districts where the attendance at the classes or the density of the population was not very great. In certain rural areas where the population is small an allowance on a per capita basis might not provide adequate facilities for the education of the limited number of students there who, being citizens, would be entitled to facilities equal to those provided in the larger centres. That is the objection I see in this form of amendment. I agree that the State ought to bear a proportionate amount, as the necessity arises, out of the Central Fund, or whatever fund it might come out of, irrespective of the rate that the district could bear, but the per capita basis does not seem to suggest the equitable method necessary for the provision of technical education, and to make the opportunity for education equal all over the country.
If I might strike a more reasonable note, I suggest to the Minister that the feeling of the House is very strong and very certain on the point that the present proposals are not equitable.
Cathaoirleach
I would like to remind the Senator that the feeling of the House upon this matter has not so far been taken.
The Minister is very determined. I have already drawn attention to the method of financing being inequitable. I think the Minister will see that we are not individually able to put this thing forward in technical form. The Minister has not satisfied us in regard to the fifty-fifty principle. Fifty-fifty is little more than his mere ipse dixit; it has no basis in reason, and in my opinion it is thoroughly inequitable. The Minister ought to try to meet the House in some way such as by the equalisation of grants or by providing approximately the same services in each area.
Cathaoirleach
Presupposing that one county is particularly anxious to go forward with technical education, and is rated to the fullest amount, and that another county is not at all anxious to go forward with technical education, and imposes a rate only to the extent of 1¾d., should the Central Fund grant go to the people who are unwilling to tax themselves, and be withdrawn from the people who are willing to tax themselves, in order to take advantage of technical education? That is a point I would like to be informed upon. I think that this amendment would rather favour that course. Let us take it that one county favouring technical education puts on a rate of 4d., and another county less inclined to favour technical education strikes a rate of 1¾d., or even 1d. This scheme recommends that the Central Fund grant should be administered per capita, and, consequently, I take it that the counties in favour of the scheme would get very little, while the counties prepared to give little would get much. That seems to be what it involves.
On a point of explanation, I confined myself to the first year. It is the same rate for every county in the first year when the increased rate does not arise.
Cathaoirleach
But what about your amendment?
My amendment was really put down for the purpose of seeking information. I was not capable of drafting it exactly as it should be drafted. I put it down purely in order to get the feeling of the Seanad on the matter.
Professor O'Sullivan
In the first year the additional amount to be raised is very slight. The really big finances are to come in the period afterwards. That is the reason we have not to take the first year into account so much. As regards the point raised by the Cathaoirleach, his remarks were applied to this amendment, but I think that they would apply still more to the next amendment, as I understand it. As a matter of fact, I think they apply fully to the next amendment. If the next amendment were carried, why anybody should go beyond the minimum rates is not quite clear to me. So far as Senator Douglas's answer to Senator Wilson is concerned, I might say that I did not fix merely on a phrase of Senator The McGillycuddy. I argued that not merely directly, but indirectly, it would have that effect. I would like the Senator to think the matter over. Let us take it that a county like Meath, in order to satisfy its full obligation, strikes a rate of 2d. or 2½d. In that case I give the fifty-fifty grant. Another county, in order to satisfy its obligation, will strike a higher rate, and I give more.
Meath satisfied its obligation, not out of its rate, but out of its rate plus the Central Fund contribution. If I diminish the Central Fund contribution, they must increase the rates. I admit that we are not taking the rates from County Meath and giving them to Wicklow; but in practice we are practically doing the same thing. I did not take smartly, as has been said, the phrase of the Senator—pooling. I took that phrase because I thought it expressed the whole gist of the Senator's argument. It was not that I cleverly fixed upon it, but because I felt that indirectly you were pooling.
