I cannot recommend An Seanad to accept this resolution or the principles underlying it. As Senator O'Connell has stated, this is not the first occasion on which this matter has been debated in the Oireachtas. I do not understand what circumstances have occurred in the meantime which suggest to him that the situation is more serious now than it was when the matter was last discussed; nor do I understand why the Senator thinks there is likely to be any change in the policy of the Department of Education as explained to him on the last occasion when he raised this matter.
As Senator Mrs. Concannon said, it is a rather unusual way to deal with a matter which is not entirely one for the State or for the Oireachtas. There may be very good reasons for opening a discussion on important changes. It is useful that we should have reviews of important aspects of educational policy from time to time, but if we are suggesting definitely that changes must be made of a character affecting the present control of education in this country, we shall have to consider the views of important authorities not represented—directly, at any rate—in the Oireachtas.
The Senator suggests that my remarks last July, in reference to the question of school buildings, made him feel that this matter should be reopened. He thinks that, perhaps, I have given a wrong impression in my statement and he wishes to correct that. The statement was perfectly simple and clear and left no room for doubt. I was not trying to postulate principles in this matter—it is largely a question for other authorities to postulate principles in regard to fundamentals in education—but what I did say was that we had a system in operation over a very long period of time. That might seem to condemn it in the eyes of some observers but, before we interfere with that long-established system, we must be satisfied that it is inoperable and also that what we seek to replace it by will be a distinct improvement, will be accepted generally and will work with ease. Senator O'Connell has not, I fear, addressed himself to these aspects of the question. He has lightly assumed that important changes can be made and that there is not likely to be any dissent from the motion that he has put before the House. I think he should have produced some evidence in support of his contention that such a change is not likely to meet with objection.
Even before that stage was reached, it would be necessary to prove to the House and to the country that the present system has broken down. In my opinion, it has not broken down. It is working fairly satisfactorily. I emphasised, when I referred to this matter before, that the system was not perfect. What system is perfect? What system can be devised that will ensure that there will be no delays when more than one party is concerned? There are, undoubtedly, systems in the world which do not brook of delay, but one of the advantages of this system is that there is time for consideration. There is time for discussion, and, as a natural result, you have certainly delays, particularly when you have more than one interest concerned.
Now, the Church stands in a peculiar relation to education, more especially in this country where the vast majority of the people follow the philosophy of the Catholic Church. That Church has laid down certain principles with regard to education and I suggest it is only the authorities of the Church who are in a position to interpret these principles if and when they see fit to do so. It is not the function of the Minister for Education to interpret them, nor does it seem to be the function of other lay authorities. The system is fundamental to educational progress and there is serious danger, no matter what some critics may think, that if it be interfered with, instead of having progress and orderly development, we are going to have quite the contrary. We start off by having objections and finally contentions. Later we find we have confusion, and, possibly, chaos because you cannot make progress in education unless you have harmony. You have to have peace —you have to have goodwill. You have to plan your programme over long periods of time. This system has been described, as I have already stated, not so long ago by a Catholic prelate as not being far from the ideal, and that is a general belief so far as the Catholic authorities are concerned. The managers have certain rights and they are anxious to safeguard these rights and maintain them, and, in the world at present, there is no doubt but that changes affecting the Churches' position, either in regard to education or any other matter of social policy, are likely to be very closely scrutinised. We are not living in normal times. We are living in times when revolutionary changes are taking place, and he would be a very wise man indeed, who would dare to prophesy the state of the world after the present war. I do not think, therefore, that this is a matter that can be treated lightly. It is a very important matter. I agree that it is most important that we should do everything possible to provide proper schools for our children, but we must be quite sure that the existing system and the existing machinery are failures and that our desires cannot be secured under the present system of things before we contemplate radical changes of the nature the Senator proposes.
I do not think there has been any evidence given—I have not seen it and it has not been brought under my notice, and I have not been convinced by what I have heard during the course of the debate—that there is any measure of substantial support for the proposal in the motion. I do not think there is popular feeling at all that the present system has broken down. On the contrary, I think that the importance of maintaining the present system is recognised. It is recognised now probably better than in more recent times. Under a foreign Government we jealously watched our rights in these matters. Then the slightest move indicative of interference in matters which affected the Catholic position was likely to be jealously attacked, or, I should say, the position was likely to be jealously defended against any inroads. We have now a certain amount of experience under a native Government, and I entirely fail to see why we should assume that that thing which we would have fought against and contested most strongly if a foreign or alien Government attempted it we ought now try to bring in of our own free will without, as far as I can see, having even good reasons or reasons that might appear to be good to advance in support of it.
I have been in touch with the Church authorities for a good many years and I am fully convinced, and I can assure the House, that the ecclesiastical authorities generally realise the importance of this whole question; that they realise fully and completely the necessity for keeping our schools in proper order and condition and of having bad or defective schools replaced at the earliest possible moment. The managers' representatives with whom I am in touch are also alive to this position, and I think it would be a mistake if we were to regard the isolated cases that have been mentioned in the House as typical of the condition of affairs as regards school buildings generally. Undoubtedly it is most aggravating, particularly to parents, to see schools continue in use which they consider are an eye-sore, sometimes unfortunately insanitary and which, in the opinion of the medical authorities, ought to be replaced. I think I can assure Senators that that matter is receiving careful attention, and they should not be misled into believing that because there are individual cases—perhaps a number of cases—of neglect that that is typical of the general position.
I should like to give credit to managers for the splendid work they have done. A good many cases could be cited by me to show that managers have made super-human efforts, that energetic managers are by no means in a small minority in this country, and that they have shown by their efforts and the splendid work they have done that the system can give excellent results. If there has been any neglect there may have been reasons. Managers may have difficulties in raising money. It may be sometimes that the illness or age of managers affects their capacity to get work done but these are matters that have been gone into and are being gone into by the authorities concerned.
Rather disparaging remarks were made yesterday evening as to the amount of progress that had been made and, one would imagine from the statements that were made, such as: "Why not get the school building programme completed in two years?" that all one had to do was wave a magic wand and get all this work done in a very short time. That of course is impossible. I am quite satisfied that good work has been done during my term of office. Grants involving an expenditure of more than £2,500,000 for school buildings have been made during the past ten years. The whole building organisation of the country has not been concentrated on schools. During a great part of that ten years there was a very extensive house-building programme going on and there is a limit to the amount of work that can be done under any system. There is a natural limit. You can spend more money and provide more staff and the Government is always willing to do that and have shown their anxiety to do it but when you reach a certain point the amount of the return you get is in the nature of a diminishing return. I think everybody understands that.