I am rather loth to point out that behind all this argument there is a certain fallacy of justice; that is, that every county is equal. The capacity of a county for technical education can, I am afraid, be reflected in its capacity for payment. In the case of a county like Mayo it is not suitable nor is it desirable that the people there should get the highly technical education that should be given in, say, a rich county like Meath. The whole thing arises from the inability to pool the resources of each county. Let me mention that each county has particular characteristics. In some respects, unfortunately, that may only be seen in the poverty of the people and that factor renders them unable to afford higher technical education. In matters such as we are now discussing we must face the differing characteristics of each county. It is hardly desirable, if we are anxious to keep people on the land in a highly agricultural or pastoral country, to have farmers diverted by this so-called technical education. There is a great divorce between the technically-educated people in Ireland and those associated with various crafts, and this arises largely from the unwillingness of the guilds to allow technically-educated persons into their membership. One would want to have a grandfather amongst the stone masons in order to get a son into the trade, and no technical education will break down that self-protection amongst unions.
It is a big problem when it comes to a question of technical education for a county like Mayo. If it is not able to pay more than one-third of what County Meath pays, it deserves to stay like that. Taking conditions as they exist to-day, you will have practically everybody silting up into the cities, drifting away from their proper occupations in the country— raising such livestock and produce as the country can afford to raise. I think technical education is highly over-rated and it is a distraction. I think the Minister's method leaves the people in the status quo and that is highly desirable provided there is no great inequality. The counties that are rich are really the counties that are nearest the area of employment for the technically-educated product. The counties that are largely pastoral and widespread will not naturally be able to put up an equal rate and out of the nature of the country I think it is just as well they did not.
It was interesting to hear the speech that Senator Gogarty has just uttered. It makes one wonder exactly how the Senator's mind is running. If I look at the table circulated by Senator The McGillycuddy, I find that in Donegal a 1¾d. rate is estimated to bring in £2,275, with a population of 152,000 people. In Meath, with a population of 62,000, the same rate will produce £3,989. I wonder is that the status quo of population of these two counties that the Senator would desire to maintain, and does he desire that the agricultural schemes that are projected in this Bill should be financed to the extent that is suggested in relation to Meath much in excess of agricultural schemes that would be applicable to Donegal because, forsooth, it is desirable to keep the people in the status quo——
In which they put themselves.
In which they put themselves. I am still more interested to get this unveiling of the political philosophy of Senator Gogarty. The inhabitants of Meath put themselves in the position in which they are to-day, and the inhabitants of Donegal put themselves in their position. The question raised by this amendment is not a question affecting this problem only; it is a question as to the general relationship between local and national finances and the services which are deemed to be necessary. I think, on the analogy which is put forward here, there would have to be a recasting of the Agricultural Grant. The services which are required by law and by the central authority in relation to hygiene—sanitation, public health, and so on—in the overcrowded counties need certain expenditure, and I am in agreement that it is unjust to impose the same standard of civilisation in respect of such services upon the county which is more in need, perhaps, and less able to pay by virtue of its special circumstances, as would be imposed upon another county much richer, with less population, and therefore less need for that particular social service. I think that, as a general principle, there ought to be a rearrangement of the amount of Central Fund assistance that is to be given to the overcrowded counties— that is to say, the poorer counties— for the carrying out of those special services which are looked upon as necessary adjuncts of civilisation. I think that that principle is raised on this question of vocational education. I am rather inclined to think that the question is not going to be solved by the method proposed in the amendment, much as I am inclined to favour the principle involved. I think that the equality question involved—for that is what it means—will have to be met by an extra grant because of those circumstances and not by this simple method of equalisation according to population, because, as the Minister pointed out, the very doing of that raises an almost equally difficult problem and, perhaps, involves similar injustices. The evils effected by the fifty-fifty proposition are not going to be remedied and made clean by virtue of this method. The other principle of special grants, because of the special circumstances, ought to be introduced to effect this particular problem, as it ought to be introduced in respect to other and similar problems.
Professor O'Sullivan
There is a provision that would to some extent effect that. The counties mainly mentioned as the crowded counties are those in the west, which are also counties in the Gaeltacht. There is a provision for special grants in that connection. That would be some alleviation for these counties.
We know that. That does not cover the point.
Professor O'Sullivan
I do not say it does.
I disagree with Senator Gogarty, because I think the want of education is felt far more keenly in the poorer than in the richer districts. The holdings are small and the land is very poor. The families are generally larger and there must, and always will be, migration to richer districts. The people must have a higher standard of knowledge in order to work their farms. The necessity for education is great. Nowhere is education needed as much and they should get the benefit of it.
I am glad I brought this amendment forward for two reasons. First, I have drawn the attention of the House to the inequality of the system of giving grants to the different counties. The question at issue here was raised in 1925 and reported on by the Poor Law Commission. It has been put on one side by those responsible ever since and it has raised considerable discussion all over the country. Secondly, I feel I have wrung from the Minister a statement that the provisions of this Bill, however much he would like them to be fair, are not entirely as he would like them and will not be entirely equitable. I would like the Seanad finally to look at column 5, which has an index figure and which shows the circumstances of the various counties possibly more clearly than the total. There you will see that at one point, in Meath, you have the figure 64 as an index figure and for Donegal you have the figure 14.9. It is going to require a lot of levelling up to get that right. I think it is rather late to press the amendment. I have drawn attention to the fact and with the leave of the House I shall withdraw the amendment.
I move:—
Section 53. To add at the end of the section the words: "and the amount of the grants made under this section shall in each case be sufficient to make up the difference between the amount contributed by the local authority and the total cost of vocational education in each vocational area."
During the discussion on the last amendment, I felt that the amendment which is now before the House met every possible objection. Section 53 enables the Minister to give assistance to the local authorities. The Minister very acutely observed that one of the results of this amendment would be that the minimum contribution in respect of each county would be the only contribution, that each county would keep to the minimum rate. That is exactly what I intended. First of all, I think there ought to be a minimum rate for each county, so as to give the local people some sort of financial interest in this vocational education. At the same time, I think that vocational education is more a national than a local matter. In our primary education system, expenses are supplied from the Central Fund; in regard to university education, in so far as there is a contribution from the State, it is a national contribution. Here we have vocational education, which is rather an advance upon primary education. Why should not that be, in its essential elements, a national charge? I do not see why it should not, except that the Minister, in the course of the many observations which have been drawn from him to-day, has indicated that in regard to the cost of education he is rather in favour of putting it on the rates.
Professor O'Sullivan
I never stated that.
I am glad to hear the Minister disclaim that, because it would be the very negation of statesmanship, and I would be sorry to think the Minister would be guilty of that.
Professor O'Sullivan
I never said anything approaching it. I said the demand had been made. I may tell the Seanad, in addition, that the demand was made on account of the upkeep of schools. The demand was made in the Dáil for that. I never said I approved of the demand. I resisted it.
I am glad to hear that the Minister resisted it, but when the Minister said the demand had been made he said it in that cooing and encouraging way which led me to believe that he was in favour of it. However, he now disclaims it. Of course he must disclaim it. This charge in respect of what I might call the advanced education of the boys in the poorer classes of the community ought to be a national charge just as university education in so far as it is contributed to by the State is a national charge.
And political parties ought to be a national charge!
University education, in so far as there is a contribution from the State either for the building of the university or for any other cause, is a national charge. My friend Senator Gogarty has, by some observation, drawn my attention for a moment to him. I would like to say what my opinion is of what was running through the mind of Senator Gogarty. Pasture was running through his mind when he spoke of the Mayo boys being kept in Mayo to look after their grass and their cows.
Is there any way of protesting against this mind-reading? If it were accurate, it would be a different thing.
Cathaoirleach
Better not try to analyse it.
I shall not pursue that for the moment. The Minister has been drawn very frequently in the course of this discussion. I do not think he has been as much flattered as he ought to be in relation to this Bill. He has been somewhat badgered. This Bill has been described as a thing of tatters and patches. I do not see any tatters or patches in this Bill except in regard to the finance of it. The finance of the Bill is wrong. The finance of the Bill can be made right if the amendment which I propose be accepted. That is to say, that the Schedule which the Minister has set out, and which I am sure represents a considerable amount of thought on his part, should be regarded as the standard contribution which is to be made by each county. Let it not be either a maximum or a minimum. Let it be the standard rate and then let the Central Fund supply any difference that may be required. That is the only fair way to deal with the matter. I shall tell you why it is the only fair way. There are boys in Kerry and Mayo who desire this vocational education. It will not be possible to give it to them if the total cost is to be provided, let us say, by the county of Mayo. The ratepayers will not give the entire money which may be required, or even a considerable part of that money. Moreover, in these sparsely populated areas, the cost of vocational education per capita will be greater than the cost of such education in the City of Dublin. In some parts of West Kerry and in Mayo, you may have a school in which the maximum number of pupils would be 20 or 30. They might be bright and intelligent boys, boys who would respond splendidly to vocational education. Yet the cost per capita of vocational education for them must necessarily be greater than in an establishment in which there would be 100 or 200 boys.
I am glad that Senator Sir John Keane agrees with this amendment, because he comes from a rural area, and he knows the difficulties of the farming population. He is really in one way an expert on the finance of a Bill of this kind. His views and the views of Senator Linehan and Senator O'Connor ought to be very seriously considered. Their views are that the cost of this Bill should not be put on the rates, but should be put on the taxes. If any portion is put on the rates, let it be a standard sum, and let the taxes provide the balance. Why do I say that is the fair course? If you put the cost on the rates you will make the farmers of Ireland pay for the education of the children of the other classes of the community—the children of clerks, persons engaged in the transport trade, persons engaged in distribution, the wealthier people who live in the small towns, and the schoolmaster and schoolmistress. The children of these persons will be educated at the expense of the farmer. The children of the railway workers—some of whom are much wealthier than the small farmers—will be practically educated at the expense of the farmer. Persons with incomes of £600 or £700 a year will send their children to these continuation schools. Their burden will be in proportion to the valuation of the houses in which they live. The farmers' burden will be in proportion, not alone to the valuation of his house, but to the valuation of the land out of which he earns his livelihood. I think there is a tremendous injustice in that, and I would ask the Minister to consider it very carefully. The financial clauses of the Bill are wrong. In every other respect I think it is a good and well-balanced Bill. But it is absolutely and entirely wrong in its financial clauses, and it is unjust to the farming community.
I do not want to labour this matter too much, but take the case of a schoolmaster in a country town. His house is valued at £5. His contribution to the cost of vocational education will be on the basis of his £5 valuation. The valuation of the farmer who supplies him with milk will be £50 or £60, and his contribution to vocational education will be in proportion to that amount. Therefore, the farmer will pay twelve times as much as the local school master for this service. That is quite wrong. Usually, in this House, the Minister manifests a desire to consider clauses of his Bills with Senators. On the present occasion. I think he has received from Senators, on all sides, suggestions which ought to weigh with him.
I want to put the matter no further than this—that in its finance the Bill is absolutely wrong. The Senators on my left have expressed the views of the rural community. If the Minister wishes to ignore those views, of course he can, but if I may say so, it is not wisdom to do so. I think this Bill will succeed. I hope it will succeed. If it fails, it will fail on the sunken rock, the carraig bréagach, because it is designed to make the farmer pay for the education of the schoolmaster's son, the doctor's son, and the clerk's son—people who are much richer than the small farmer himself.
I hope I shall not weary the House in returning to this subject. I am in sympathy with the Minister, because he has a really bad case. I think that in his heart he knows that. I am, to a certain extent, surprised that the House is not inclined to be more emphatic on this matter, because the House has got a really good case. The Minister cannot provide the same services for half the money in different areas. That is, in effect, what is going to be attempted. I am not tied to figures, because the margins are so enormous, but you are going to have an enormous disparity as regards the amount available per child, amounting to twice as much in the case of a county like Meath as in the case of a county like Kerry. There is one conclusion to be drawn from that. The conclusion is irresistible. What is the difficulty? There is a great difficulty, because one knows the difficulty of the bureaucratic machine. That is the only real difficulty. There is a sort of convention about these grants, a sort of mathematical formula which makes it simple and easy to multiply, double, or add to the percentage. But what are the equities? The equities, of course, are that you should try and give each person approximately the same service. What is the reason that the Minister does not use his discretion in the distribution of the grants? Only this—a very minor reason—it might damp down the zeal of certain areas to vote more than the minimum rate. I should like the Minister to tell us to what extent in the past local authorities have voted anything substantially more than the minimum.
Professor O'Sullivan
Everything they voted before was in excess of the minimum rate, because there was no maximum rate.
What was there before? What is a standard figure, or could they vote what they liked?
Professor O'Sullivan
What they liked.
You will find they voted very little. None of them are tumbling over themselves to vote large sums to earn more. In any case, it is only aggravating a bad system. That is the best that you can say for this system of divided finance. The method that Senator Comyn put up is a very clear and logical one. Let there be a standard contribution from the local authority so as to secure an equal distribution as nearly as possible, according to the population or according to those within the continuation school-age. The Minister refuses to accept the principle. He ties himself to an utterly illogical, unfair and automatic method. He says: "This is what the machine puts out and you have to have it." I think that the House will be putting itself in a very undignified position if it accepts that. In the past it did not matter very much as the sums were small, but if we are embarking on something ambitious we should do it on a logical and fair basis, something which will work more or less equally throughout the country.
Professor O'Sullivan
I am not clear as to what we are discussing. There is an amendment in the name of Senator Comyn, and there was an entirely different proposition put forward in his speech. He put down an amendment that practically amounted to this: in the Bill there is a 1¾d. minimum rate, and everything over that is to be borne by the State. We have discussed the merits of this particular case on Senator The McGillycuddy's amendment. This amendment, from my point of view, is ever so much more objectionable. What did Senator Comyn develop in the course of his speech? He said: "Let there be a standard contribution"—I think I am not misquoting him—"Let the Minister take the Schedule and regard that Schedule in any particular year as the standard minimum contribution." Is Senator Sir John Keane satisfied with that? That is where I give liberty to local authorities to refuse to advance from the 1¾d. at the rate of one farthing per year—that is, to the estimates committees, who are, as. I explained, the county councils. Senator Comyn, in the course of his speech, proposes that it becomes compulsory on the local authority. Senator Sir John Keane used the phrase, "Let there be some standard."
Yes, not necessarily the present maximum; not necessarily the suggested schedule.
Professor O'Sullivan
The Senator said: "Take the Schedule." That means that I would have to introduce another schedule——
Why not?
Professor O'Sullivan
——in which I take all power away from the local authority of settling the matter. That cuts across any control of finance which the local authorities have in this matter. As Senators know perfectly well, on principle this provides for a process of development. Nobody imagines that in 1934 there will be vocational education to the full extent all over the country. We felt, and the example of other countries led us to believe it, that slow progress would be the proper thing. Hence the slow progress in the schedule which illustrates that idea. Let us take the year 1936. There is threepence in the £ then struck compulsorily according to the speech of the mover of the amendment. But it is quite plain that unless you stop the Schedule at any arbitrary point that cannot meet the whole of the needs. The future needs are still there and will have to be met. If the State in 1934 bridges over all the gaps and provides for all the young people full technical education with that threepenny rate, where is the necessity for continuing the Schedule beyond any particular year? The State contribution and the local contribution should bear some relation to each other. If in the year 1931, when the rate is 1¾d., or in 1936, when the rate is threepence in the £, the State steps in and says "We will bear all the rest," then, of course, you have a complete stoppage as far as the rate is concerned and the compulsory rate means nothing except the diminution of the State grant from that time on. This amendment in itself—not the speech that supported it—practically means that the minimum grant becomes the maximum grant and stops there so far as the local contribution is concerned. There is no financial liberty whatever left to the local people who may, or may not, have an interest and they cannot develop their scheme. As I said, whatever may be said in favour of Senator The McGillycuddy's amendment, I see absolutely nothing in favour of this. Why the Senators who support this amendment did not vote for Senator Linehan's amendment I cannot see.
We have become rather confused with regard to these amendments and there is a danger that we may lose track of the main purpose of these last two amendments. I am not in favour of the State bearing the whole expense of vocational and continuation education, but I do say that there will be very great anomalies throughout the Twenty-Six Counties as regards facilities for education. I think that the Minister has entirely ignored that aspect, both on the amendment proposed by Senator The McGillycuddy and on this amendment. It is a question of capacity for taxation in my opinion, joined with the density of population and the facilities that can be made available under the local rate. If the Minister is going to operate on a fifty-fifty basis then obviously in the poorer areas there are not going to be equal facilities for education as there will be in the larger centres and in the cities. It all hangs on that point.
Does the Minister argue that because an area is poor and has not a high rateable valuation and because the people are not able to contribute, they should be deprived of facilities for education, or rather that they should not be granted equal facilities with the students in the more prosperous areas? If that is his point of view, then we know where we are. If, on the other hand, it is the point of view of the Seanad that equal facilities for vocational and continuation classes should be provided for all the areas, it is up to them to support the amendment. The position wants to be clarified, and it will want the Minister's cooperation for clarification, so that we want to get down to a basis where there would be, in so far as it is possible, equal facilities of education whether the student is in Kerry, Donegal, or the City of Dublin. As it is at present, there is not going to be equality—neither equality of service nor of opportunity. The test is the prosperity or poverty of the people. Where the districts are poor, I do not think under this measure that they are going to get any opportunity, because of their poverty—certainly not an equal opportunity with other areas. That is the whole point at the back of the Senator's mind. We have become somewhat confused about it, but that is the problem to be solved.
On the basis of Senator Connolly's speech, could not the Minister meet some of us between now and the Report Stage and reach a solution on the lines of giving financial equality and equality of opportunity? That is all we are asking for. We do not want to go into all these debating points as to what is and what is not equality. In other words, we are starting the whole thing on a thoroughly wrong basis.
I agree with Deputy Connolly that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding. I do not think that the wording of the amendment proposed by Senator The McGillycuddy, which was withdrawn, would have met the case fully, and I do not think that this amendment would be in any sense workable. I think it would set up a rigid standard which would defeat the thing which some of us want to achieve. What some of us, at any rate, are anxious should be in the Bill is to give the Minister the fullest possible power to use the grant in such a way that it will help to secure, not equality between counties, but a reasonably equal standard of education. I am afraid that anything in the way of an amendment, instead of giving him the discretion necessary, will defeat it by forcing him to do it in a particular way.
I was very much impressed by the argument of Senator Johnson and the Cathaoirleach, which, I think, is to some extent unanswerable. If the result of an amendment of this kind forces an absolutely equal adjustment, so as to make up whatever happens to be voted locally, the effect would be that you would not get it voted locally, and that we would not achieve what we are anxious to achieve. On the other hand, a number of us feel that there may be cases where the rate is reasonably high, where the council may be willing to vote a fourpenny rate, but where the yield even from that rate will be very low, where you would like to see discretion given so as to make up the necessary money to have a reasonable standard. I think that that is all that is wanted. If an amendment is put in to give the Minister that discretion, it would meet the case, but I do not think you can do it rigidly.
All the discretion is with the Minister, except for the fact that he has made a statement promising fifty-fifty. The House is not bound to that so far as this Bill is concerned. So far as the Bill defines anything at all, the discretion is with the Minister.
Amendment put and negatived.
Further consideration of the Committee Stage of the Bill postponed until to-morrow.
The Seanad went out of Committee.